What Happens to Your Lift Tender When There Is No Independent Consultant in the Room

Without a specification, you are not comparing proposals. You are comparing assumptions.#

A building owner who does not employ a lift engineer prepares a brief based on what they know: the lift is old, it needs replacing or upgrading, here is the building and the approximate usage. That brief goes to three or four contractors. Each interprets it through the lens of their own product range and commercial interests.

Contractor A quotes a hydraulic system. Contractor B quotes a traction system. Contractor C quotes a modernisation of the existing hydraulic. Contractor D quotes a traction system with a different drive technology to Contractor B.

The building owner has four proposals with four different prices. None are directly comparable. The cheapest is not necessarily the worst. The most expensive is not necessarily the best. Without a specification against which to read each response, there is no objective basis for selection. The decision becomes instinct presented as due diligence.

The decision between repair, modernisation, and full replacement is the first question that should be answered before a tender goes out, not during the evaluation of proposals.

The cheapest tender frequently becomes the most expensive project#

The cost of an inadequate specification does not always appear in the tender outcome. Sometimes it arrives as variations.

A building owner awards a contract based on what they understood to be a comparable bid. Work commences. Variations start arriving: structural work not in the original scope, electrical upgrades the specification did not address, a control system replacement the winning contractor assumed was excluded.

On a well-specified contract, variations are controlled. On a poorly specified contract, they are where the cheapest tender becomes the most expensive project.

The lift’s role in a commercial building program is disproportionate to its cost share. Delays and variations on the lift contract cascade through the rest of the program. This is a documented pattern, not a theoretical risk.

What goes wrong at each stage without independent oversight#

Before the tender: No independent assessment of the existing installation means the brief is based on observation rather than engineering evidence. Contractors price against different assumptions. The specification does not establish the compliance requirements under NCC 2025 and AS1735, so those requirements become variations after award.

During the tender: Without a consultant managing the process, addenda are not issued when contractor questions reveal gaps in the brief. Different tenderers receive different verbal clarifications. The pricing basis diverges further.

At evaluation: The building owner compares proposals that cannot be compared. Price becomes the primary decision factor because it is the only factor that appears consistent across proposals. The selection is made without knowing what was included or excluded by each tenderer.

During construction: Without independent monitoring, the building owner relies on the contractor to self-report progress and compliance. Defects identified at practical completion rather than during construction cost more to remediate and take longer to resolve.

At completion: Without an independent commissioning inspection, the building owner accepts a system that may not deliver what the specification required. The opportunity to enforce the contract has passed.

The specification is the document you enforce when things go wrong#

A lift installation or modernisation gone wrong is expensive to remediate. The contractor is defensive. The building owner is trying to establish what was actually agreed.

If the contract was awarded against a clear, independent specification, the building owner has a document to enforce. If the contract was awarded against a brief interpreted four different ways by four different tenderers, the building owner has a dispute about what was meant.

Why building owners who engage independent consultants at the beginning of a project spend less over the life of the project is the commercial reality of what an enforceable specification is worth at the point it matters.

Where the stakes are highest#

The risk is most significant on:

• Full replacement of an existing installation, where the capital cost is highest and the variables are greatest
• Modernisation of an ageing system, where the existing installation is the unknown
• New installations in commercial or mixed-use developments, where the lift must satisfy compliance certification for the building
• Any installation where accessibility obligations under the Premises Standards apply to the delivered system

In each of these situations, the difference between a well-run and a poorly run tender is measurable in dollars and months.

What to do before the next tender#

• Commission an independent assessment of the existing installation before writing a brief
• Engage an independent consultant to write the specification before the tender goes out, not to review proposals after they arrive
• Establish compliance requirements under NCC 2025 and AS1735 before the tender, so they are in the specification, not a variation after award
• Require all tenderers to price against the same specification with no departures or qualifications accepted

The consultant’s fee at the front end of this process is the cost of knowing what is being purchased. The alternative cost tends to be significantly higher.

ILCPL manages lift tenders, specifications, and construction contracts for building owners, developers, and facility managers across Australia, New Zealand, and Asia. Call 0417 784 245.