What changes when the clarification window closes?
The question log becomes a decision input for the bid team. Separate questions with formal answers from unanswered questions, informal discussions and issues resolved by an issued addendum. Keep the original wording and response route visible.
Check the actual tender rules for late questions, qualifications and submission changes. This guide is not legal advice and does not establish a right to an extension or permission to qualify every unresolved issue.
Which columns support an authorised cutoff decision?
Use one row per unresolved issue with a distinct scope effect. Do not convert every unanswered question into a new estimate allowance without checking whether it overlaps an existing assumption.
| Field | Required record | Decision control |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Submitted wording, reference and date | Distinguish raised from drafted |
| Source status | Tender document, revision and missing answer | Preserve what is actually known |
| Affected work | Package, interface or returnable | Trace the practical effect |
| Current basis | Documented estimate or response assumption | Label it unconfirmed |
| Permitted treatment | Tender instruction and proposed wording | Check commercial and legal implications |
| Approval | Authorised owner and decision date | Do not treat a draft as approved |
| Submission reference | Final schedule or response location | Confirm the decision reached the bid |
| Follow-up | Question owner and later response record | Preserve the history after submission |
What does a cutoff review look like?
Illustrative example. A fictional electrical tender has an unanswered question about whether a temporary supply connection belongs in the bidder's scope. The estimate owner records the working assumption, its source gap and the related cost line. The bid manager reviews the permitted submission treatment with the commercial owner.
If an approved qualification is used, record where it appears in the actual submission. If qualifications are prohibited or their treatment is uncertain, obtain the authorised decision instead of inserting a hidden assumption into the returnable. No contractual result is implied by this example.
Check the final submission against the decision register. An approved note in an internal spreadsheet is not evidence that the buyer received it. Preserve the submitted version and its document references.
What if the buyer changes the documents late?
Review the new issue against unanswered rows and dependent scope. Record which question is resolved and what new uncertainty remains. Do not mark the whole log closed merely because an addendum has arrived.
For Australian Commonwealth procurements within the relevant additional rules, Finance's CPR paragraph 10.13 addresses communicating modifications to specifications or evaluation criteria to participating suppliers with adequate time to respond. That context-specific rule is not a universal entitlement for private tenders or every jurisdiction.
Use the supplied tender instructions and qualified advice for the actual response. Keep changes, approvals and later buyer answers traceable rather than editing earlier unresolved questions to appear retrospectively confirmed.
Sources: Australian Department of Finance: Commonwealth Procurement Rules, Additional rules, paragraph 10.13
Common questions
What else should the bid team know?
Does an unanswered question confirm an exclusion?
No. Record the source gap and obtain an authorised submission decision.
Can an internal assumption replace a bid qualification?
No. Check the tender rules and the actual approved submission treatment.
Should unresolved rows be deleted after submission?
No. Preserve them with their approved treatment and later response history.
Primary sources
- Commonwealth Procurement Rules, Additional rules, paragraph 10.13Australian Department of Finance