A missing contract value creates a practical question: is there enough evidence to judge the scale of this opportunity, or should you ask the buyer before assigning more bid work?
Your output should be a documented range with assumptions, not a number that looks like a published budget. Sometimes the right output is “unknown: insufficient evidence”, followed by a specific clarification question. This guide describes a supplier research method, not a legal valuation opinion, bid-price recommendation or investment calculation.
First identify which value you need
Keep these fields separate in your pursuit record:
| Value | What to record | What not to infer |
|---|---|---|
| Published estimated value | Exact label, amount, currency, tax basis, period and procedure/lot scope | That it is a binding spending cap or your expected selling price |
| Express maximum or ceiling | The limit and the documents explaining what it covers | That the buyer will spend the entire amount |
| Award or contract value | Exact reported value type and award/contract identifier | That it is final expenditure, payment received or annual revenue |
| Framework envelope | Total duration, buyers, lots and suppliers included | That the envelope belongs to one supplier or will be fully used |
| Call-off value | The particular order/contract under the framework, including its own terms | That it is additional to a total that already includes it |
| Supplier revenue scenario | Only your potential work, timing and share, with assumptions | That it equals the whole procedure, framework or consortium value |
| Your research estimate | Range, method, sources and unresolved inputs | That it was published or endorsed by the buyer |
TED’s eForms reference separately identifies BT-27 Estimated Value and BT-271 Framework Maximum Value, with fields at different scopes. Preserve the original label and scope rather than flattening every monetary field into “budget”.
Check for a disclosed value before estimating
Start from the original notice and relevant lot, not only a search-result summary. Check the latest notice version, procurement documents, pricing schedule, linked earlier notice and published clarification answers.
For each number, record the document URL, page or section, notice identifier, version/date and exact label. A budget-plan line may fund several procurements or only part of this one. Do not treat it as a tender ceiling without an explicit link and compatible scope.
If you find no amount, record “not found in the sources checked”, with the source list. That is narrower than “the buyer has no budget” or “the value was deliberately hidden”. Missing data does not explain why it is missing.
Do not derive a floor from the portal or procedure name
For the EU classical regime, Article 51(6) permits voluntary publication of notices outside the Directive’s publication requirement. TED presence therefore cannot, by itself, establish a minimum value. Nor does failure to find a notice prove that it falls below a threshold. See Directive 2014/24/EU, current consolidated text.
Under Article 5, the buyer’s legal estimate includes the total payable excluding VAT and explicit options/renewals; frameworks use the maximum estimated value of envisaged contracts over their term. A supplier’s base-term scenario is a different quantity. Use the threshold calculation guide for jurisdiction-specific rules, not as a substitute for missing commercial information.
A procedure title, classification code, lot count or number of sites is a research clue—not a guaranteed price floor. Do not assume every lot has equal value or every site has equal service demands.
Choose a method only when its inputs exist
Scope-based scenario
Use quantities and workload from the documents, then identify the missing assumptions. For a service, this might be days of work and a rate range; for supplies, units, installation and support. Separate one-off work from recurring work and optional extensions.
Label every input as documented, supplier assumption or unknown. A minimum staffing requirement is not automatically the complete delivery effort. A quoted selling rate may already include overhead and margin: do not add the same elements again. If you start from internal costs instead, call the result a cost model, not an estimate of the buyer’s budget.
Comparable-award cross-check
Use historical awards only after checking what their values represent. Record each comparator’s source, value type, scope, units, duration, options, currency, tax basis, date and any exclusions.
Reject a comparator if those differences cannot be reconciled. Matching a broad CPV code is not enough. A framework maximum, one call-off and a fixed-price standalone contract are not interchangeable observations.
Normalize only where the evidence permits: for example, remove a separately disclosed one-off fee before deriving a recurring annual amount. Do not divide an entire award by years if delivery is front-loaded. Document any exchange-rate or price-level adjustment and its source/date; leave an unresolved adjustment visible rather than choosing a convenient percentage.
A small sample can provide a useful cross-check, but it does not automatically support a statistical confidence interval. Report the sample size and excluded cases. If two methods disagree, investigate rather than narrowing the range by averaging them.
Worked example: a range, not a budget prediction
This example is entirely illustrative. The buyer, workload and rates are invented to explain the method; they are not market benchmarks or Duke predictions.
Suppose the documents describe a two-year support service with an optional third year but give no estimated value. Your technical reviewer builds the following scope scenario:
| Input | Low scenario | High scenario | Evidence status in this example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service effort per year | 200 person-days | 240 person-days | Supplier workload assumption, not a guaranteed order |
| Selling rate per person-day | €600 | €700 | Supplier assumption, includes overhead and margin |
| One-off mobilisation | €20,000 | €30,000 | Supplier assumption, charged once |
| Base term | 2 years | 2 years | Stated in the hypothetical documents |
| Optional extension | 1 year | 1 year | Stated option, not assumed exercised |
All amounts exclude VAT. Assume, only for this example, no separate licence, travel or equipment charges. The low and high cases deliberately pair different workload/rate assumptions; they are scenario bounds, not probability estimates.
Low base-term scenario: 200 × €600 × 2 + €20,000 = €260,000
High base-term scenario: 240 × €700 × 2 + €30,000 = €366,000
Low scenario including option: 200 × €600 × 3 + €20,000 = €380,000
High scenario including option: 240 × €700 × 3 + €30,000 = €534,000
In the pursuit summary, report approximately €260,000–€370,000 for the base term and €380,000–€540,000 including the option, rounded outward. Retain the unrounded calculations in the worksheet. Neither range is a published estimate, maximum or promised revenue. Do not add the two ranges together: the second already includes the first.
The assumptions that need checking are workload, rate basis, separately payable items and whether volumes are committed. One extra 40-day block at €700 would add €28,000 for each year in which it is needed; that sensitivity identifies a concrete question for the technical reviewer. The price range alone does not establish whether preparing a bid is worthwhile.
If a comparable award appears much lower, check whether it excludes mobilisation, covers fewer service hours, reports one year rather than the full term, or is a call-off. If you cannot resolve the mismatch, retain the broader uncertainty and do not label the estimate “high confidence”.
Treat framework participation as a separate question
For a framework, first identify the overall envelope and then investigate the orders you could actually receive. Check minimum commitments, ordering mechanisms, eligible buyers, lot allocation, supplier count and whether further competition is required under the actual terms.
Do not apply a standard “utilisation percentage” or divide the ceiling equally by suppliers. Without evidence of demand and allocation, your prospective share remains unknown. A framework place and a particular call-off are different stages; research into past awards and potential renewals can inform questions but cannot guarantee future orders.
Use uncertainty to choose the next action
| Evidence state | Record | Next action |
|---|---|---|
| Explicit buyer value with clear scope | Published amount and original label | Check whether it answers your base-term/lot question |
| Documented scope but uncertain rates or workload | Assumption-based range and sensitivity | Ask targeted questions; let the technical/commercial owner review |
| Relevant comparators with explainable differences | Sample and adjustment ledger | Cross-check the scope-based range without claiming statistical certainty |
| Only a portal, broad classification or framework ceiling | Value unknown for your opportunity | Do not manufacture a midpoint; investigate source documents |
| Unresolved difference would change the pursuit decision | Range plus decision-changing uncertainty | Limit further work or seek clarification before committing more effort |
For a clarification, use the buyer’s designated channel and deadline. A concrete question is: “Does the stated volume apply per year or across the base term, and is it indicative or a minimum commitment?” Another is: “Does the maximum apply to this lot or to the whole framework, and does it include extensions?” Ask for interpretation of the documents rather than asserting your own calculation as the buyer’s budget.
Keep a reviewable estimate record
Opportunity / lot / notice version:
Question this estimate must answer:
Published value and exact label, if any:
Currency / VAT basis / base term / options:
Low-high base-term range:
Separate scenario including options:
Documented inputs and source URL/page:
Supplier assumptions and exclusions:
Comparable records accepted/rejected, with reasons:
Largest sensitivity and unresolved clarification:
Evidence assessment: documented / assumption-based / insufficient:
Reviewer / review date / next action:
After clarification or award, preserve the original version and explain revisions. Compare like with like: a later framework ceiling does not validate an estimate of one call-off. Record unavailable outcomes as unknown. Use the result alongside eligibility, delivery risk and your team’s own resource constraints in the bid/no-bid checklist, not as an automatic decision score.
EU legal references checked 13 September 2026. Other jurisdictions and procurement regimes need their own rules and original documents.