Commercial tender estimating · case study

Four different commercial tenders. One repeatable estimating process.

Westpoint Group was pricing commercial tenders across institutional, general commercial and retail work. Each project was different, but the recurring problem was the same: more than a week of internal estimating effort before the team had a client-ready number it could confidently review.

Customer · Westpoint Group

4
Delivered commercial projects
$1.4M-$15M
Approximate public value range
48h
Priced-pack turnaround
1 week+
Previous in-house effort per tender

The situation

Westpoint's work covered four distinct commercial settings: institutional and education works, an ACT commercial tender, a retail refurbishment and roadside retail. The project values ranged from approximately A$1.4M to A$15M, so a single residential-style template was never going to be enough.

The estimating challenge

Each tender needed a complete number, but also a structure the team could interrogate. Westpoint needed trade-level visibility, assumptions and exclusions that could be checked, and a format clean enough to use in the client conversation without rebuilding the output internally.

  • Measure and price materially different commercial scopes
  • Keep trade coverage, assumptions and open information visible
  • Produce a consistent pack the team could review quickly
  • Avoid recreating the estimate in a new client-facing format

What EstiFlow did

For each project, EstiFlow prepared a structured commercial estimate pack from the supplied documentation. The report explained the cost position, scope risks and decisions; the costed BOQ exposed the trade build-up; and the subcontractor packs gave Westpoint a direct path into market testing. The format stayed consistent even as the project type and value changed.

What changed

The repeatable format reduced the work between receiving the estimate and using it. Westpoint could review the number, challenge individual trades and put the output in front of the client without first rebuilding the presentation. The strongest proof is the repeat use: the same process was used across four delivered commercial projects.

We used it to build the estimate for a commercial tender across multiple sites. The format was clean enough to put in front of the client without reworking it, and the trade breakdown gave us confidence in the number. Turnaround was the standout.
Nick Hanna · Director · Westpoint Group

Project and end-client names, sites, rates and rate-derived cost metrics remain confidential. The four-project count, anonymised project categories, approximate value range and attributed testimonial are the approved public record.

Get your estimate