Choose comparable fields

Use the same headings for purpose, stage, location, scope, evidence date and next milestone. Leave a field marked unknown when information is missing. Do not substitute a promotional description for a missing technical answer. Include the basis of any figures and keep units consistent. The comparison should reveal where projects differ and where the available evidence is not yet comparable.

Keep interpretation separate

Provide a short commentary explaining the most relevant differences for the stated review purpose. Avoid ranking projects with an unexplained score that mixes unrelated criteria. A project may be more suitable for one operating need and less suitable for another. Ask the reviewer which criteria matter most before emphasising a conclusion. Preserve links to the underlying material so the comparison remains an entry point to further review, not a replacement for it.

Put the guide to work

Include a completeness indicator for each comparison field without converting it into a quality ranking. Confirmed, supplied but unreviewed and not provided are useful distinctions. They help the reader see whether an apparent difference reflects the projects themselves or simply the amount of information available about them.

Imagine this

Hypothetical example

A buyer receives three facility proposals with different formats. The team builds a common information sheet for each, revealing that one proposal lacks confirmed access details. That gap becomes a follow-up question rather than being hidden by the proposal’s stronger photography.

Make it practical.

Use this checklist as you read. Checks are not stored.

Published by Tap Tap Go. Product availability and eligibility vary by programme and market. About our stories.