What should the requirement be checked against?
The Australian Department of Finance's additional procurement rules discuss relevant prior experience and evaluation against stated participation conditions. That is a Commonwealth procurement context, not a rule for every private engineering tender or a universal way to count experience.
Returnables Agency is independent and is not affiliated with the Department of Finance. Read the buyer's actual criterion and definition of experience. A project list can support evidence while still failing to answer a request for a particular role or period.
Which duration and contribution fields need separate evidence?
Record dates at the level the evidence actually supports. A month-only source should not become an exact day count. Identify whether the claim concerns the bidding organisation, a nominated person or another legal entity.
| Field | Evidence to preserve | Question |
|---|---|---|
| Claim subject | Organisation or person actually assessed | Is the experience attributed to the correct subject? |
| Project period | Supported start and finish basis | Are months inclusive or exact dates? |
| Role period | Actual contribution and assignment dates | Did the subject serve throughout the project? |
| Overlap | Concurrent periods highlighted | Does a summed duration double-count time? |
| Measure | Calendar period or project-month total | Does the wording match the measure? |
| Permission | Authorised, appropriately redacted evidence | May this evidence be submitted? |
How do twelve project-months become nine calendar months?
Illustrative example. A fictional electrical bid team records one supported assignment from January through June and another from April through September, counting whole calendar months inclusively. Each covers six months. Their assignment total is twelve project-months, but their combined calendar coverage is January through September, or nine months.
April, May and June overlap. The response could say two assignments covering nine calendar months, if that is the supported fact and relevant to the criterion. It cannot call the sum twelve distinct calendar months. These dates and assignments are invented and demonstrate no real company's experience.
What other claims should not be inferred from the dates?
Dates alone do not establish full-time involvement, responsibility for the entire project, technical approval authority or successful delivery. Separate those claims and attach only evidence the bidder is authorised to use. Do not invent client names, values, outcomes or credentials to strengthen the answer.
Ask the bid owner to approve the precise wording and basis. If the buyer requests full-time-equivalent experience, the inclusive-month example is insufficient without actual allocation evidence and the specified calculation method. Keep missing inputs visible instead of converting concurrent activity into an unsupported duration.
Common questions
What else should the bid team know?
Can concurrent projects both be listed?
Yes, when relevant and supported, with overlapping periods stated honestly.
Are project-months the same as calendar months?
No. Concurrent project-months can exceed elapsed calendar time.
Does a project date prove full-time contribution?
No. Retain evidence of the actual role and allocation.
Primary sources
- Commonwealth Procurement Rules: relevant prior experience and stated participation conditionsAustralian Department of Finance