Compare Contractor Bids by Scope Before Comparing Price

Create a dated scope describing the condition, locations, intended outcome and available inspection findings. Include the same drawings, photographs and access information for each bidder. When one contractor raises a question that changes the common scope, issue a written clarification to everyone reviewing that scope. Otherwise the apparent price difference may simply reflect different information.

Keep revisions identifiable. Record which version each proposal answers and whether the contractor visited the relevant areas. A proposal based on photographs can still be useful, but its limitations should remain visible. The comparison should never imply that all bidders examined concealed conditions or reached the same diagnosis.

Use a comparison sheet with rows for preparation, protection, access, removal, installation, testing, restoration, disposal and closeout, as applicable to the work. Add columns for each bidder's wording, included amount, allowance, exclusion and unanswered question. Preserve the original proposals beside this sheet; a summary should help locate the source, not replace it.

Ask about responsibilities that may sit between trades. Who restores a surface after equipment is replaced? Who arranges required inspections? Who protects occupied areas and clears the work route? Do not add a generic contingency and assume those questions have been answered. The scope needs an identifiable party for each obligation.

An allowance describes an amount carried for a defined item whose final selection or quantity may remain open. Ask what it includes, how any difference will be calculated and which evidence will support the final charge. Unit prices also need units, quantities and boundaries. A per-unit figure does not establish the final cost when the number of units is unknown.

Keep owner estimates separate from contractor commitments. If you add a planning allowance for an excluded item, label its source and uncertainty. Obtain comparable pricing where the omission could change the selection. A spreadsheet cell should not turn an unpriced obligation into a fixed commitment merely because it contains a number.

Consider two hypothetical proposals. Proposal A is $18,000 and excludes restoration. Proposal B is $21,000 and includes a precisely described restoration scope. If an independent restoration estimate is $4,000, the planning comparison becomes $22,000 for A versus $21,000 for B. That arithmetic is only useful if the restoration estimate covers the same work and remains available on compatible terms.

Now suppose A also excludes disposal and B requires owner-provided access equipment. Neither headline total describes the full project. Leave those items visibly unpriced until clarified. Do not declare a winner from the first adjusted total. This example demonstrates comparison method; it is not a quote, cost benchmark or account of an RLF Companies project.

Compare proposed start windows, duration, work hours, dependencies and disruption alongside price. Ask which dates are commitments and which depend on materials, approvals or access. Record the process for authorizing a scope change before work proceeds, including who may approve it and what information is required.

The final selection note should identify the accepted scope version, agreed exclusions, unresolved conditions and reasons for the choice. Retain the executed documents and appropriate professional review. A clear comparison supports the decision; it does not establish a contractor's qualifications or replace project-specific technical and contractual evaluation.