Establish one comparison basis
Start with the procurement package issued to every bidder. Record structural drawing and specification dates, addenda, sketches, schedules, and the requested alternates. A low proposal based on an earlier framing revision is not comparable until the missing change is identified and treated.
Use the bid coverage log to confirm who quoted and which package each firm received. Then give the leveling sheet a separate column for proposal date, validity, acknowledgments, qualifications, and unresolved questions. That history matters when an updated quote arrives close to bid time.
Choose a quantity basis for comparison, but do not force unlike proposals into a false unit rate. Tonnage, piece counts, deck area, connection assumptions, and miscellaneous metals may be reported differently. Preserve the bidder’s stated basis, add a normalized comparison where the documents support it, and flag quantities that cannot be reconciled.
Break each proposal into scope components
Level material and fabrication first: structural members, joists, deck, embeds, stairs, railings, ladders, loose lintels, plates, fasteners, and miscellaneous metals. The package boundary differs by project, so each row should point to the bid documents or an explicit proposal inclusion rather than a generic trade assumption. Review detailing and delegated design separately.
Identify shop drawings, connection design, engineering seals, calculations, surveys, modeling, coordination, and revised submissions. If a bidder excludes an activity that another includes, show the leveling adjustment and keep the responsibility question open until the contractor accepts an owner. Compare coatings and preparation by member and exposure.
Primer, galvanizing, fireproofing interfaces, touch-up, and field repair can be split among fabrication, erection, painting, and fireproofing packages. Record what is included and what surface condition is expected at delivery. Finish with freight, unloading, hoisting, erection, welding, bolting, temporary bracing, crane access, mobilization, and schedule.
Note assumptions about sequences, picks, working hours, laydown, and return trips. These conditions can explain a proposal difference that tonnage alone cannot.
Do not level away real qualifications
A leveling adjustment is an estimate decision, not a change to the bidder’s offer. Keep the original proposal amount and qualification beside every adjustment. This prevents the final comparison from suggesting that a bidder included work it expressly excluded.
Connection scope deserves its own review. The drawings, specifications, and proposal may divide design, material, fabrication, and field installation differently. Flag delegated-design limits and performance criteria for qualified review rather than assuming a standard split across all bidders.
AISC publishes information about its Code of Standard Practice and the responsibilities used in structural steel work. Use the project’s actual contract documents and bidder qualifications as the comparison basis; an industry reference does not rewrite the proposal.
Close the leveling record before selection
Trace major proposal components to the leveling rows and confirm that the original quoted total remains intact. Adjustments should have a source, reason, estimator, and status. Separate confirmed revisions from internal estimates so the selection team knows which values the bidder has accepted.
Check alternates and substitutions on their own terms. Record whether an alternate changes quantity, member type, coating, connection, schedule, or another trade interface. Do not net it into the base comparison until dependencies and bid-form treatment are understood.
Compare delivery milestones with the project schedule. Include approval periods, release packages, fabrication sequence, erection sequence, and assumptions about material availability only when the proposal states them. Escalate unclear schedule language rather than converting it into a firm commitment.
Issue a final open-items list before recommendation. It should show unresolved exclusions, quantity differences, delegated-design questions, coating boundaries, schedule qualifications, and commercial clarifications. The contractor can then select on a known basis instead of relying on the lowest unadjusted number.
| Comparison area | Bidder evidence | Leveling treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Bid basis | Drawing dates, specifications, and addenda | Comparable revision or open difference |
| Steel scope | Members, deck, and miscellaneous items | Included, excluded, or adjusted |
| Design and detailing | Proposal qualifications and criteria | Named responsibility |
| Delivery and erection | Freight, hoisting, sequence, and access | Schedule and scope adjustment |
| Alternates | Bidder amount and dependent scope | Separate accepted treatment |
Use remote support to maintain the comparison
Remote estimating staff can enter proposals, tag drawing dates, compare inclusions, maintain questions, and update the leveling sheet as answers arrive. They can also check that each adjustment traces to a proposal, document, or estimator note. This work benefits from careful version control more than physical proximity.
The contractor and qualified reviewers retain responsibility for engineering interfaces, erection approach, schedule acceptance, commercial qualifications, bidder selection, and final bid use. Support staff should preserve proposal language and expose differences without turning assumptions into bidder commitments.
For material-only proposals, the supplier comparison guide provides a narrower freight, tax, validity, substitution, and quantity review. Keep that comparison linked to the steel scope matrix so material and erection responsibilities do not drift apart.
