Build one common scope sheet
Start with the work breakdown structure from the estimate, not with any subcontractor's proposal. List the scope items, the quantities, the units, and the specification reference. This becomes the common sheet that every bid is mapped into.
Keep the common sheet independent of any one bidder. If it is built from the first proposal received, the remaining bids will be judged against that bidder's assumptions. The estimate's work breakdown is the neutral starting point and the basis for the final comparison.
Normalize inclusions and exclusions
For each bidder, mark every common item as included, excluded, or unclear. Do not accept a general statement that the bid includes all work shown on the drawings. Check the specific items that commonly fall between trades: firestopping, sleeves, supports, access panels, testing, commissioning, and cleanup.
Convert exclusions into scope values. If a bidder excludes temporary power, add the estimated cost of providing it to that bidder's comparison total.
If the cost cannot be estimated yet, mark the gap as open and keep the total unranked. A comparison with a known hole is more useful than a ranking built on unequal scope.
Check quantities and units against the takeoff
A subcontractor may quote a different quantity because they measured differently or because they priced a different scope. Compare the quantity and the unit, not just the total. A lower total on a smaller quantity is not a lower price for the work.
Record the variance and its cause. If the bidder's quantity is lower because a drawing detail was missed, that is a scope gap.
If it is lower because the bidder uses a different waste factor, that is a pricing assumption. The two need different follow-up questions.
| Scope item | Evidence to compare | Gap owner |
|---|---|---|
| Base scope | Drawing and specification reference | Trade estimator |
| Inclusion | Bidder's written scope line | Bid coordinator |
| Exclusion | Bidder's written exclusion | Trade estimator |
| Quantity | Bid quantity and takeoff quantity | Quantity reviewer |
| Adjustment | Unit rate and supporting basis | Chief estimator |
| Clarification | Question, response, and date | Commercial lead |
Price the gaps before ranking
Add the missing scope at a defensible value, using the estimate's own unit rate or a documented market reference. If the value is uncertain, use a range and show the range in the comparison. The goal is a like for like total, not a false precision.
Keep the original bid and the adjusted bid side by side. The commercial lead needs to see both.
A bidder who is low after adjustment may be the better choice, while a bidder who is low only because of an exclusion may create a change order later. The alternate dependency check uses the same normalization logic when options interact.
Assign a clarification owner and a deadline
Every gap should have a named person who will ask the question and a date by which the answer is needed. Send the questions in writing and keep the response with the bid. A verbal answer may be useful, but it is not enough to change the comparison.
Group the questions by bidder so the conversation is efficient. Ask for a revised scope sheet rather than a new total. A revised sheet shows whether the bidder understood the gap and whether the change is limited to the missing item.
Record the comparison basis
The final leveling sheet should state the common scope, the adjustments made, the evidence for each adjustment, and the remaining open items. A reviewer should be able to see why one bid is ranked above another without reopening every proposal. Keep the bidder's original documents with the leveling sheet.
If a dispute arises after award, the record shows what was asked, what was answered, and what was assumed. That record is more valuable than a clean looking total that cannot be explained.
Carry the result into the buyout
The scope sheet should follow the selected subcontractor into buyout. Convert the open items into clarifications in the subcontract and confirm that the final scope matches the comparison basis. Any item that was priced as a gap but not resolved should be visible before the subcontract is signed.
The bid submission check should confirm that the selected scope and its qualifications are reflected in the bid packet. A scope sheet that stops at the ranking leaves the project to rediscover the gaps during construction.
A worked example of an exclusion adjustment
Three mechanical bids arrive. The first includes firestopping and testing. The second excludes firestopping but includes testing.
The third excludes both and carries a lower total. A raw comparison ranks the third lowest. A normalized comparison adds the estimate value for firestopping and testing to the third bid, and the firestopping value to the second.
After adjustment, the ranking may change. The important output is not the new ranking by itself. It is the statement of what each bidder actually offered and what the project would have to buy separately.
That statement is the basis for the clarification letter and, later, for the subcontract scope. The AGC construction resources library is a useful reference for common trade interface questions. Keep the adjustment values in the leveling sheet with their source.
If the project later buys the excluded work at a different price, the difference is visible and can be explained. A gap that was priced openly is a managed risk. A gap that was buried in a total is a future dispute.
The clarification log should record who asked, who answered, and which adjustment followed. Review the log before the subcontract is signed so every open item has an answer or a named owner. The signed subcontract should reflect the same scope basis that the comparison used, including every adjustment that was made.
