Construction bid analysis: compare scope and cost

Construction bid analysis compares proposals after putting scope, quantities, exclusions and allowances on the same basis. Keep the submitted prices intact, then show every adjustment that turns them into comparable amounts. A low comparison total supports a review; it does not establish technical compliance or contractor suitability.

Start with the bid schedules and a common scope

Bring the subcontractors' schedules, scope sheets, clarifications and the estimator's quantity schedule. Record the bid version and date so a revised quote cannot silently replace the one the team reviewed. Use one scope code for the same work across bidders, even when their descriptions differ.

The comparison needs bidder, scope code, unit, submitted quantity, common quantity, quoted unit rate, submitted amount, exclusions and allowance basis. Keep tax, freight, bonding and mobilization visible wherever they are relevant. Either include each consistently or explain its treatment outside the comparison.

The principle has a useful US procurement reference: FAR proposal analysis guidance describes comparing proposed prices and considering differences in quantities, terms and conditions when using comparison prices. It is federal procurement guidance, rather than a private contractor's award policy, but the comparison problem is familiar.

Actual spending belongs in construction budget analysis. This worksheet answers the earlier question: what would the same supplied scope cost under each proposal?

Work the same scope through two bids

An Ohio general contractor compares two proposals for a warehouse package. The common quantities are 1,000 cubic yards of excavation, 200 cubic yards of concrete and 100 anchors. Testing is required, and the estimator sets a common dewatering allowance of $2,500.

Bidder A priced only 900 cubic yards of excavation, excluded testing and included a $1,000 dewatering allowance. Its confirmed excavation rate applies to the additional quantity. Bidder B priced the full quantities, included testing at $3,000 and carried the common allowance.

The zero for A's testing means explicitly excluded, not free. The comparison allowance is an estimator-supplied assumption, not a revised subcontractor quote.

Leveled amount = Submitted amount + Quantity adjustment + Scope adjustment + Allowance adjustment

A's quantity adjustment is (1,000 minus 900) × $18 = $1,800. Its allowance adjustment is $2,500 minus $1,000 = $1,500. The original $7,300 difference becomes $1,000 after $6,300 of adjustments. A is 1.5% below B on the common basis, calculated as $1,000 / $68,500 and rounded to one decimal place.

Use unit cost analysis for construction to examine rate differences further without mixing that question into scope completeness.

Put the adjustments into a spreadsheet

Use these columns on a detail sheet: A bidder, B scope, C unit, D submitted quantity, E common quantity, F confirmed unit rate, G submitted amount, H quantity adjustment, I scope adjustment, J allowance adjustment and K leveled amount.

For a measured item, enter this in H2:

=(E2-D2)*F2

Apply it only where the bidder confirmed that rate for the changed quantity. Enter zero quantity adjustments for lump sums; keep their scope corrections in I and J. In K2, use:

=SUM(G2:J2)

Place the bidder name in M2 and summarize the leveled detail with:

=SUMIFS($K$2:$K$11,$A$2:$A$11,M2)

The SUMIFS documentation explains summing rows that meet specified criteria. Add another criterion for package or bid revision when the workbook contains more than this comparison.

Do not force a lump sum into a made-up unit rate. If a scope item has no usable rate or clarification, record the unresolved amount and keep it visible to the reviewer.

Prove the bridge before discussing award

First, tie each submitted total to its signed proposal. Then check that the detail adjustments sum to the comparison bridge: $61,200 + $1,800 + $3,000 + $1,500 = $67,500 for A. B's bridge remains $68,500 because its submitted quantities and allowances already match the common basis.

Review every common scope code for both bidders. An item absent from a schedule needs an explicit inclusion, exclusion or unresolved status. Keep alternate designs outside the base comparison until the technical reviewer approves an equivalent scope.

The estimator owns quantities and comparison allowances. Procurement owns bid versions and commercial clarifications. The project team reviews technical compliance, delivery commitments and capacity before anyone treats the comparison as award support. Carry the accepted package into construction project profitability analysis once it becomes part of the project's expected cost.

Where the comparison goes wrong

• Missing scope becomes zero cost. An empty testing line can make an incomplete proposal appear competitive. Resolve it or show an allowance and its source.
• The adjustment counts twice. If testing is already included in another line, adding a separate allowance inflates that bid. Record where inclusions sit.
• Rates are extended without agreement. A quoted rate may apply only to the submitted quantity or conditions. Obtain clarification before using it to price changed work.
• Unequal commercial bases remain hidden. Different tax treatment, allowance definitions or schedule obligations can survive a neat numerical comparison. Keep those differences beside the amounts.

Compare your own bid schedules in Covirage

Bring the bid schedules and your supplied common-scope adjustments in an uploaded spreadsheet. Covirage maps the columns, and its tools compute and check the comparison totals; the external AI model explains the differences with every figure traced to its rows. Create a free Covirage account, which takes about a minute, and bring a sample of your own export after setting up your business.

See Covirage for construction businesses for the supporting industry context.