Analyse a construction bid or tender package for scope gaps, risk-shifting exclusions, unit-rate red flags, and front-loading in the schedule of values. Use when asked to review a bid, level bids, check a tender for gaps, compare sub quotes, or vet a schedule of values before award. Produces a structured bid review with a gap register, exclusion risk table, pricing red flags, and an award recommendation with pre-award clarifications.
SKILL.md
Bid / Tender Review Skill
A low bid is only cheap if the scope is actually in it. This skill runs the review an experienced estimator or owner's rep would run before award: reconcile the bid against the bid documents, hunt the exclusions and qualifications that quietly shift risk back to the buyer, test unit rates against sanity ranges, and check the schedule of values for front-loading. The goal is a levelled, apples-to-apples view and a written list of what to clarify before signing — not after mobilisation.
What This Skill Produces
A scope gap register — items in the bid documents but missing, excluded, or ambiguous in the bid
An exclusions & qualifications risk table — each one classified by who ends up holding the risk
Pricing red flags — outlier unit rates, unbalanced line items, allowances hiding real cost
A front-loading check on the schedule of values
An award recommendation with pre-award clarification questions (RFI-to-bidder list)
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided; if working from a thin brief, proceed and label every assumption [assumed]:
The bid/quote itself (pricing, exclusions, qualifications, allowances, schedule of values if given)
Scope of work / bid documents — drawings list, spec sections, or at least a scope narrative
Contract form and delivery method (lump sum, GMP, unit price, design-build) — it changes what "excluded" means
Competing bids (optional, for levelling) and the engineer's/internal estimate if one exists
Project specifics that drive cost: site access, phasing, working hours, bonding/insurance requirements
Review Framework
Work through four passes, in order:
1. Scope reconciliation. Walk the bid against the documents section by section. Classify every mismatch: Missing (silent — the most dangerous), Excluded (stated), Qualified (included "provided that…"), Allowance (a number, not a commitment). Flag anything priced "by others" with no other on the job to catch it.
2. Exclusion risk shift. For each exclusion/qualification, state plainly who carries the risk if it bites, and rate it:
Rating
Meaning
Deal-breaker
Shifts a core contract risk (e.g. excludes rock/dewatering on a deep excavation, excludes tie-ins)
Negotiate
Common but movable — escalation caps, limited warranty, "design assist not design"
Accept
Standard trade practice (e.g. excludes permits the GC always pulls)
3. Unit-rate and balance check. Flag rates far off the field of other bids or the estimate (>±20% is a look; >±40% is a flag). Watch for unbalanced bidding: high rates on early or likely-to-grow quantities, low rates on items likely to be deleted.
4. Front-loading detection. In the schedule of values, compare early-activity values (mobilisation, GCs, submittals, excavation) to their real cost. Mobilisation >3–5% of contract value, or the first 20% of schedule carrying >30% of value, means the bidder is financing the job with your money — a cash-flow and default-risk signal, and painful if you ever terminate for convenience.
Output Format
Bid Review: [Project] — [Bidder]
1. Summary & recommendation — award / award with clarifications / reject, in three sentences.
2. Scope gap register — table: | # | Item | Bid docs ref | Status (Missing/Excluded/Qualified/Allowance) | Cost exposure ($ or [to price]) |
3. Exclusions & qualifications risk table — | Exclusion | Who holds the risk | Rating | Recommended action |
4. Pricing red flags — outlier rates, unbalanced items, allowance adequacy; note levelled comparison if multiple bids.
5. Schedule of values / front-loading check — findings and requested corrections.
6. Pre-award clarifications — numbered questions to issue to the bidder, each answerable yes/no or with a price.
Quality Checks
Every exclusion and qualification in the bid appears in the risk table — none skipped as boilerplate
Each scope gap cites where the work lives in the bid documents (spec section / drawing)
Cost exposure is estimated or explicitly marked [to price] — never silently ignored
Front-loading check compares SoV values to real early-work cost, not just percentages in isolation
Recommendation is conditional on the clarification list, and every clarification is answerable before award
Anti-Patterns
Do not pick the low bid on price alone — level scope first; a $200k gap eats a $150k spread
Do not treat "excluded" and "not mentioned" as the same — silence in a bid is a claim waiting to happen
Do not accept allowances as pricing — an allowance is the bidder's guess spent with your money
Do not wave through mobilisation and general-conditions front-loading as "normal" without checking it against cost
Do not resolve ambiguity in the bidder's favour by assumption — put it on the pre-award clarification list in writing
