Tenant Improvements Review: How to Level Bids

A tenant improvements review can go wrong even when every contractor submits a confident total: the bids may describe different jobs. Compare proposals against one drawing set, separate included work from exclusions and allowances, and test whether schedule assumptions are comparable. The goal is not to estimate a contractor's costs for them. It is to make the scope and uncertainties visible before you choose a bid.

Establish one design basis for every bid

Start by identifying the exact drawings and written scope each contractor priced. Record the issue or revision shown on the documents and any later addenda. If bidders worked from different versions, their totals are not a reliable comparison until the scope is aligned.

Read the drawing set as a connected description of the work, not as a stack of separate sheets. A plan may show a room layout while a finish schedule or note specifies what must be installed there. Ask each bidder to identify what they relied on and where their price includes the work.

Use these questions to find differences that can hide inside otherwise similar proposals:

Accessibility belongs in the same comparison. The ADA Standards for Accessible Design cover alterations, meaning renovations and other changes that affect usability. Ask which version of the standards each bidder's drawings assume, and see ADA compliance for the leasing side.

If the business brief still needs work, for example, it describes area but not how the team uses the space, revisit the office space requirements before asking bidders to price changes to the layout. Otherwise, a proposal can be internally consistent and still price the wrong arrangement.

Level the price by scope, not by headline total

Build one comparison table with a row for each meaningful scope category. Include the drawing or specification reference, each bidder's status for that item, the quoted amount if stated, the bidder's quantity or assumption, and any clarification still needed.

Typical categories might include partitions and doors, floor finishes, electrical or data work, and mechanical changes.

For each category, label the proposal's treatment as included, excluded, allowance, alternate, or unclear. These labels prevent a blank line from being mistaken for included work and keep optional upgrades separate from the base offer. A schedule of values can help show how a total is distributed, but it does not, by itself, establish that two contractors included the same scope.

An allowance needs more than a dollar amount to be comparable. Ask what item and quantity it covers, what quality or specification it assumes, and how the price changes if the actual selection or quantity differs. Do not replace an unknown with your own estimate; mark it unresolved and request a priced clarification or revised bid.

Treat exclusions the same way. If one proposal excludes an item that another includes, get a price for the missing work or ask both bidders to quote the same treatment. Keep the original proposal total visible, but show any documented adjustment separately so a reviewer can distinguish the submitted price from the aligned comparison.

Alternates also need a clear basis. Record whether each alternate adds, removes, or substitutes work, and whether it belongs in the base comparison or in a separate decision. Avoid comparing one bidder's base scope with another bidder's base scope plus an optional item.

For complex scopes, a cost consultant can help level the same drawing set and identify gaps in the comparison. Even without one, a table of scope, status, basis, and open questions gives you a clearer basis for asking for revisions than a simple ranking of totals.

Test the schedule as a set of assumptions

A construction program matters because a cheaper proposal is not necessarily comparable if it assumes a different start, access arrangement, or duration.

Review the schedule beside the bid, and note what conditions must be true for its dates to hold. Do not treat a target completion date as a supported plan unless the schedule explains how it is reached.

Check that the program makes these points legible:

Compare these assumptions across bids rather than comparing dates alone. If a proposal leaves out a start trigger or gives a finish date without showing the path to it, ask for the missing basis in writing. Where the schedule affects your move or occupancy plans, test its stated dates against your actual lease and operational commitments; do not insert a guessed delay cost into the bid comparison.

Ask whether each program allows for site safety, since OSHA describes construction as a high hazard industry that includes alteration and repair. Permit steps that gate the start date are covered in the zoning and permits review.

Resolve differences before making the comparison

Turn the table into a clarification log. For every unclear, excluded, or differently priced item, write the question, the drawing or scope reference, the response, and whether the response changes the price or program.

Send the same relevant clarification to each bidder so the revised offers can be compared on equal information.

Keep three views separate: the submitted totals, the documented scope-aligned comparison, and the remaining unresolved items. A difference without a confirmed price should stay visible as an uncertainty, not be silently added to one bid or ignored in another. If a bidder revises its offer, retain the earlier version and record what changed.

Your decision record should identify the drawing basis, what each bid includes, exclusions and allowances that remain, schedule assumptions, and the reasons for selecting an offer. That gives you a defensible comparison without pretending that a lower total proves a better fit. The review is complete when you can explain what each contractor priced, what is still uncertain, and which schedule conditions your choice relies on. The tenant improvements mistakes show which document would have caught each gap.