The Scope-of-Work Problem: Why a Vague RFP Is the Real Reason Restoration Bids Come Back $200K Apart for the Same Building

Two contractors walk the same building, read the same engineer's report, and submit bids $200,000 apart. The board assumes someone is price-gouging. Usually, no one is — they just bid two different projects, because the request for proposal they were handed never actually defined one.

The RFP Isn't the Problem Until It Is

Most condo and HOA boards send out a restoration RFP built around the engineer's narrative report: a description of the deficiencies, maybe a few photos, a general scope like "repair spalled concrete and reseal building envelope per attached report." That document is written for an engineer's review, not for pricing. It tells a contractor what's wrong without telling every bidder exactly what to include, exclude, and assume — and that gap is where the $200K spread comes from.

At McLeod's, we see the same report produce wildly different numbers depending on how each contractor interprets it. One bidder assumes spot repairs at the documented deficiency locations. Another assumes a full perimeter survey will turn up two or three times that quantity once scaffolding goes up, and prices accordingly. Both read the same report. Only one of them is pricing the project the board will actually get.

Where Vague Scopes Create the Gap

• Quantities, not descriptions. "Repair spalled concrete at balcony edges" isn't a number. "Repair approximately 340 linear feet of balcony edge spalling, per Exhibit B deficiency map" is. Without a quantity, each contractor estimates their own, and that estimate alone can swing a bid by six figures on a mid-rise.
• Unit pricing for unknowns. No restoration scope survives first contact with demo unchanged — concrete repair quantities almost always grow once contractors open up a wall or slab edge. An RFP that locks in a lump sum with no unit-price schedule for additional square footage invites bidders to either pad heavily up front or lowball and hit the board with change orders later.
• Inclusions and exclusions, stated explicitly. Does the scope include resealant at all window perimeters, or only at documented leak locations? Is railing replacement structural repair or a separate line item? If the RFP doesn't say, some bidders will include it and some won't, and the board won't know which until the proposals are sitting side by side looking nothing alike.
• Site access and phasing assumptions. A bid built around full building access reads very differently from one built around a phased, residents-stay-in-place sequence with swing stage moves and unit-by-unit notice. If the RFP doesn't specify how occupied the building needs to stay during the work, contractors price their own guess — and guesses vary.
• Allowances for concealed conditions. Rebar corrosion behind a facade, rot behind stucco, or a waterproofing membrane that's failed further than the report could see from the exterior — these show up after demo starts. An RFP with no stated allowance for concealed conditions pushes that risk entirely onto either the board (via change orders) or the contractor (via an inflated contingency baked into the base bid).

What a Comparable Bid Set Actually Requires

Boards don't need a perfect RFP — they need a consistent one. The fix isn't more pages, it's specificity in five places: a quantified deficiency list tied to the engineer's exhibits, a unit-price schedule for anything likely to grow once work starts, a written inclusion/exclusion list, a stated access and phasing assumption, and a defined concealed-conditions allowance. When those five items are locked before the RFP goes out, every contractor bidding is pricing the same project, and the board is finally comparing dollars instead of guessing which assumptions are hiding inside each number.

It's also worth asking your engineer of record to review draft RFP language before it's issued, not just the final report. A report tells a board what's wrong with the building. An RFP has to tell a contractor what to build a number around — and those are two different documents even when they're describing the same project.

How McLeod's Approaches a Proposal Request

When we're asked to bid a restoration project from an engineer's report, we flag ambiguous scope items in writing before we price them, rather than quietly pricing our own interpretation. If the RFP doesn't specify a quantity, access plan, or concealed-conditions allowance, we ask the board or its engineer to clarify it — because a number built on a guess doesn't hold up through construction, and we'd rather the board see an accurate bid up front than a low one that grows later. For boards who want a second set of eyes on an RFP before it goes out to bid, that's a conversation worth having early, not after three proposals come back impossible to compare.

If your board is staring at bids that don't line up, or writing an RFP for an upcoming restoration project, McLeod's Construction, Paint & Restoration can walk through the scope with your engineer of record and help build a request that gets you comparable numbers the first time. Reach us at (239) 282-0891 or mcleodsconstruction.com — licensed (CGC1535021), 500+ clients and 3,000+ completed projects across Lee, Charlotte, and Collier Counties.