Here's a hard truth from 26 years of reading estimates: you cannot tell whether a bid is complete by reading the bid. A bid only shows you what the contractor chose to include. To know what's missing, you need something to measure it against — the scope of work. That's the yardstick, and most property managers never lay it next to the bids.
Start from a scope of truth
Before you compare the bids to each other, find the document that defines what the job actually requires. Depending on the project, that's the carrier's Xactimate scope (insurance work), an engineer's or consultant's report, the architect's drawings or plans, or the inspection notes. If none of those exist, write the scope down yourself — even a short list of the work you expect. Whatever it is, that document is your reference. The bids are answers; the scope is the question.
Turn the scope into a checklist
Read the scope as a list of required tasks by trade, not as prose. Roof: tear off, ice-and-water shield to code, underlayment, shingles, flashing, disposal. Interior: demo, drywall, insulation, paint, detach-and-reset. Site: permits, dumpster, final clean. You don't need to price it — you just need the list of what has to happen.
Run each bid against the checklist — three questions
- Is every required item actually in the bid? The ones that are missing are your omissions — the work that comes back later as a change order.
- Is each item truly priced, or left open? Watch for allowances, 'TBD', '$0', 'by owner', and 'as needed' — those are unpriced items where the final cost isn't locked.
- Does the bid add work the scope doesn't call for? That's either a legitimate catch the scope missed, or padding — either way, flag it.
The omissions are the ones that hurt. A bid that leaves out disposal, permits, or code upgrades looks cheap today and bills you for them mid-job, when you have no leverage left. The unpriced items are a slower leak — the total looks firm but half of it is a placeholder.
Why comparing bids to each other isn't enough
This is the part most people miss. If all three bids left out the same code-required upgrade, comparing them to each other tells you nothing — they all look 'complete' because they all made the same omission. Only a scope of truth catches the work that everyone missed. That's the whole reason to start from the scope instead of the stack of bids.
Make it automatic
This is exactly what BidsScores does. On a new project you attach your scope of work — the carrier scope, the engineer's report, the drawings, inspection photos, or just typed notes — alongside the bids. It reads the scope, writes out its own plain-English interpretation of what the job requires, and then measures every bid against it. For each bid you get a plain-English verdict: what's the deal with this bid, which required items it omits, and which items it lists but leaves open or unpriced.
You don't need a construction background to use it — that's the point. Upload your scope and your bids, and the review reads like a knowledgeable friend telling you what you're actually looking at.