You sent out an RFP for a tenant improvement project. Three firms responded. The bids came back at $385,000, $462,000, and $548,000. The schedules are different. The exclusion lists are different. The allowances are different. You can’t tell whether you’re looking at three prices for one project or three different projects.
The instinct is to blame the bidders. The cause is usually upstream, in how the package was written.
This article walks through what to include in a TI bid package so the responses come back comparable, what format requirements make the proposals readable side by side, and where the trade-offs are between prescriptive specification and contractor flexibility.
Why bids come back incomparable
Three contractors looking at the same RFP will fill in the gaps differently. They have to. The package leaves room for interpretation, and each contractor interprets based on what they know about projects of that type.
If the RFP doesn’t specify what flooring product to price, one bidder will assume builder-grade carpet, one will assume mid-grade LVT, and one will assume polished concrete. Their bids will reflect those assumptions, and the difference between them is mostly in the assumptions, not in the contractor’s pricing efficiency.
When the RFP is silent on after-hours work requirements, one bidder will assume normal hours, one will assume nights and weekends, and one will assume a mix. The schedules and labor costs will diverge accordingly.
The same problem appears with the trade roster. If the RFP doesn’t say whether bidders must use particular subs, one will use their preferred mechanical contractor, one will use whoever’s cheapest, and one will subcontract out to whoever’s available. The performance risk and the price will both vary.
The contractors are doing their job. They’re filling in the gaps the RFP left open, and they’re doing it differently because they’re different firms. The fix is to remove the gaps.
What goes in a tight bid package
A bid package that produces comparable responses includes more than most owners send. The categories below are where most packages leave room for inconsistent assumptions.
Project description and scope summary
The first thing in the package is a project description that names the suite, the location, the rentable area, the existing conditions, the operational context (occupied building or vacant, single tenant or multi-tenant, life-safety system specifics), and the high-level scope.
The scope summary should describe what’s being built in concrete enough terms that all bidders are pricing the same project. “Office build-out for a 6,400 square foot suite on the third floor of a multi-tenant Class B office building, occupied by other tenants on the same floor. Project includes demolition of existing partitions, new framing for ten private offices and two conference rooms, MEP rough-in and finish, ceiling grid replacement, flooring throughout, two new restroom fixtures, and millwork for one reception desk.” That kind of summary leaves much less room for divergent interpretation than “office TI for ABC Suite 305.”
Drawings and specifications
The bid package needs construction documents detailed enough to price from. For most TI projects, that means stamped architectural drawings showing the proposed layout, MEP drawings or performance criteria for the trades, a finish schedule, and any structural drawings if structural work is involved.
If the drawings aren’t ready when the bid goes out, the package should specify what’s being priced as design-build versus what’s being priced from drawings, and the bidders need a basis of design for design-build elements. “Mechanical system design-build to provide cooling for 65 occupants in standard office use, with VRF preferred and basis of design Daikin VRV” is a tight design-build spec. “Mechanical TBD” is not.
Allowances with units
Allowances are unavoidable on most TI bids because product selections come later. The way to make allowances comparable is to specify them on a per-unit basis with a benchmark product, not as a lump sum.
A “carpet allowance: $4.50 per square foot installed, basis of design Shaw Caress” is comparable across bidders. A “carpet allowance: $25,000” is not, because each bidder is calculating that against different square footage assumptions and different product expectations. Lighting allowances should be per fixture with a benchmark. Door hardware should be per opening with a benchmark. Plumbing fixtures should be per fixture with a benchmark.
Trade roster and subcontractor requirements
If the project requires specific trades (a particular MEP firm because of building familiarity, a particular fire protection firm because of inspection scheduling), name them in the package. If the bidders can choose their own subs, say so explicitly. If the building has a preferred-vendor list that controls certain trades, attach it.
The bid package should also state any insurance requirements for subcontractors, any safety qualification standards, and any prevailing wage or licensing requirements that apply.
Schedule and operational constraints
The package should specify the desired start date, the substantial completion date, and any critical phases (tenant move-in, landlord deliverables, lease commencement). It should also name the operational constraints that limit when work can happen.
For occupied buildings, that means specifying after-hours requirements, freight elevator access, fire-watch requirements, parking, dust and noise restrictions, and any tenant disruption mitigation expectations. “All demo work to occur after 6 PM on weekdays or on weekends” produces different bids than “demo work during normal business hours when adjacent suites are occupied.”
Format requirements for the response
The package should state how the bid response is to be structured. A consistent response format makes the proposals readable side by side.
Standard format requirements include a line-item breakdown of cost categories (general conditions, demolition, framing, MEP, finishes, and so on), an explicit allowances list with benchmark products and per-unit amounts, an inclusions list, an exclusions list, a schedule with sequencing and gating events, a payment schedule, a statement of how change orders will be priced, and a close-out deliverables commitment.
When all bidders respond in the same format, the differences are easy to see and the comparison work is faster. When they respond in their own formats, you spend hours just normalizing the documents before you can compare.
The pre-bid walkthrough
A scheduled pre-bid walkthrough where all bidders attend together is one of the most effective calibration tools available. The contractors see the site, hear the same questions and answers, and go back to their offices with the same understanding of the project.
The walkthrough should be mandatory if you want the bids to be comparable. It also gives the bidders a chance to ask questions in front of each other, which raises the quality of all the bids. A question one bidder asks is a question the others might not have thought to ask but benefit from hearing answered.
After the walkthrough, the package should commit to a question deadline (usually a week before the bid is due) and a written response deadline (usually three business days after the question deadline). All questions and answers go to all bidders. That keeps everyone working from the same information set.
Where the trade-off is
There’s a real tension between specification depth and contractor value. Over-specification constrains the contractor’s ability to bring efficiencies and value engineering. Under-specification produces incomparable bids.
The right balance varies by project. A medical office buildout with infection control requirements and life-safety coordination warrants tight specification because the constraints are non-negotiable. A tenant fit-out with a flexible interior plan can leave more room for the contractor to propose alternatives.
The middle ground is the basis-of-design approach. Specify the product or system you’ve designed around, with permission for bidders to substitute equivalents that meet the performance criteria. That gives you comparable bids on the baseline while allowing bidders to propose value-engineered alternatives separately. The alternatives become a comparable line item rather than an embedded assumption.
How this looks from the contractor’s side
When the bid package is tight, contractors compete on the value they actually bring. How they sequence the work. Who they bring to it. How they communicate. How they handle the second project after the first one taught both sides something. When the package is loose, contractors compete on guessing what the owner wants and pricing accordingly. The first version produces better outcomes for everyone, including the contractor that wins the bid.
Tight bid packages are how Ironstone Development prefers to compete. We’re the commercial division of Ironstone, a multi-state general contractor, and the work we focus on tends to come from clients who think carefully about what they’re putting into the market. When the package is detailed enough that all bidders are pricing the same project, our value shows up in the response. How we sequence the work, who we bring to it, how we communicate, and how the proposal reads compared to the others. When the package is loose, the bid quality can be mostly noise, and it’s harder for an owner to make a good decision regardless of who they hire.
If you’re putting together a TI bid package and want feedback on whether it’s tight enough to produce comparable responses, that’s a conversation worth having before you send it out. The time spent tightening the package upstream saves more time downstream and produces better outcomes during construction.
