Direct answer

Use this worksheet after multiple contractors have priced the same base scope. Its job is to normalize differences in scope coverage, assumptions, quantities, allowances, exclusions, schedule, permits, payment structure, and closeout so the investor can see what each total actually represents.

This is not a contractor-rating tool. It is a proposal-comparability tool.

A. Bid round identity

Property: _________________________________________________

Scope version issued: _____________________________________

Bid due date: _____________________________________________

Prepared by: _____________________________________________

Contractors compared:

• Contractor A: ______________________________________________
• Contractor B: ______________________________________________
• Contractor C: ______________________________________________
• Contractor D: ______________________________________________

B. First-pass completeness check

If one proposal leaves major fields blank, do not treat blank as “included.”

C. Base-scope totals

The leveled total is not a new contractor quote. It is an internal comparison view that makes known scope differences visible.

D. Scope-coverage matrix

Create one row for each meaningful work package.

Suggested status values:

• included;
• excluded;
• allowance;
• alternate;
• unclear;
• not applicable.

E. Quantity comparison

A price can look lower simply because a contractor assumed less quantity.

Do not “level” a quantity difference until you know whether it is an error, a different measurement method, or a real scope interpretation difference.

F. Allowance comparison

An allowance is only comparable when the coverage definition is comparable.

G. Assumptions register

H. Exclusion comparison

I. Schedule and sequencing

A lower price can be operationally worse if it creates a schedule that misses the investor's actual property objective.

J. Permit, inspection, and regulated-work responsibility

Do not use a bid worksheet to decide legal requirements. Use it to expose who is assuming responsibility and what needs jurisdictional verification.

K. Payment structure

Then ask:

• Is payment tied to observable progress?
• Does the structure front-load too much money relative to verified work?
• Are material purchases identifiable?
• Is final payment connected to closeout obligations?

L. Change-management readiness

M. Closeout comparison

N. Clarification questions before award

Keep clarifications in the project record so the final award does not depend on forgotten phone calls.

O. Final comparison summary

For each contractor, record:

Contractor A

Strengths of proposal: ____________________________________

Material gaps / risks: ____________________________________

Unresolved clarifications: _________________________________

Leveled scope confidence: high / medium / low

Repeat for each bidder.

Final decision test

Before award, can the investor answer:

• ☐ Which proposal most completely covers the intended outcome?
• ☐ Which differences are real price differences versus scope differences?
• ☐ Which allowances remain variable?
• ☐ Which exclusions could become later cost?
• ☐ Which assumptions could trigger changes?
• ☐ Which schedule best matches the property objective?
• ☐ Which payment structure aligns with observable progress?
• ☐ Which permit / inspection responsibilities are clear?
• ☐ Which closeout obligations are explicit?

If the answer is no, the proposals are not fully leveled yet.

Relationship to the bid-comparison guide

Use How to Compare Contractor Bids on an Investment Property Rehab for the reasoning and examples.

Use this worksheet to perform the actual leveling exercise.

Related tools and guides

• How to Compare Contractor Bids
• Rehab Scope Worksheet
• Cheap Rehab Bid vs. Complete Rehab Bid
• Milestones and Payment
• Real Estate Investor Property Work Playbook