The problem

Every contractor submission carries two prices. The first is the number on the cover. The second is written in the exclusions and assumptions — the short list, usually near the back, of what the contractor decided not to price and what they chose to take for granted. The cover number gets compared. The second price gets skimmed. And because the second price is where contractors draw their scope boundaries, two bids can look a few percent apart on the cover while describing work that is genuinely far apart underneath. Exclusions and assumptions are not fine print. They are the terms on which the headline number is true.

Why it matters

An exclusion is a cost you will still pay — just not to this contractor, not on this line, and not today. An assumption is a condition that, if untrue, becomes a variation the moment work starts. When one contractor excludes an item that another includes, the difference between their totals is not a saving; it is the price of that item, moved off the page. Compare the covers alone and the contractor who excluded the most looks the sharpest. Read the exclusions and the ranking can invert. This is the quiet distortion: the discipline of a good bid comparison is not comparing prices, it is comparing prices on equal terms.

The documents involved

Each contractor’s exclusions list, assumptions list, and qualifications or clarifications.
The enquiry package and scope brief the bids were meant to answer.
The bill of quantities and drawings, to test whether an assumption matches what was actually issued.
The allowances, provisional sums, and PC sums each contractor carried.
Any covering letter — where the most consequential qualifications often hide in prose rather than in the formal list.

What usually gets overlooked

The blanket exclusion. “Excludes all builder’s work,” “excludes statutory fees,” “excludes anything not shown” — broad lines that quietly move whole packages off scope.
The assumption stated as fact. “Assumed continuous access,” “assumed existing services are adequate,” “assumed no work to occupied areas” — each an untested condition that reprices the job if it fails.
The mismatched exclusion. An item excluded by one contractor and included by another, sitting on different lines, so the comparison never places them side by side.
The prose qualification. A sentence in the covering letter that overrides the priced bill — easy to miss because it is not in the list you were watching.
The silent inclusion. An item nobody excluded and nobody confirmed, carried on trust by every bidder until the day it isn’t.

A short example

Two anonymised MEP quotations for the same building sat within a small margin of each other on the cover. Contractor A’s exclusions ran to a single line: “as per attached.” Contractor B’s ran to a page. Reading B’s page against A’s line revealed that B had excluded builder’s work, testing and commissioning attendance, and the closeout documentation — three items A had carried inside its rates. B was not cheaper; B had drawn a tighter boundary and let the cover number carry the impression. Once the excluded items were valued and added back to B, the two bids changed places. The distortion was never in the arithmetic. It was in reading one boundary as if it were the other.

A workable review sequence

Extract every exclusion, assumption, and qualification from each submission — including the ones written in the covering letter, not only the formal list.
Build one register with each contractor as a column and each item as a row, so an item excluded by one and included by another lines up on the same line.
Value the differences. Where the boundaries diverge, attach a value to what has been excluded, so the comparison rests on equal coverage.
Test each assumption against the issued documents. If a contractor assumed something the drawings or bill contradict, flag it as a question before award.
Rebuild the comparison on the corrected, like-for-like basis.

This register is the connective tissue of the whole pre-award read: it feeds how to compare contractor quotations when the scopes are different, it draws on what to check in a BOQ before you award a contractor, and it surfaces the same items as where construction scope gaps usually hide.

Questions worth asking each contractor

What have you excluded, and where does each excluded item sit in the other bids?
Which of your assumptions would change your price if they turned out to be untrue?
Is there anything in your covering letter that overrides the priced bill?
What have you assumed sits with the client, the consultant, or other trades?
If we asked you to price on identical terms to the other bidders, what would move?

What RFQS helps organise

RFQS supports the exclusions-and-assumptions read that sits underneath a fair comparison. Through the Scope of Services (SOS) review, we help organise every contractor’s exclusions, assumptions, and qualifications into one register, line up where the boundaries diverge, and value the differences so the bids can be compared on equal terms. RFQS organises what each submission actually says so your award decision — which stays with you — is not swayed by whichever contractor wrote the shortest exclusions list. We show what the documents support, and where assumption begins.

To start the register on your own bids, the free F-01 Scope Starter Checklist gives you the first-pass structure. For a second read of a specific comparison, the Pre-Award Commercial Review is the matching service.

→ Start with the free F-01 Scope Starter Checklist, or see the Pre-Award Commercial Review and request a Fit-Check.

Service boundary: RFQS provides Quantity Surveying Support Services and organises commercial information to support your own decisions. RFQS does not verify or sign off quantities, cost, or scope coverage, and does not replace your own legal, engineering, or design input. Questions of contract interpretation sit with your legal counsel; questions of design adequacy sit with your project’s engineers and architects.