Where bids leak margin
Most estimating errors are not math errors. They are scope gaps — items that were implicitly in-scope in the field but never made it into the number. By the time the gap surfaces, the contract is signed and the cost is yours.
The pattern repeats across project types and firm sizes. An operator running lean rarely has time to review three bids side by side and notice which categories they consistently undercount. The errors compound across projects without a name.
What this can recover
A junior estimator on a public construction thread described missing a $7K mobilization cost on an $850K bid because the close was rushed and the review was manual. One miss is over half this audit fee.
At the operational level, contractors widely report that a 1% lift in bid accuracy moves $50,000 on a $5M shop and $250,000 on a $25M shop. The audit names the scope categories your bids consistently undercount — the patterns that compound across every bid you submit until they get a name.
What you send
Three recent bids, varied in scope if possible. A short description of how you build estimates — your process, the software you use, how you handle allowances and exclusions. No dollar amounts attached to client names are required; bid descriptions and line structures are sufficient.
What you get back
A written PDF analysis identifying scope-gap exposure patterns across the three samples, recurring error categories specific to how you estimate, and process recommendations for closing the gaps. Delivered within 5 business days of intake.
Who this is for
Solo GCs, small firms, and specialty subs running lean estimating — typically without a dedicated estimator reviewing the work. Most useful if you have noticed margin eroding on jobs that should have been profitable, or if you are scaling bid volume and want a second set of eyes on the process before the errors scale with it.