The one-page State of Colorado bid tab, nine-page roof bid drawing set, and UCCS construction-standards notice.
Reader Guide
Why this project is in the CFIG demonstration set
Demonstration purposeThis project demonstrates a bounded procurement and building-envelope test. It shows how CFIG can reconcile bid documents, normalize price and alternates, and create a future inspection and warranty acceptance path without pretending the field outcome is known.
Primary CFIG capability
Bid-package reconciliation, bid normalization, and acceptance traceability.
Decision sweet spot
After the last addendum and before the owner treats the lowest base number as a complete award answer.
Client payoff
Supports comparable bids, fewer missed requirements, and a clearer acceptance and warranty record.
This is an independent historical demonstration built from public records. It does not claim CFIG worked on, advised, or was endorsed by the project.
Executive Summary
One condition. One decision path. Three usable outputs.
The lowest base bid did not answer the whole award question because alternates, responsiveness, addenda, scope, and warranty value also differed.
ConditionCFIG connected the drawing basis, Addendum 1 acknowledgment, four base proposals, alternate pricing, one nonresponsive alternate entry, and 20-year warranty pricing into a bid-comparison and future acceptance condition.
InterventionReconcile every issued document, normalize price and responsiveness, then turn the chosen scope into an inspection and warranty acceptance checklist.
BenefitSupports comparable bids, fewer missed requirements, and a clearer acceptance and warranty record.
Primary evidence spine
WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS
State of Colorado Bid Tabulation Form — KFL-EPC Roof Replacement
Single page, dated April 19, 2021; columns for Bid Bond, Addendum 1, Base Proposal, Eyebrow Structures, and 20 Year Warranty.
“Bidder — Bid Bond — Addenda No. 1 — Base Proposal — Eyebrow Structures — 20 Year Warranty”
PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
The owner compared more than the base price. It also tracked the addendum, an alternate, and long warranty pricing.
Source Register and Coverage Ledger
What was reviewed—and what remains outside the claim
The register names each public record used here. “Targeted” means the listed project sections were reviewed for this demonstration. It does not mean every linked attachment or all project files were reviewed.
| ID | Original document and exact area | Coverage used | Status | Public source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | KFL-EPC Roof Replacement Bid Tab One-page State of Colorado form dated April 19, 2021. | All visible rows and price columns reviewed. | VERIFIED | Open original source |
| S2 | KFL & EPC Roof Replacement 100% Bid Drawings Nine-page drawing set dated March 29, 2021. | Drawing-set identity and visible bid-scope basis reviewed. | VERIFIED | Open original source |
| S3 | UCCS Construction Standards notice Official campus guidance; project-specific documents remain controlling. | Use rule and professional-boundary note reviewed. | SUPPORTING | Open original source |
Full Project Lifecycle · Evidence Boundaries
Explore the UCCS roof work across all eight phases
The public bid record supports a procurement comparison. Later phases remain linked as requirements and evidence gaps, not verified work outcomes.
Land / Site Acquisition
Evidence reviewed: The reviewed records concern replacement roofs on existing campus buildings; they do not document a land purchase or new-site acquisition.
Decision use and limit: Do not infer a site-acquisition finding from the bid documents.
Planning / Project Definition
Evidence reviewed: The project name and drawing set identify the existing-roof replacement scope. A complete owner needs assessment or campus master plan was not reviewed.
Decision use and limit: Document roof areas, occupied-building constraints, and acceptance objectives before solicitation.
Design / Preconstruction
Evidence reviewed: The nine-page bid drawing set provides the issued roof geometry and details; the campus standards notice requires project-specific specifications and review of deviations. A full project manual was not reviewed.
Decision use and limit: Reconcile issued drawings, addenda, details, and specifications on a common bid basis.
Contract / Procurement
Evidence reviewed: The April 19, 2021 bid tab identifies four bidders, bid bonds, Addendum 1 acknowledgment, base prices, the eyebrow-structures column, 20-year warranty prices, and a nonresponsive entry. It is not every bidder’s complete submission.
Decision use and limit: Check actual responsiveness and normalize scope before selecting a bidder; the tab alone does not establish an award.
Guaranteed Maximum Price / Cost Formation
Evidence reviewed: The tab lists different base, eyebrow-structure, and warranty amounts, including a negative alternate entry and a nonresponsive item. It does not show an executed guaranteed maximum price or final contract value.
Decision use and limit: Compare complete evaluated prices using the same accepted alternatives and warranty terms.
Construction / Project Controls
Evidence reviewed: Bid drawings define proposed roof work. The reviewed public sources do not include field inspection, progress, or quality-control records establishing execution.
Decision use and limit: Tie future inspections and payment decisions to the accepted roof scope without claiming completed field performance.
Changes / Claims / Disputes
Evidence reviewed: Bid differences can flag potential change risk, but the reviewed set has no change-order or claim file for this project.
Decision use and limit: Preserve the issued documents and the owner’s award basis for any later change decision.
Closeout / Warranty / Operations
Evidence reviewed: A 20-year warranty price appears in the bid tab. The reviewed records do not verify installation acceptance, executed warranty terms, or later performance.
Decision use and limit: Specify submittals, inspection proof, punch closure, and warranty start requirements before final acceptance.
Complete Portfolio Evidence and Lifecycle Record
The eight CFIG lifecycle phases
A phase may be evidence-supported, supporting, or requirements-only. No blank phase is presented as completed field proof.
| Phase | Coverage status | Project evidence | CFIG use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Land and Site Acquisition | NOT MATERIAL | Existing campus roofs; no land decision in the reviewed set. | No unsupported site-acquisition claim. |
| 2. Planning and Project Definition | SUPPORTING | Existing-roof replacement purpose is shown by the project title and drawing set. | Define roof areas, operational constraints, and success before bid. |
| 3. Design and Preconstruction | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | Nine-page 100-percent bid drawing set and campus standards boundary. | Reconcile details, scope, interfaces, and issued revisions. |
| 4. Contract and Procurement | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | Bid bond, Addendum 1 acknowledgment, four bidders, and responsiveness entry. | Run the document register and responsiveness check. |
| 5. Guaranteed Maximum Price, Cost Formation, and Purchasing | EVIDENCE-SUPPORTED | Base proposals, eyebrow-structure entries, and 20-year warranty prices. | Normalize evaluated price, alternates, and value. |
| 6. Construction and Project Controls | REQUIREMENTS-ONLY | Drawings define future work; no reviewed field report proves execution. | Use requirement-linked inspection without claiming performance. |
| 7. Changes, Claims, Disputes, and Commercial Resolution | REQUIREMENTS-ONLY | Bid differences identify potential change risk; no reviewed claim file. | Preserve issued basis, exception, direction, cost, and time if change occurs. |
| 8. Closeout, Warranty, Audit, and Final Resolution | REQUIREMENTS-ONLY | Warranty pricing is shown; final acceptance and warranty outcome are unverified. | Use the acceptance checklist before payment and warranty start. |
Detailed Findings
Source language beside plain language
KFL-01The base bid did not equal the evaluated project priceBID NORMALIZATION
WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS
Official KFL-EPC Bid Tab
“Base Proposal — Eyebrow Structures — 20 Year Warranty”
Single page, columns reviewed for all four bidders.
PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
The owner had to compare the main price, an alternate, and warranty pricing together.
WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE
Condition Found
Price components and responsiveness differed by bidder.
Significance
Sorting only by base price can produce the wrong award answer.
Lifecycle Effect
Bid → Normalize → Select alternates → Evaluated award.
Decision Window
After opening and before award.
CFIG Intervention
Use the Bid Normalization and Alternates Matrix.
Responsible User
Procurement, facilities, designer, finance, and award authority.
Consequences of Taking No Action
Exclusions or alternates can erase the apparent savings.
Expected Benefit
The award is based on complete responsive value.
Evidence status: Direct official bid-tab support.
KFL-02Addendum acknowledgment needed a complete document trailDOCUMENT CONTROL
WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS
Official KFL-EPC Bid Tab
“Addenda(s) No. 1”
Single page, required-information columns.
PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
The tab says each bidder recognized Addendum 1.
WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE
Condition Found
Acknowledgment is useful, but the owner still needs proof of every issued and used document.
Significance
A missing revision can change scope, price, or fairness.
Lifecycle Effect
Issue → Receive → Acknowledge → Bid → Contract incorporation.
Decision Window
Before bid and again before contract execution.
CFIG Intervention
Use the Bid Document and Addendum Reconciliation Register.
Responsible User
Procurement officer, designer, and bidders.
Consequences of Taking No Action
Different bidders may price different requirements.
Expected Benefit
Everyone contracts from the same controlled set.
Evidence status: Direct bid-tab support; full bidder packages were not reviewed.
KFL-03Warranty price required a future acceptance recordQUALITY / WARRANTY
WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS
Official KFL-EPC Bid Tab and 100% Bid Drawings
“20 Year Warranty”
Bid-tab final column; drawing set dated March 29, 2021.
PLAIN-LANGUAGE TRANSLATION
A long warranty was priced, but its value depends on what was built, checked, accepted, and documented.
WHAT CFIG DISCOVERED, CONNECTED, OR WOULD ENABLE
Condition Found
Warranty value and field proof must stay tied to the awarded scope.
Significance
A warranty is hard to use if acceptance records are missing.
Lifecycle Effect
Award → Submittal → Install → Inspect → Closeout → Warranty.
Decision Window
Before concealment, final payment, and warranty start.
CFIG Intervention
Use the Roof Scope, Inspection, and Warranty Acceptance Checklist.
Responsible User
Facilities, designer, inspector, contractor, and warranty administrator.
Consequences of Taking No Action
The owner can buy warranty language without usable claim proof.
Expected Benefit
The completed roof carries a clear evidence and warranty trail.
Evidence status: Requirement supported; actual field and warranty performance unverified.
Tangible Options
Exactly three primary outputs
Each option is a usable work product. It names the user, the decision, and the payoff.
| No. | Tangible Option | Usable output | User | Decision enabled | Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bid Document and Addendum Reconciliation Register | A list of every drawing, specification, form, addendum, question, answer, acknowledgment, revision, and bidder exception. | Owner, procurement officer, designer, and bidders. | Whether each bid used the same complete document set and is responsive. | Fewer scope gaps and a more defensible procurement. |
| 2 | Bid Normalization and Alternates Matrix | A side-by-side comparison of base scope, alternates, warranty, allowances, exclusions, unit rates, responsiveness, and evaluated total. | Procurement, facilities, designer, finance, and selection authority. | Which bid is the best complete responsive value—not merely the lowest base number. | Fairer award and lower change-order exposure. |
| 3 | Roof Scope, Inspection, and Warranty Acceptance Checklist | A requirement-level checklist linking awarded roof scope to submittal, mockup, field observation, test, photo, deficiency, closeout, and warranty proof. | Facilities, designer, contractor, inspector, and warranty administrator. | Whether concealed work, final acceptance, payment, and warranty start are ready. | Better quality control and a usable warranty record. |
Completion Gate
Release controls and honest limits
No guarantee: Tangible Options describe defensible decision support. They do not promise a project result or claim that CFIG performed work on the historical project.