What the cited historical or program record documents.
EFPS Evidence Guide
How to read and navigate this companion
What CFIG retrospectively connects or would bring forward for decision-makers.
A reasoned possibility—not a guarantee that an outcome would have changed.
What the reviewed public corpus can and cannot support.
Interactive Evidence Chain
Select any stage for its supporting detail, or follow the chain from 1 through 9.
Executive Evidence Summary
The lowest base bid did not answer the whole award question because alternates, responsiveness, addenda, scope, and warranty value also differed.
This 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.
The official State of Colorado bid tab, the nine-page 100-percent bid drawing set, and the UCCS construction-standards notice.
The drawing basis, Addendum 1 acknowledgment, four base proposals, alternate pricing, one nonresponsive alternate entry, and 20-year warranty pricing formed one award-and-acceptance condition.
The connected condition affected complete-price comparison, bid fairness, award defensibility, scope completeness, change exposure, roof inspection, acceptance, and warranty value.
After the final addendum and bid opening but before the owner treated the lowest base number as a complete award answer.
A document-and-addendum register, normalized bid-and-alternates matrix, and roof scope, inspection, and warranty acceptance checklist would support a defensible award.
The apparent low bid might not be the lowest complete responsive price, omissions could become changes, and acceptance could occur without adequate field or warranty proof.
Executive significance: Supports comparable bids, fewer missed requirements, and a clearer acceptance and warranty record.
Documented Path
What the portfolio’s public record shows
Recorded project path
Issued drawings and addenda → Bid acknowledgment → Normalized base and alternates → Award → Submittals and field inspection → Warranty and acceptance.
Evidence boundary
The official bid tab and drawing set are public. A complete project manual, every bidder submission, award file, field report, and warranty record was not available in the reviewed public set.
Retrospective CFIG Analysis
What CFIG would bring into one decision picture
Condition CFIG connects
CFIG 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.
CFIG-informed path
Source gate → Condition connected → Bid Document and Addendum Reconciliation Register → Bid Normalization and Alternates Matrix → Roof Scope, Inspection, and Warranty Acceptance Checklist → Are the bids complete, responsive, and comparable, and is the selected roof scope tied to inspection and warranty proof? → Supports comparable bids, fewer missed requirements, and a clearer acceptance and warranty record.
Decision to be supported: Are the bids complete, responsive, and comparable, and is the selected roof scope tied to inspection and warranty proof?
Decision Window
When meaningful options were still available
After the last addendum and before the owner treats the lowest base number as a complete award answer.
Why timing mattersA low base price can change after alternates, exclusions, scope gaps, or warranty choices are added.
Comparative Differential Analysis
Documented path versus CFIG-informed path
Historical facts and retrospective analysis are separated below. The CFIG column describes what the demonstration indicates CFIG would have surfaced; it does not claim certainty or prior involvement.
| Dimension | Documented project record | CFIG-informed presentation | Differential | Likely impact or benefit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence picture | The lowest base bid did not answer the whole award question because alternates, responsiveness, addenda, scope, and warranty value also differed. | CFIG 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. | Separate facts become one connected decision condition. | Roof details, inspections, tests, closeout, and warranty proof must follow the awarded requirement. |
| Timing | Issued drawings and addenda → Bid acknowledgment → Normalized base and alternates → Award → Submittals and field inspection → Warranty and acceptance. | After the last addendum and before the owner treats the lowest base number as a complete award answer. | The chronology becomes an explicit window for action. | A low base price can change after alternates, exclusions, scope gaps, or warranty choices are added. |
| Decision control | The public record shows the path taken and the conditions that developed. | Are the bids complete, responsive, and comparable, and is the selected roof scope tied to inspection and warranty proof? | Historical information becomes a defined leadership choice. | Supports comparable bids, fewer missed requirements, and a clearer acceptance and warranty record. |
| Risk and value | The lowest base number may not be the lowest complete responsive price. A missed drawing, addendum, alternate, or exception can become a later change. | Supports comparable bids, fewer missed requirements, and a clearer acceptance and warranty record. | Exposure is weighed against a source-grounded alternative while choices remain. | A clean comparison can reduce bid protest, scope dispute, leakage risk, and warranty confusion. |
Potential Impact
Why the differential matters
Cost effect
Documented path: The official bid tab shows four base proposals ranging from $1.175 million to $1.868743 million, along with separate eyebrow-structure and 20-year-warranty entries. CFIG-informed difference: A normalized bid matrix would compare the same issued scope, addenda, alternates, responsiveness conditions, warranty choices, and stated exceptions before ranking complete prices. Practical significance: This difference matters because the lowest base number may not represent the lowest complete responsive value; normalization can reveal price movement and scope gaps before they become award disputes or later changes.
Contract effect
Documented path: The bid tab records Addendum 1 acknowledgment and identifies one eyebrow-structure alternate entry as nonresponsive, showing that price alone was not the only award condition. CFIG-informed difference: The reconciliation register would show the controlling drawing and addendum set used by each bidder, every exception or missing response, and the evidence supporting responsiveness. Practical significance: This difference matters because an omitted document or improperly treated alternate can undermine fair comparison, blur the awarded scope, increase protest exposure, or create disagreement over what the contract includes.
Quality effect
Documented path: The reviewed drawings establish the bid-stage roof basis, but the available public set does not verify submittals, installation conditions, inspections, tests, concealed work, closeout, or actual warranty performance. CFIG-informed difference: The acceptance checklist would carry awarded roof details, required submittals, inspection points, test evidence, deficiency closure, warranty documents, and start dates into the owner’s acceptance decision. Practical significance: This difference matters because a defensible award does not itself prove field quality; requirements must remain traceable through construction and closeout before payment or warranty acceptance.
Benefit at stake
Documented path: The public procurement record permits comparison of bids and selected bid components, but it does not establish the final award basis, completed field condition, leakage performance, or enforceable warranty outcome. CFIG-informed difference: One evidence chain would connect the issued requirements to bid evaluation, award scope, inspection proof, acceptance, final payment, and warranty documentation while preserving each unresolved item. Practical significance: This difference matters because the owner’s value depends on more than awarding a low number; it depends on receiving the specified roof, documenting acceptance, and retaining a usable warranty record without overstating unverified outcomes.
Tangible Options
Three outcome-level choices—not a self-execution manual
These options show the kind of decision support CFIG could provide. The internal prompts, scoring, thresholds, acquisition sequence, working templates, validation logic, and implementation procedures are not disclosed.
Bid Document and Addendum Reconciliation Register
Decision supportedWhether each bid used the same complete document set and is responsive.
Potential benefitFewer scope gaps and a more defensible procurement.
Bid Normalization and Alternates Matrix
Decision supportedWhich bid is the best complete responsive value—not merely the lowest base number.
Potential benefitFairer award and lower change-order exposure.
Roof Scope, Inspection, and Warranty Acceptance Checklist
Decision supportedWhether concealed work, final acceptance, payment, and warranty start are ready.
Potential benefitBetter quality control and a usable warranty record.
Public Evidence Bridge
Sources supporting the demonstration
The complete coverage notes and exact reliance locations remain in the project portfolio. These links open the original public records.
| ID | Public source | Status | Open |
|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | KFL-EPC Roof Replacement Bid TabOne-page State of Colorado form dated April 19, 2021. | VERIFIED | OPEN PUBLIC SOURCE |
| S2 | KFL & EPC Roof Replacement 100% Bid DrawingsNine-page drawing set dated March 29, 2021. | VERIFIED | OPEN PUBLIC SOURCE |
| S3 | UCCS Construction Standards noticeOfficial campus guidance; project-specific documents remain controlling. | SUPPORTING | OPEN PUBLIC SOURCE |
Completion Boundary
What this report does—and does not claim
Claims control: This companion does not state that CFIG would certainly have prevented delay, loss, failure, dispute, or another historical outcome. It demonstrates how CFIG could have organized the available record into earlier visibility, a clearer decision window, outcome-level options, and a more accountable executive choice.
Professional boundary
CFIG supports decision-makers. Licensed and authorized professionals retain responsibility for engineering, safety, legal, environmental, accounting, regulatory, and other protected judgments.