Three-project scope and cost comparison
Historical RFQ20240401, Amendment 1 (17 May 2024). All contractor/project amounts below are explicitly fictional. The comparison uses retained evidence only.
What the solicitation requires
At least three completed projects similar in scope and cost, in a commercial setting, with project/contact details and completion information. The clause specifies no numerical price tolerance. Similarity does not require identical brands, a courthouse venue or identical security conditions. Those conditions can inform complexity without becoming invented gates.
The target is one private restroom in an occupied ninth-floor courthouse office: cabinetry/countertop/sink, drywall/wallcovering/flooring/painting, minor electrical/plumbing, amended ceiling/fire-protection work, protected access and after-hours demolition.
RFQ20240401 — Amendment 1, 17 May 2024 — physical page 1 · RFQ20240401 — Amendment 1, 17 May 2024 — physical page 2 · RFQ20240401 — Amendment 1, 17 May 2024 — physical page 5
Cost and duration
Comparison basis: the test bidder’s $54,000 whole-job fixed price, including labor/materials/security. This is not a government estimate, awarded price, verified estimate or rule about acceptable comparability. Prices are nominal; no inflation adjustment is made. Percent below = ($54,000 − project cost) ÷ $54,000 × 100, rounded to one decimal.
| Project | Completion | Recorded cost | Below $54,000 | Duration |
| A | 2021 | $47,000 | $7,000 (13.0%) | 8 weeks |
| B | 2022 | $52,000 | $2,000 (3.7%) | 9 weeks |
| C | 2023 | $49,000 | $5,000 (9.3%) | 8 weeks |
Test contractor dossier — historical 28 May 2024 scenario — line 18 · Test contractor dossier — historical 28 May 2024 scenario — line 129
All three are on the same tens-of-thousands-dollar scale, supporting relevance as comparators. Different cost inclusions/workshares could still change comparability. Eight or nine weeks is recorded for the earlier projects; duration is descriptive here, not a new qualification threshold.
Scope findings by project
| Project | Supported relevance | What prevents a complete conclusion |
| A | Commercial restroom renovation in a courthouse office: closest documented setting. Recorded as completed. | No retained trade-by-trade scope, renovation extent, bidder workshare or cost inclusions. Similarity remains UNKNOWN. |
| B | Commercial restroom renovation in a professional office: same broad work/use category. Recorded as completed. | No retained trade-by-trade scope, renovation extent, bidder workshare or cost inclusions. Similarity remains UNKNOWN. |
| C | Commercial restroom renovation in a commercial office: same broad work/use category. Recorded as completed. | No retained trade-by-trade scope, renovation extent, bidder workshare or cost inclusions. Similarity remains UNKNOWN. |
The dossier says the three reference forms contain project descriptions/contact and completion fields, but those underlying forms or descriptions are not retained. It supports that the records exist in the scenario; it does not let the reviewer inspect the detailed scope. No separate real-company verification is claimed.
Test contractor dossier — historical 28 May 2024 scenario — line 21
Exact missing facts
For each of A, B and C, obtain a brief scope description listing the work packages and approximate extent/number of rooms; identify what this bidder performed; and confirm whether the amount is final whole-job cost or the bidder’s portion, including material exclusions, owner-furnished items and changes. These are targeted factual inputs, not a request to perform the comparison. No new reference is justified merely because the current short ledger lacks detail.
Reviewer conclusion: all three are plausible comparators, with supported commercial setting, completion and nominal cost scale. The evidence does not yet establish THREE fully similar projects. Keep the composite requirement UNKNOWN; do not substitute a count of three records for scope-and-cost similarity.