| Course | MT382 Construction Cost Estimating |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Subcontractor bid leveling |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT382 Unit 9
Low Bid After Leveling: An MT382 Unit 9 Site Work Bid Comparison Where Rock Could Change the Answer
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT382: Construction Cost Estimating
Unit 9 Subcontractor Bid Leveling
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The bidders, bids and unit prices are composite; the sources cited are real.
The Scope Sheet Comes First
Before any bid was opened, the scope sheet was built from the drawings, the specification and both addenda. Its rows are erosion control, excavation and grading, dewatering, storm sewer including the pipe added by the second addendum, sanitary sewer, installation of the underground detention chambers, site lighting bases, testing, and a payment and performance bond. Unit prices for rock excavation and for removing unsuitable soil complete it. Building the sheet first means bidders are measured against the job rather than against each other.
The Base Bids
Bidder A bid 1,184,000 dollars, bidder B 1,097,500, bidder C 1,142,800 and bidder D 1,226,400. On base bids alone, B leads by 45,300 dollars, but base bids are not comparable until each one covers the same scope.
Plugs at the Estimator's Price
Each cell on the leveling sheet is marked included, excluded or qualified. Every exclusion is priced once, at the estimator's own number, and applied to every bidder who excluded it, which keeps the plugs consistent.
Bidder B excluded dewatering, site lighting bases and the bond. Priced back in at 46,500 dollars, 18,900 dollars and 1.1 percent, which comes to 12,792 dollars on B's adjusted scope, they turn a 45,300-dollar lead into a much narrower one.
Bidder C's bid does not reference the second addendum, which added storm pipe, and it excluded installation of the detention chambers. The storm pipe is plugged at 27,400 dollars and the chamber installation at 38,600. The missing addendum is flagged for a call, since a subcontractor may simply have overlooked it.
Bidders A and D included the full scope.
An exclusion priced once at the estimator's number, and applied to everyone who excluded it, keeps the comparison honest.
Lump Sum Versus Unit Prices
Lump-sum and unit-price portions are kept apart because they carry different risks. The lump sum is fixed. The unit prices pay for whatever rock and unsuitable soil the excavation actually finds, so their total depends on quantities nobody knows yet. The geotechnical report estimates 350 cubic yards of rock and 1,200 cubic yards of unsuitable soil, and the leveling extends each bidder's unit prices at those quantities. Bidder B quotes 96 dollars per cubic yard of rock and 31 for unsuitable soil; A quotes 118 and 24; C quotes 125 and 30; D quotes 105 and 26.
Leveled Totals
At the report's quantities, the leveled totals are 1,246,492 dollars for B, 1,254,100 for A, 1,288,550 for C and 1,294,350 for D. Bidder B leads A by 7,608 dollars.
Sensitivity to Rock
Because B's rock price is lower than A's but its unsuitable soil price is higher, the ranking depends on how much rock is found. With no rock at all, A and B separate by only 92 dollars, with A narrowly lower. At double the report's estimate, 700 cubic yards, B leads by 15,308 dollars. Hatush and Skitmore (1997) found that owners and contractors weigh more than price in selecting subcontractors, and when two leveled prices are this close, scope clarity and capacity deserve as much weight as the totals.
Why Rock Matters More Than It Seems
The geotechnical report's 350 cubic yards of rock comes from six borings across a site of several acres, so the true quantity could easily be half or double. Odeck (2004), studying Norwegian road projects, reported proportionally larger overruns on smaller projects, the kind on which site investigation tends to be thinnest. For that reason the leveling sheet shows the ranking at three rock quantities, not one, and the recommendation is written to hold across the likely range. If test pits before award showed far less rock than the report assumes, the choice between A and B would come down to scope and service rather than price.
Questions for the Scope Review
The scope review with the apparent low bidder will cover four questions: whether its dewatering approach matches the geotechnical report's groundwater depth, whether its bond can be provided at 1.1 percent or less, whether it acknowledged the second addendum's storm pipe in its own takeoff, and what its rock price assumes about the method of removal. The answers are recorded on the leveling sheet before award.
Recommendation
Award to bidder B, subject to a scope review meeting that confirms B will provide dewatering and the bond at the plugged prices or better, and that its crew can install the lighting bases. If B declines to include dewatering, A becomes the recommended bidder, since its full-scope bid carries less risk at nearly the same price. Holm et al. (2005) stress that a bid leveling sheet is a negotiation tool as much as a comparison, and the scope review is where B's exclusions are resolved.
Carried Into the Detailed Estimate
The leveled figure for B, 1,246,492 dollars including its unit-price allowance at the report's quantities, is carried into the Unit 10 detailed estimate as the site work price, named as such, rather than replaced with an in-house number.
References
Hatush, Z., & Skitmore, M. (1997). Evaluating contractor prequalification data: Selection criteria and project success factors. Construction Management and Economics, 15(2), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446199700000002
Holm, L., Schaufelberger, J. E., Griffin, D., & Cole, T. (2005). Construction cost estimating: Process and practices. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Odeck, J. (2004). Cost overruns in road construction: What are their sizes and determinants? Transport Policy, 11(1), 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(03)00017-9
MT382 Unit 9 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 9 asks students to compare subcontractor bids for one scope of work on an equal basis. A scope sheet built from the contract documents should come first, listing every item a complete bid must cover. Instructors expect each bid to be marked item by item as included, excluded or qualified, with exclusions priced back in at a consistent figure. Addenda that a bidder failed to acknowledge should be treated as scope gaps. Unit-price work should be extended at stated quantities and kept apart from lump sums. A sensitivity test on uncertain quantities is often expected. The recommendation should be conditional where the leveled prices are close, naming what a scope review must confirm.
How this MT382 Unit 9 example is built
The scope sheet opens the sample, built before any bid is opened. Base bids are listed and shown to be incomparable as submitted. Plugs are applied consistently, B's three exclusions and C's missing addendum and chamber installation priced at the estimator's numbers, under a highlighted line about pricing exclusions once. Lump-sum and unit-price work are separated and each bidder's unit prices extended at the report's quantities. Leveled totals follow. A sensitivity section tests rock at none and double, a section explains why rock is uncertain with Odeck's findings, and questions for the scope review are listed. The recommendation names B with conditions and A as the alternative.
MT382 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points
Marks on a bid leveling exercise follow the completeness of the scope sheet, the consistency of plugs, the handling of unit prices and the soundness of the recommendation. Building the scope sheet first shows the bids are measured against the job. Rubrics reward exclusions priced at one figure for every bidder who excluded them. Treating an unacknowledged addendum as a gap and flagging it shows care. Extending unit prices at stated quantities, and testing those quantities, shows understanding of risk. A conditional recommendation, with a fallback, shows practical judgment. Sources appear in APA 7, and every leveled total can be rebuilt from the sheet by anyone holding the bids, which is the real test of fairness to the bidders.
MT382 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
Bid comparisons often rank base bids and pick the lowest, ignoring exclusions that make low bids incomplete. Others plug each exclusion at a different price, which can tilt the result. Unit-price work is frequently ignored because its quantities are uncertain, though that uncertainty is exactly what needs testing. An unacknowledged addendum is sometimes treated as the bidder's problem rather than a gap in the comparison. Recommendations rarely name what must be confirmed before award. Before finishing, change the most uncertain quantity to zero and to double, and see whether your ranking survives. If it does not, your recommendation should say so and name the quantity that decides it.
Get an MT382 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Leveling works from the bids themselves plus the scope they answer. From the Unit 9 prompt, send the subcontractor bids, the specification sections or scope, any addenda and the rubric. The sheet that comes back, free on a first request and ready in 24-48h, prices every gap the same way for every bidder and tests the ranking. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT382 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT382 Unit 1: Early Cost Number Anchoring Post
- MT382 Unit 2: Conceptual Cost Estimate
- MT382 Unit 3: Cost Index Location and Time Adjustment
- MT382 Unit 4: Exterior Wall Assemblies Estimate
- MT382 Unit 5: Masonry Labor Productivity Analysis
- MT382 Unit 6: Estimate Contingency Seminar Reflection
- MT382 Unit 7: Contingency and Escalation Memo
- MT382 Unit 8: Estimate Reconciliation Bridge
- MT382 Unit 10: Detailed Estimate Package
- MT381 Unit 9: Three-Week Look-Ahead Schedule
- MT362 Unit 9: AI Vendor Comparison Matrix
- MT361 Unit 9: Contract-to-Close Transaction Timeline
- MT359 Unit 9: IMC Evaluation Plan
MT382 Unit 9 questions, answered
What does it mean to level a bid?
To adjust competing bids so they cover identical scope before comparing them. Each exclusion, qualification or missing item is priced, most often at the estimator's own figure, and added to the bids that lack it. The leveled totals then compare like with like, which raw bid prices rarely do.
How should unit prices be compared?
Extend each bidder's unit prices at the same assumed quantity, typically drawn from the geotechnical report or the estimator's takeoff, and add the result to the lump sum. Then test other quantities, because a bidder with low unit prices gains as quantities rise. State the quantity you used and where it came from.
What if a bidder did not acknowledge an addendum?
Treat the addendum's scope as missing from that bid and price it, then flag the bidder for clarification. On subcontract bids to a general contractor it may be an oversight the bidder can confirm. On public prime bids, failing to acknowledge an addendum can make a bid nonresponsive, so check the rules your scenario sets.
Where can I find a free MT382 Unit 9 sample paper?
The complete MT382 Unit 9 bid leveling is printed here, comparing four site work bids for a recreation center against one scope sheet.
How could rock reverse the ranking in the MT382 Unit 9 sample?
Bidder B's rock price is lower than A's but its unsuitable soil price is higher, so with no rock A is lower by 92 dollars, while at 700 cubic yards B leads by 15,308.