CostCheckGPT is being built around a repeatable contractor bid review methodology developed from more than 20 years of construction and renovation experience.
The methodology separates what can be verified from what needs judgment, context, or clarification.
The objective is to identify material bid risk before the contract is signed.
Every listed line item should reconcile with the bid's stated contract total.
The review looks for subtotal errors, multiplication errors, duplicated charges, unexplained additions, and gaps between the listed work and the final number.
When a supported discrepancy exists, the dollar amount should be shown clearly.
Contractors describe work differently.
The review organizes included scope, exclusions, allowances, owner-supplied items, assumptions, and unclear items so the bid can be understood on a consistent basis.
For multiple bids, this creates a more useful comparison.
Allowances are placeholder amounts for items that have not been fully selected or priced.
The review identifies major allowances, evaluates the assumptions behind them when enough project information is available, and highlights amounts that deserve clarification.
A contractor bid should make clear which parts of the project remain outside the stated price.
The review checks for important project components that are excluded, missing, vague, or assigned to the owner.
Pricing concerns are evaluated using the information available for the project, including location, trade, quantities, specifications, finish level, project conditions, and current market inputs available to the system.
CostCheckGPT should express uncertainty when the evidence is incomplete.
Where reliable public licensing information applies, CostCheckGPT can use the relevant jurisdictional records as part of the review.
Credential findings must come from verifiable public information.
Every unresolved material issue should end with a practical question.
The owner should know exactly what needs to be clarified, documented, itemized, or revised before signing.
CostCheckGPT should distinguish between three types of information.
Verified: Facts directly supported by the bid, arithmetic, public records, or other authoritative project information.
Supported: A conclusion that has enough evidence to be useful while still depending on project assumptions or market context.
Unresolved: An item that cannot be responsibly determined from the information available and should be clarified before signing.
This distinction helps prevent false precision.
Construction bids often contain incomplete information.
When the evidence does not support a precise conclusion, CostCheckGPT should say so.
A useful bid review does not need to pretend every question has a numeric answer. Some findings require a contractor clarification, a product selection, a drawing, a site condition, or jurisdiction-specific information.
The planned output is the Bid Defense Memo.
The memo is designed to prioritize the most material findings and give the owner a clear view of:
CostCheckGPT is currently in development. Join early access to be notified when contractor bid review opens.