Academy/Procurement, Bids & Contracts
Writing a good scope of work
Get this one document right and every bid comparison after it gets easier.
A scope of work is the part of a bid or contract that spells out exactly what work, materials, and outcomes are included, so every vendor is quoting the same job. Write it in enough detail that two bidders reading it would price identical work, and attach it to the signed contract, not a verbal understanding.
What actually belongs in a scope of work
A scope of work is not a sentence in the invitation to bid, it is a list. It states exactly which tasks are included ("trim all shrubs below window height, mow twice monthly April through October"), which materials or standards apply, what is explicitly excluded, and when the work happens. A vendor pricing "landscaping maintenance" and a vendor pricing "landscaping maintenance, excluding irrigation repair, twice monthly mowing April through October" are not bidding on the same job, even if their price pages look identical.
Whether a project also triggers state contractor licensing or mechanic's lien rules on top of the scope itself depends on your state and on whether the work counts as an improvement to real property; check with counsel if that line is unclear, see Construction contracts.
Why a vague scope wrecks the comparison
Comparing three bids by their bottom line only works if all three priced the same job. Guidance on leveling construction bids describes the actual comparison as a matrix mapping every inclusion, exclusion, and addendum acknowledgment per bidder, not a ranked list of totals, because the lowest number is worthless if it quietly left out fencing repair the other two bids included. See Bid leveling. A tight scope of work is what makes that matrix possible in the first place: if the scope is vague, there is nothing consistent to level bids against. The matrix, and the board's reasoning for the eventual pick, is what should get recorded, not just the winning number.
Put a scope gap in writing, or it isn't real
If comparing bids turns up a gap (one landscaper assumed the board would haul away clippings, another didn't) the resolution has to go into a scope exhibit attached to the signed contract. An email to the vendor, a note in the meeting minutes, or a verbal understanding at the walkthrough will not control if the vendor later claims the extra work was never included. The scope exhibit is what gets read if the two sides disagree, so it needs to say what actually happened, not what everyone assumed.
Check yourself
Answer before you read the explanation, recalling it is what makes it stick.
Two landscaping bids come in, one is $2,000 cheaper. Before recommending the cheaper bid, what should the board check first?
Midway through a roofing job, the contractor says haul away of old shingles was never included and wants an extra fee. Where should that resolution have been written down to prevent this dispute?
A landscaping bid describes the work only as "maintain the grounds as needed." What makes this scope unusable for comparing against other bids?
Related elsewhere in the Academy
Procurement, Bids & Contracts
Once your scope is tight, the real test is putting bids side by side. See Apples-to-apples bid comparisons.
Whether a project also triggers state contractor licensing or mechanic's lien rules on top of the scope of work itself varies by state and by the nature of the work.