Make every proposal answer the same questions

Build the comparison matrix first

Use rows for protection, demolition, framing, plumbing, electrical, gas, ventilation, cabinets, counters, backsplash, flooring, paint, appliances, permits, inspections, cleanup, and closeout. Use columns for each proposal. Mark included, excluded, allowance, owner-supplied, subcontracted, or unclear.

Normalize materials and quantities

Record cabinet construction and accessories, counter material and geometry, hardware count, floor and backsplash limits, fixture models, appliance assumptions, paint areas, and preparation. A proposal that names only product categories cannot be compared reliably.

Expose allowances

For every allowance, show amount, quantity basis, tax, freight, waste, fabrication, installation, related labor, and the credit or charge method. Then replace allowances with selections where practical before signing.

Compare permit and trade responsibility

Name the authority, permit holder, fees, plan preparation, trade permits, inspections, correction responsibility, and final record. Check state trade credentials and any municipal registration in official sources; do not accept a general “licensed and insured” line as a complete answer.

Read exclusions and assumptions together

Common gaps include wall repair, floor leveling, service upgrades, duct route, appliance modification, painting beyond the kitchen, hazardous-material procedures, protection, storage, freight, disposal, and damage to concealed systems. Ask each bidder to price or explicitly retain the same boundary.

Compare the contract mechanics

Review payment stages, deposit, ordering terms, change authorization, markup, credits, schedule updates, dispute process, cleanup, access, termination, and final payment conditions. A lower construction subtotal can be less attractive when commercial terms shift risk to the owner.

Score clarity before price

First score completeness, evidence, responsibility, and unresolved risk. Then compare adjusted totals for the same scope. If a proposal cannot be normalized, request clarification rather than guessing what it includes.

Send one clarification log to every bidder

Create a dated list of questions and record each written answer beside the affected scope item. If one bidder identifies a missing task, issue the same clarification to the others rather than quietly adding it to only one proposal. Carry accepted answers into the final scope and contract. This produces a fair comparison and prevents an email promise from becoming separated from the signed project documents.

Use the cost plan as the common total, then show each bidder’s exclusions and allowances beside it.

Do not score an unanswered row as included.

Compare the proposed sequence, not only the work list

Two proposals can name the same tasks but place them in a different order. Ask when measurements become final, which products must arrive before demolition, what releases wall closure, when counters are templated and which inspections hold later work. A proposal that omits these dependencies may carry more delay risk even when its task list looks complete. Put each bidder’s assumed owner decisions and delivery dates beside the schedule.

Separate provider differences from project differences

One firm may suggest a different cabinet system, layout, structural approach or appliance arrangement. That alternative may be useful, but it creates a different project. Price it in a separate comparison column instead of adjusting only the total. Keep the original scope visible so you can decide whether the alternative improves the result or merely removes work.

Before choosing, write a short decision note covering the selected scope version, the main reason for the choice, unresolved assumptions and the documents that must be incorporated into the contract. This prevents a later conversation from reviving an older proposal or unsupported verbal promise.

Check the current evidence

• State of Oklahoma: Construction Industries Board - checked 2026-08-12.