Skip to content

Sample report

What a full review looks like

This is a complete Bidprobe review of a fictional tender package — a new community recreation centre — rendered exactly the way your review arrives. Flip between the US (NEC) and Canadian (CEC) versions below. Real reviews also include a downloadable PDF of everything on this page.

Illustrative sample. Both projects — documents, jurisdictions, and every figure — are fictional, composed to show representative output. Your review is built from your actual documents.

All figures USD

Project

Name: Riverbend Community Recreation Centre — New Construction

Sector: Municipal / institutional, GC tender

Electrical value (est.): $1,900,000–$2,300,000 USD

Documents reviewed: 23 (drawings, spec divisions 00/01/26/27/28, 2 addenda, estimate, 4 quotes)

Executive decision

Recommendation: bid, with the qualifications listed in the findings — the wiring-method conflict and site-lighting ownership must be resolved by RFI or carried as qualified exclusions before submission.

6.4/10Bid / no-bid
78/100Doc completeness
82%Confidence

Panel schedules for the aquatic hall were not included in the package; branch-circuit findings in that area are limited to what the one-line and spec support.

Code basis

Jurisdiction: Riverbend (fictional), USA · AHJ: County electrical inspections office

Code: NEC via state adoption

Edition (likely): NEC 2020 — state adoption cycle (85%). The enforced edition is not named in the documents.

Edition-delta scope flags

  • GFCI expansion since NEC 2017 affects receptacle counts in the natatorium and kitchen if a newer edition governs.
  • Surge protection (230.67) becomes a base-bid requirement under NEC 2020+ for the service — not visible in the estimate.

Verify the enforced edition + amendments with the AHJ before relying on code-driven findings.

Findings (8)

RFIs (5)

RFI-01 · P1

Confirm the enforced NEC edition and any local amendments for this project — the documents do not name it.

Cost impact $15,000–$40,000 · Affects GFCI, SPD, and EVSE scope

RFI-02 · P1

Spec 26 05 33 (EMT throughout) conflicts with drawing note E-002/7 (MC permitted in partitions). Confirm which governs for pricing.

Cost impact $38,000–$74,000 · Blocks branch rough-in pricing

RFI-03 · P1

Confirm responsibility for utility transformer pad, grounding grid, and secondary conduit shown on E-101 one-line note 4.

Cost impact $24,000–$61,000 · Schedule: affects service energization

RFI-04 · P2

Site lighting on C-401 has no corresponding E-series sheet. Confirm whether site lighting is in the electrical contract.

Cost impact $18,000–$32,000

RFI-05 · P2

Confirm the wage determination attachment referenced in Division 00 — it is not included in the issued documents.

Cost impact $45,000–$90,000 · Blocks labour pricing

Value engineering

  • Aluminum feeders for the 400A+ runs to the mechanical penthouse, if the spec's copper-only clause can be relaxed saves $22,000–$34,000 USD · risk: spec 26 05 19 currently requires copper
  • Fixture package alternates for the gymnasium high-bays meeting the specified photometrics saves $8,000–$15,000 USD · risk: submittal rejection if “or equal” is enforced narrowly

Missing information

  • Panel schedules for the aquatic hall (referenced on E-601 but not issued).
  • Prevailing-wage determination referenced in Division 00 but not attached — labour basis cannot be confirmed.
  • Geotechnical report — duct-bank trenching assumptions in the estimate are unverifiable without it.

Now run it on a real package — yours.

Your first review is free, no card required. Most reviews are back in 5–15 minutes.

Start a free review