A bid package carrying hidden ambiguity produces change orders, claims, and schedule slips after award — on the public record, with public money. An independent read of your documents before they go to market surfaces that risk while it is still fixable.
Request a reviewVague scope invites change orders. Silent responsibility boundaries invite disputes. Unanswered c.149 questions invite protests. By the time these surface during construction, the remedies are expensive, adversarial, and public. The cheapest place to fix a bid document is before it is issued.
An independent, evidence-based read of your own package across eight dimensions of risk and biddability — so the ambiguity that would become a change order or a protest can be resolved by addendum instead.
Whether your package, budget posture, and administration are set up for a clean project before you commit them to a public procurement.
Where your documents force bidders to guess — the gaps that come back as inflated contingencies or post-award disputes.
The specific ambiguity most likely to generate post-award cost growth, with the exposure sized as a range.
Risk-shifting and inequitable clauses that make disputes more likely and harder to defend on the public record.
Duration, phasing, and occupancy assumptions that bidders will challenge — or silently price around.
Cross-discipline conflicts and undefined trade boundaries that become RFIs, change orders, and finger-pointing.
Allowances, unit prices, and funding structures reviewed for clarity and fairness before they reach the street.
Where a schedule slip converts into prolonged overhead — and a supplemental appropriation you didn't plan for.
Nemesis is our proprietary analysis engine — an independent, consistent, and documented method. It applies the same discipline to every package, so your review is defensible and free of individual bias.
A deterministic takeoff reads every drawing sheet for scale, dimensions, and geometry. Sheets that can't be quantified are flagged — because a bidder can't price what isn't defined.
The full package is read against a library of risk-language patterns and 45 Massachusetts c.149 clarification items — every finding cited to the exact spec, sheet, or phrase.
Findings are scored against outcomes from 33 real Massachusetts projects. Only the material, non-obvious ones ship — a tight, defensible record you can act on and stand behind.
Send documents to market that bidders can price with confidence — and receive bids you can award with confidence. Reduce the change orders, claims, and delays that erode public budgets and public trust.
Talk to us about your project