Contractor Quote Quality Scorer

You rate each bid on four areas: scope completeness, line-item transparency, materials/specification detail, and timeline clarity (each as a percentage). The tool combines these into two intermediate scores—Completeness (average of scope + line transparency) and Transparency (average of materials/spec + timeline)—then applies weighting to produce a final Quote Quality Score. If exclusions/assumptions are not disclosed, the score is reduced and red flags increase automatically.

This score assumes you’re judging bids for the same project scope—if contractors interpret the work differently, the ratings can be misleading. The tool also focuses on bid details (how much information you have), not whether the contractor’s pricing is “fair.” To get the most accurate result, rate what’s actually stated in the written bid, and be consistent across contractors.

A low score doesn’t always mean the contractor is unreliable, but it does mean the bid may be harder to compare. Treat any primary input below 50% as a red flag, and always pay attention when exclusions/assumptions aren’t clearly disclosed. If you see two or more red flags, the tool flags a high risk of hidden scope changes—pause and ask for a revised, like-for-like scope.

A quote can score poorly even if it’s the cheapest—commonly when line items are missing, materials aren’t specified, or the timeline is vague. If you set exclusions/assumptions to “no,” red-flag count increases automatically even when other sections look strong. When component scores are very spread out, the comparison gap highlights inconsistency—use that gap to target where to request clarifications.