These are actual reviews we ran on live bid specs. Company names changed. Dollar amounts real.
These examples are from elevator projects. We review specs across elevator, electrical, mechanical, fire protection, and plumbing.
CASE STUDY 01 / MODERNIZATION
50-unit modernization. Traction and hydraulic. Full cab renovation. 4-year project timeline (2027-2030).
Pages
89
Findings
129
Exposure
$1.2M-$2.5M
Reviewed in
20 min
KEY FINDINGS
Contract Pricing — Page 1
Firm pricing, no labor escalation over 4 years
All pricing shall be firm and final. No adjustments allowed for labor increases. With 50 elevators over 4 years, labor cost increases of 3-5% annually compound fast. No mechanism to recover.
$200K-$500K in unrecoverable labor costs
Contract Pricing — Page 1
Turn-key code compliance, no change orders
All code compliance costs absorbed by contractor. No change orders allowed for code-related work. With 50 units across multiple jurisdictions, unforeseen code requirements are guaranteed.
$50K-$200K exposure
Schedule Risk — Page 12
Liquidated damages: $1,000 per day per elevator
$1,000 per calendar day per elevator for any delay. On a 50-unit project, that is $50,000 per day of total exposure. No force majeure protection for union contract expiration mid-project.
$50,000/day total exposure
Contract Pricing — Page 83
After-hours work required at no additional cost
All disruptive work must be performed after hours at no additional cost to the owner. Premium time adds 50-100% to labor costs. On a 4-year project with 50 units, this shifts massive labor cost to the contractor.
50-100% labor premium absorbed
Equipment Specification
Gearless and MRL machines, no approved alternates
Spec called for gearless and machine-room-less machines with no approved alternates. Sole-source equipment on a 50-unit project creates lead time and pricing risk. MRL runs 20-25% more than conventional.
15-25% equipment premium
Financial — Page 11
5% retainage held until consultant punch list
Retainage release depends on consultant's punch list completion, not substantial completion. On a $5M+ contract, that is $250K+ held at the end of the project with no defined timeline for release.
$250K+ tied up in retainage
129 findings total. Issues across contract language, scheduling, equipment specs, code compliance, doors and entrances, cab finishes, and sequencing. 24 were critical risk items.
The original review covered the major scope items. Ours went through all 89 pages in 20 minutes and found $1.2M-$2.5M in exposure that was buried in the details.
CASE STUDY 02 / SERVICE
250+ unit service contract. 4 regions. Equipment from 1963-2026. Multi-year term.
Pages
42
Findings
69
Portfolio
250+ units
Regions
4
Review Time
<15 min
KEY FINDINGS
Contract Language — Page 3
Incumbent termination poison pill
Submitting this bid allows the owner to terminate your existing contracts on other properties at will, with no penalties, regardless of remaining term. If you have 2 years remaining at $500K/year on other properties, you lose $1M in revenue just by bidding.
$1M+ in existing contract revenue at risk
Contract Language — Page 6
Unlimited scope clause
Any work not specifically mentioned but required to achieve the 'level of maintenance intended' shall be performed at no additional cost. The owner can argue any maintenance activity is 'intended' even if not listed in the spec.
$10K-$50K+ per dispute, unlimited occurrences
Contract Pricing — Page 9
One-way price adjustment
If you reduce maintenance hours, contract price decreases by the same percentage. But if equipment requires more hours, no price increase allowed. On a $2M/year contract, reducing 10% of hours loses $200K in revenue. Increasing 10% of hours, you absorb the cost.
Asymmetric pricing risk on $2M/year contract
Staffing — Page 6
Supervisor visit minimums across 4 regions
Semi-annual supervisor visits required for 250+ units across 4 regions. At 50+ buildings, that is 100+ supervisor site visits per year. Supervisor labor at $120-150/hr, 2-4 hours per visit including travel.
$24K-$60K/year in supervisor labor
Equipment — Page 12
Unlimited repair and replacement, 1963-2026 equipment
Contractor responsible for repair and replacement of all equipment. Portfolio includes units from 1963 to 2026 with 8 different manufacturers. Single controller replacement runs $20K-$40K. Single machine replacement $30K-$60K.
Catastrophic replacement liability
Equipment — Page 17
Obsolescence risk across multi-manufacturer portfolio
Portfolio spans Otis, Fujitec, MCE, TKE, Schindler, KONE, Mitsubishi, and Dover equipment. 50+ units over 20 years old. Single controller board replacement or upgrade runs $15K-$50K per unit.
$750K-$2.5M in potential upgrades over contract term
69 findings in under 15 minutes. Your team would need a full day to get through the same analysis on a portfolio this complex. The complexity wasn't in the page count. It was in the interaction between staffing requirements, regional logistics, equipment age, and contract terms that compound across a 250+ unit portfolio.
The review caught contract language that creates one-way financial exposure, an incumbent termination trap that risks $1M+ in existing revenue, and unlimited replacement obligations on equipment dating back to 1963. Not just what the words say, but what they cost.
CASE STUDY 03 / NEW INSTALL
12-unit new install. Machine-room-less traction. 18-story hotel. Design-build delivery.
Pages
56
Findings
47
Units
12
Exposure
$380K-$720K
Review Time
<20 min
KEY FINDINGS
Equipment Specification — Page 14
MRL specified but control space HVAC not in mechanical scope
Machine-room-less elevators require dedicated HVAC in the control space at the top of the hoistway. Spec calls for MRL traction on all 12 units but the mechanical scope has no provision for control space cooling. If it falls to the elevator contractor, that is $3K-$5K per unit.
$36K-$60K in unpriced HVAC scope
Code Compliance — Page 22
Seismic requirements not addressed in structural
Project is in Seismic Design Category D. ASME A17.1 Section 8.4 requires seismic switches, rope retainers, and counterweight guards. Structural drawings show no seismic bracket provisions in the hoistway. Elevator contractor will need to coordinate and may absorb retrofit costs.
$8K-$15K per unit, $96K-$180K total
Contractor Scope — Page 31
Temporary elevator service during construction
Spec requires elevator contractor to provide temporary service elevator for construction use starting at month 6. Temporary service wears the car, tracks, and doors before the building is even occupied. Repair and restoration costs at turnover are contractor's responsibility.
$15K-$25K per unit in wear and restoration
Contract Pricing — Page 8
Allowance-based cab finishes, amounts undefined
Cab interior specifications reference a finish allowance but the amount is not defined in the bid documents. Architect's finish schedule not included. Elevator contractor is expected to carry an allowance with no basis for pricing.
$50K-$120K in undefined finish scope
Equipment Specification — Page 18
Destination dispatch specified, single manufacturer
Spec requires destination dispatch system with specific performance metrics that map to one manufacturer's proprietary system. No approved alternates listed. Single-source equipment on a 12-unit hotel creates pricing leverage for the OEM and lead time risk for the contractor.
15-20% premium over open-protocol systems
Schedule — Page 4
Substantial completion tied to hotel opening date
Liquidated damages tied to hotel opening, not elevator substantial completion. If any other trade delays the opening, elevator contractor is still exposed to LDs if their scope isn't 100% complete by that date. No sequencing protection in the contract.
$2,500/day LD exposure, no fault protection
47 findings in under 20 minutes. $380K-$720K in exposure your estimator would need half a day to piece together. New install specs hide risk differently than modernization or service. The exposure isn't in what the contract says explicitly. It's in what it assumes the elevator contractor will absorb: HVAC coordination, seismic compliance, temporary service wear, and finish allowances with no defined scope.
MRL installations compound this problem. The technology is newer, the coordination requirements are higher, and the spec writers often don't account for the mechanical and electrical requirements that MRL shifts from the machine room to the hoistway. That gap between what the spec says and what the installation actually requires is where unpriced scope lives.
Send us a spec from your next bid. First one is free.