Assessment & decision brief · Example 01
Approximately $275,000 Commercial Facility Improvement Review
A practical review of scope, responsibilities, and the next decision before contract award.
Everything in this scenario is invented to show the deliverable format. It is not a Hewnigan client, claimed project, result, or savings figure. The $275,000 is an approximate fictional combined proposal value, not a verified estimate, Hewnigan fee, or recommended budget. No site visit or technical investigation is represented.
1. Situation and review boundary
A business is planning exterior repairs, drainage work, access/security improvements, electrical coordination, and interior restoration. Several vendor proposals describe different assumptions, exclusions, and sequences.
Decision: Is the owner ready to compare and award the work? Review basis: invented proposal excerpts and an owner brief. This example reviews written scope only. Field conditions, cause of damage, design adequacy, pricing, code compliance, permit requirements, and vendor capability remain unverified.
2. Decision brief
Recommended next decision: Obtain the missing investigation and written scope clarifications before treating the proposals as comparable. Do not infer that the lowest combined number includes a complete project.
- First: Establish the drainage/exterior requirement with the appropriate qualified provider; current repair scopes rely on it but exclude it.
- Next: Assign electrical/access interfaces and mark restoration boundaries. Possible duplication should be clarified, not counted as savings.
- Then: Normalize base work, alternates, owner obligations, access constraints, and predecessor tasks.
3. Normalized scope matrix
| Work interface | Example proposal information | Unresolved issue | Next clarification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drainage / exterior repairs | Exterior repair proposal assumes drainage is corrected; drainage work is excluded. | No complete enabling scope. | Owner to commission the required investigation and define correction before award. |
| Electrical enabling work | Access vendor assumes power and pathways; electrical proposal excludes access-control connections. | Trade interface unresolved. | Electrical and access vendors to identify circuits, pathways, terminations, and testing responsibilities. |
| Interior restoration | Repair and interior proposals both include part of the finish restoration. | Possible overlap, not proven savings. | Vendors to mark exact repair areas and restoration boundaries. |
| Access / security | Hardware, wiring, and programming appear in separate proposals. | No complete responsibility for the assembled system. | Owner to name the integration lead and require a written interface and test plan. |
| Schedule / access | Each proposal lists its own duration; predecessor work and outage windows are not identified. | Durations are not a coordinated project schedule. | Vendors to identify dependencies; owner to approve operating and access constraints. |
| Owner items / alternates | Owner-furnished items and permit responsibilities differ; some alternates do not identify the base work replaced. | Comparison remains incomplete. | Separate base scope, alternates, allowances, owner tasks, and responsibility for any required approvals. |
4. Eight vendor clarification questions
- Exterior / drainage: What investigation is needed to establish the water path and drainage correction before exterior repairs are defined?
- Exterior vendor: Exactly which interfaces, substrates, preparation, and concealed conditions are included or excluded?
- Electrical and access vendors: Who supplies power, pathways, wiring, terminations, and coordinated system testing?
- Access vendor: Who is responsible for hardware compatibility, programming, commissioning, and the handoff to the owner?
- Repair and interior vendors: Which specific areas does each restore, and where does one scope end and the next begin?
- All vendors: What work must precede your work, and what outages, occupied-space protections, or access windows do you require?
- All vendors: Which owner-furnished items, allowances, investigations, and permit or approval responsibilities are assumed?
- All vendors: What does each alternate add, omit, or replace in the base proposal, and how will changes be documented?
5. Sequencing and owner decisions
- Owner: arrange the required drainage/building-envelope investigation and decide the operating, access, and outage constraints.
- Appropriate providers: define the enabling work, any required design or approvals, and a complete written scope. Determine the sequence from verified requirements; this report does not direct construction.
- Vendors: return written clarifications covering trade interfaces, restoration limits, base scope, alternates, allowances, and owner responsibilities.
- Hewnigan, if engaged: update the comparison and open-item log, then identify the questions still preventing an informed award decision.
- Owner: select and contract the providers, approve spending and changes, and decide whether further coordination support is useful.
6. Milestone handoff
The review milestone ends with a clarified scope matrix, an unresolved-risk list, the vendor questions and responses, dependency notes, and an owner-decision list. Investigation, design, repairs, field supervision, site safety, cost certification, and verification of completed work are outside this example. No repair date, final cost, savings, or successful outcome is established.
Property-owner application
The same review method applies to a major residential renovation, difficult property problem, or new-build decision: compare what is actually included, expose gaps and assumptions, clarify who owns each responsibility, and give the owner a clean decision list.
An assessment or review can stand alone. Any continued support has a separately agreed milestone, scope, fee, and timing.