To compare commercial maintenance proposals fairly, put them on the same footing first: same equipment list, same task lists, same visit frequency, same response definitions and same reporting. Then look for red flags such as vague scope or missing exclusions, ask each contractor the same questions, and score on a short list of weighted criteria. Cheapest-looking proposals are often the least complete ones.
- Proposals are only comparable after you give every bidder the same equipment list and the same questions.
- Line up scope content before anything else. A shorter document is not a smaller scope unless the content matches.
- Red flags usually sit in what is missing: no equipment list, no task detail, no exclusions, no reporting.
- A simple weighted score keeps the decision about fit and risk, not about whichever proposal arrived first.
- Ask every bidder to explain what happens on the first bad day. Their answer tells you more than the brochure does.
Why proposals rarely line up on their own
Three contractors can walk the same property and return three documents that look nothing alike. One lists each unit by tag. One describes "quarterly service of all HVAC." One bundles refrigeration in, one leaves it out. Without a common frame, you end up comparing formatting, tone and the confidence of the salesperson rather than the service itself.
The cure is to do the framing yourself. Hand every bidder the same equipment schedule, the same site access information and the same list of questions, then ask them to respond to that. This page shows how. It assumes you have read what a complete scope looks like in the master maintenance scope structure and the terms in contract terms, response times and exclusions.
The matrix: what to line up
Build a simple grid with one column per bidder and one row per item below. Fill it in from the proposals, and leave a cell empty where the proposal is silent. Empty cells are information.
| Item to line up | Why it matters | How to read the answer |
|---|---|---|
| Equipment covered | Defines what is and is not maintained. | Is every unit on your list named? Are any left out or called "as needed"? |
| Task lists | Shows what a visit physically involves. | Are tasks written as actions by equipment type, or just a general description? |
| Visit frequency and timing | Drives how much attention each asset gets. | Is frequency tied to equipment groups and named seasons or months? |
| Consumables and parts | Determines what is covered and what is billed on top. | Are filters, belts and cleaning materials stated? How are replacement parts handled? |
| Refrigerant handling | A regulated item that affects cost and records. | Is it included, billed or silent? Who tracks leak records? |
| Response definitions | Sets expectations on a bad day. | Are tiers defined by consequence, and what counts as a response? |
| After-hours | Often where the real difference sits. | Which days and hours, staffed or answering service, included or separate? |
| Repair authorization | Controls speed and spend on findings. | Is there a written threshold and a process for urgent work? |
| Reporting and records | Decides what you can prove later. | What do you receive after each visit and in what format? |
| Exclusions | Reveals risk you would otherwise carry. | Is there a list, and what is the path for anything outside it? |
| Term, renewal, cancellation | Controls your flexibility. | Dates, notice periods and automatic renewal language. |
| Who performs the work | Affects accountability. | Own employees or subcontractors? Which trades, if any, are handled by others? |
Red flags worth slowing down for
- No equipment list. A proposal for "your HVAC" without naming units cannot be held to anything.
- Task descriptions that are all adjectives. "Comprehensive inspection" and "full service" mean nothing without actions.
- No exclusions at all. That usually means they are in the fine print or will be invented later.
- Response promises without definitions. A number attached to no named tier is decoration.
- Reporting described as available on request. If records are not part of the visit, they will not exist when you need them.
- Unlimited everything. Coverage that sounds unlimited generally has limits somewhere you have not yet read.
- Evasive answers on who does the work. Ask directly. Davinci's mechanical, refrigeration and controls work is performed by its own UA Local 250 crew with no subcontractors, and any bidder should be able to answer that question as plainly.
- Pressure to sign quickly without a walk of the property.
None of these is automatically disqualifying, but each should prompt a question. A proposal that has not been walked on site is a guess, and a guess is not comparable with a proposal that has.
Questions to ask every bidder
Send the same questions to all bidders in writing, and compare the answers side by side. The list below is a starting point.
- Walk me through the first scheduled visit. What will be done, in what order, and what will I receive afterward?
- How are equipment records created and kept, and can I see them at any time?
- Describe the last time a unit failed between visits. How was the call handled, from first phone call to repair?
- How are findings sorted into fix now, quote for approval and monitor?
- What is the contractor's license number, and who holds it? What coverage do you carry, and can you supply certificates?
- Which trades do your own employees perform, and which do you hire out?
- How do you handle refrigerant additions and leak records?
- What do you need from me to make this work, and what happens when a visit is blocked?
- How do you handle renewals, and can the scope be changed at renewal?
- If we outgrow or dislike this agreement, how does it end?
Pay attention to how specific the answers are. A contractor that has done this often will answer with process. One that has not will answer with reassurance. The guide to choosing a commercial HVAC contractor adds qualification checks that sit alongside these.
A simple scoring approach
A scoring sheet does not need to be elaborate. Choose five to seven criteria that reflect what you care about, decide how much each matters, score each proposal against each criterion on a small fixed scale, and add it up. The goal is not mathematical precision. It is to force the conversation to be about the same things for every bidder.
- Scope completeness: how fully the proposal covers your equipment and tasks.
- Clarity of terms: whether response, authorization and exclusions are defined.
- Documentation: what records you will receive and how accessible they are.
- Technical depth: evidence of root-cause diagnostics rather than part swapping, shown in how they describe findings.
- Fit with your operation: experience with your property type and scheduling constraints.
- Accountability: who performs the work and who answers when something goes wrong.
- Commercial terms: after comparing scope, how the proposal's commercial structure sits with your budget process.
Put commercial terms last, deliberately. Once scope is matched, a commercial comparison is meaningful; before that, it is just a comparison of unlike things. If you operate multiple properties, the multi-site and portfolio maintenance programs page covers how scoring changes when consistency across sites becomes a criterion.
Proposals must respond to the attached Equipment Schedule (Exhibit A) and Questions (Exhibit C). Bidders must identify any equipment they propose to exclude, any work they propose to perform through others, and the response tiers and reporting they will provide.