This study measures how often three costly risk patterns appear in US commercial bid packages: liquidated damages without a stated cap, scope gaps that only surface when specs are read against drawings, and broad-form indemnity. The analysis is not final, so every figure on this page is an illustrative placeholder, not a finding.
Share of solicitations with LDs that state no cap.
PlaceholderShare of contracts with indemnity covering the owner's own negligence.
PlaceholderShare of packages with a gap found only by reading specs against drawings.
PlaceholderPreconstruction risk sits in language buried deep in the bid set: uncapped liquidated damages, broad-form indemnity, and scope gaps that only show when specs and drawings are read together. We found no public US benchmark for how often these patterns appear. This study is designed to build one.
Anonymized US commercial bid packages, aggregated only after identifying information is removed. Each finding is tagged against the standard text it departs from: AIA A201, ConsensusDocs, EJCDC or FAR 52.
US commercial bid packages, fully anonymized before aggregation. Sample size and period will be published with the final figures.
All CSI MasterFormat divisions, with extra attention to Divisions 03, 09, 22, 23 and 26.
Each finding cites the section and page in the source document and the standard clause it departs from.
A sample of findings is reviewed by people against the source documents before any figure is published. Reviewers will be named with the final results.
The table shows the patterns the study counts and how each will be reported. XX marks a placeholder, not a measured result.
| Pattern | Freq. | Risk level | Median exposure | Cites against |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liquidated damages, no stated cap | XX% | HIGH | $XXX,XXX | AIA A101-2017 § 4.5 |
| Broad-form indemnity covering owner negligence | XX% | MEDIUM | Variable, uncapped | AIA A201-2017 § 3.18 |
| Scope gap between specs and drawings | XX% | HIGH | $XXX,XXX | CSI MasterFormat |
| Pay-when-paid, no time stipulation | XX% | MEDIUM | XX-day cash flow gap | State prompt-pay statutes |
| Performance and payment bond at 100% | XX% | STANDARD | Expected, budget for it | FAR 52.228-15 |
| Retainage (retention) above 10%, no step-down | XX% | MEDIUM | XX% of contract sum | State retention caps |
Find the LD clause, the daily rate and the cap before you price. On AIA projects the rate sits in A101-2017 § 4.5, not in A201.
Dora flags LD clauses by default, checks whether a cap is stated, and cites the clause and page. See how Dora works.
Negotiate it down to the limited form A201-2017 § 3.18 uses. In Texas, Insurance Code chapter 151 voids most indemnity for the other party's own negligence; cite it in your redline.
Read specs against drawings division by division, then level sub bids to that scope. Nova flags the gaps no single sub bid shows.
Pay-when-paid with no time limit. Without a backstop, payment can stall while the owner disputes. In Texas, cite the Prompt Pay Act (Property Code chapter 28) in the subcontract redline.
The design uses anonymized US commercial bid packages from private, public and federal work. Identifying information is removed before analysis. Sources, sample size and period will be published with the final figures.
An uncapped LD clause can turn a thin margin into a loss when the schedule slips. It has to be caught before signature. Dora flags LD clauses by default.
The full dataset is private and anonymized to protect contributor identities. Aggregate statistics, methodology and per-finding summaries will be published openly once the study is final.
No. Findings are reviewed internally against the source documents before any figure is published. We welcome independent review and will publish corrections inline if methodology or findings need refinement.
Customer documents are processed in tenant-isolated environments on US infrastructure, encrypted in transit and at rest. We do not train models on customer data. SOC 2 Type II audit underway. Research datasets are anonymized before any aggregation.
Each pattern maps to the agent that checks for it on your own documents.
Reads the whole bid package, flags the risks with page cites, and drafts your Go/No-Go.
Read the agent → Dora Contract reviewChecks prime contracts and subcontracts against AIA and ConsensusDocs, and flags the clauses that shift risk to you.
Read the agent → Nova Bid levelingLevels sub bids to one scope and shows the gaps and unbalanced prices before you award.
Read the agent →