Every takeoff we can check against a public agency's own published quantities,
including the lines we got wrong.
We publish the misses because a record without them is an advertisement. Each source
below is a public document — the same numbers are available to you, and the comparison can be re-run.
State DOT bridge replacement — round 2, re-measured blind
Compared 2026-10-02 · 31 pay items scored of 55 in the tabulation · same set, same tabulation as round 1
24 of 31 within ±15% — of those, 19 within ±1% (round 1: 21 of 32, 18 within ±1%)
Two months after round 1 we measured the same three bridge sites again with the pipeline we sell today. The agency's own quantity sheets were removed from the file before any measuring began, so they could not be read even by mistake. Every sheet of the set was offered this time - round 1 had limited each site to the sheets we expected to need. The item mapping was written after measuring, from line names only; no quantity was changed to fit it.
What moved since round 1
Riprap, all three sites: 1,489 vs 1,607 CY (-7.3%) — round 1 missed it by 75% because the extent was not dimensioned; this round measured the drawn areas.
Pier caps and columns (13.8 and 9.8 CY) — exact; round 1 reported them as insufficient because the standard sheets were outside the list it could read.
Safety end treatments: 4 of 4 — round 1 found 2.
Delineators and object markers: 24 + 40 + 2, all exact.
Matched
Drilled shafts, all three diameters — 124 / 216 / 186 LF, exact
Prestressed girder TX28 300 vs 298 LF · slab beam 5SB12 500 vs 492 LF
Both bridge decks — 1,950 SF and 2,600 SF, exact · T223 rail 646 LF, exact
Abutment concrete 58.2 vs 59.2 CY · armor joint 53.8 vs 50.7 LF
Guardrail 437.5 LF, transitions 12, end treatments 6, downstream anchors 6 — all exact
Bridges removed 2 · mobilization 1
Missed — and why
EXCAV (ROADWAY) and EMBANK-100% — The set has no cross-sections, and our contour reader could not read the elevations off these scanned grading sheets. All three sites wrote SOURCE INSUFFICIENT rather than a number. Still missed, as in round 1.
BARRICADES-100% — No sheet states the contract duration (16 months in the tabulation). Carried as insufficient this time instead of a one-month placeholder.
RC PIPE (48 IN)-28.1% — 81.3 vs 113 LF. The plan prints 113 LF; we kept our own measurement over the printed figure, which breaks our own rule that a printed dimension wins. Our error; since 2 Oct 2026 the pipeline refuses a line that overrides a quantity the drawing prints for it.
CEM STABIL BKFL-51.6% — Two sites found only "varies" on the standard sheet and reported insufficient; the third read its table.
REMOV STR (PIPE)-38.8% — 131 vs 214 LF, as in round 1: the drawings contradict themselves and neither figure matches the agency's.
WIRE FENCE-70% — 30 vs 100 LF; found at one site of three.
What this does not prove
Round 2 is not a controlled experiment against round 1: the tools, the agents and the sheet access all changed together, and the same people built both mappings. It proves nothing about pricing. 15 of the 46 mapped items were quantities the drawings printed and we copied, so they are excluded from the score rather than counted as wins.
State DOT bridge replacement — round 1
Compared 2026-08-02 · 32 pay items scored of 55 in the tabulation
21 of 32 within ±15% — of those, 18 within ±1%
The full 119-sheet set was taken off blind — the sheets carrying the agency's own quantities were withheld from the agents — then compared line by line against the published bid tabulation. The item mapping is ours and is open to argument: a different mapping gives different numbers.
Matched
Drilled shafts, all three diameters (18/24/36 in) — 124 / 216 / 186 LF, exact
Guardrail transitions, end treatments and downstream anchors — counts exact
Missed — and why
RIPRAP-75% — Two of the three sites reported the source as insufficient for the riprap extent: thickness and slope are printed, the boundary is not dimensioned. This is a coverage gap wearing the clothes of a measurement error.
SET (TY II)-50% — We found two; the agency pays for four. The 48 in pipe and its end treatments sit on sheets outside the list we allowed the site to read.
REMOV STR (PIPE)-38.8% — 131 vs 214 LF. The site that measured it had already flagged that the drawings contradict themselves — the removal note says 131 LF while the profile shows 49.4 LF. Neither figure matches the agency's.
BARRICADES-93.8% — 1 vs 16 months. No sheet in the set states the contract duration, so we carried one month as a placeholder and said so rather than guessing a number.
What this does not prove
It proves nothing about pricing — this job was measured, not priced. It does not prove completeness: 16 of the 48 mapped items were quantities the drawings themselves printed and we copied, so they are excluded from the score rather than counted as wins.
Limits we created ourselves
Seven items where we produced no number came mostly from a decision of ours, not a failure of measurement: we restricted which sheets each site could read, to control cost and to keep the answer sheets out of view. The pier, cap and column concrete dimensions live on standard sheets outside that list, so all three sites correctly reported the source as insufficient rather than inventing a dimension.
Checks that proved nothing
Listed because leaving them out would make the record look better than it is.
School district bid results (totals only) — The published document gives bid totals per bidder and no line-item quantities, so a difference in total cannot tell a measurement error apart from a pricing one. Listed here because leaving it out would make this record look better than it is.
Barracks renovation — blind prediction — Line-level quantities (MO tabs are lump sum); winner's margin. One job is one sample either way.
Park cabins — blind prediction — See above.
Laboratory HVAC replacement — blind prediction — See above.
Dining facility — blind prediction — It does not prove our quantities are right. The award proves what the market charged for this building, and our cost band comes from a published per-SF rate, not from our own measured lines — 103 of 236 of which carry no rate at all. A band that lands could land for the wrong reason: the rate could be right while a quantity is wrong, and the two errors cannot be separated from the outside. What the quantities themselves are worth can only be shown by somebody re-measuring the same drawings, which has never happened yet.