Divisions 31, 32 and 33 look like the whole story: earthwork, exterior improvements, site services. On paper it's clean quantities — cut/fill balances, compaction specs, haul distances. Each of those numbers is really a statement about subsurface conditions the drawings can't verify, which is why the geotechnical report outranks the civil drawings on almost every site work tender, and why it gets read less carefully than it should.
Four divisions, and none of them are the problem
- Earthwork, complete — stripping, excavation, fill, grading and compaction per Division 31. The cut/fill balance and the compaction specifications together are effectively the bid; everything else here is what those two numbers don't tell you.
- Site services — storm, sanitary and water within the property line per Division 33. Pull the tie-in points and the building-line handoff specifically — that's the boundary where site work's underground scope meets the building's plumbing scope.
- Exterior improvements — asphalt paving, granular bases, curbs and sidewalks, fencing and landscaping per Division 32, as assigned by the documents on this particular tender.
- Erosion and sediment control — ESC measures, their maintenance, and their eventual removal. A duty with a duration attached, not a one-time installation; pricing it as a single line misses the maintenance obligation running the length of the earthwork schedule.
- Site fencing and gates — permanent chain-link and ornamental fencing with gates, hardware and operators per the fencing schedule: heights, fabric gauges and footing requirements, plus any temporary construction fencing the documents assign here rather than to the general contractor.
Four fights that decide the number
Rock excavation — the definition is the price
Rock is priced separately or by unit rate on almost every site work tender, and the dispute lives in three things: how the contract defines rock, how it's measured, and what the unit rate really is. A definition based on excavatability by a specific machine class produces a very different quantity than one based on a blast-line survey. Extract the definition and the measurement method before assuming a unit rate protects you — a fair rate against an unfavourable measurement method is still a loss.
Unsuitable material and contamination
Removal, disposal and replacement of unsuitable material is routinely allowed for with a quantity allowance and a unit rate, but the more consequential question is who decides what counts as unsuitable in the field. If that call sits with the geotechnical engineer rather than the contractor, disputes get resolved by a party with no financial stake in the outcome; if it's contractor-determined, you're pricing a judgment call you'll defend later. Extract both the allowance and the decision authority.
Dewatering — a program, not a pump
Incidental pumping is normal and rarely worth a separate line. Dewatering beyond that — discharge permits, filtration requirements, and a duration tied to the excavation schedule rather than a fixed period — is a program with its own cost curve, easy to underprice by picturing a sump pump instead of a permitted discharge system running the length of a below-grade pour sequence. Pull the discharge and permit requirements specifically; they're often a separate approval with their own lead time.
Winter conditions
Frost protection, ground heating and snow removal for the work area are seasonal costs the construction schedule decides, not the scope of work itself, so the same site work package can carry a materially different cost depending on which months the earthwork falls in. If the schedule has any chance of running into freezing conditions, price frost protection as a real line tied to that schedule, not a contingency.
What the grading plan doesn't settle
Three things sit next door to site work and get mistaken for it anyway. Building excavation handoff: where excavation ends and site work begins is a boundary the documents are supposed to draw explicitly, and both trades assuming the other owns the gap is the single most classic omission on a site package — get the exact line in writing, not inferred from the drawings. Utility company work: utility-side services and their fees follow the utility's own rules, not the spec's; price the demarcation point and whatever charges the tender assigns to the contractor on the customer side of it. Survey and layout: control and layout are frequently the general contractor's or owner's job rather than site work's, and re-staking costs after a busy earthwork schedule disturbs control points land somewhere — that "somewhere" needs an assigned party before it becomes a dispute.
And five things live outside the grading plan entirely. The geotechnical report, in full — soil classifications, groundwater conditions, bearing capacity and reuse suitability make it the real bid document on most site work tenders; every departure from what it describes, once excavation starts, is either a claim or a gap depending who catches it first. Compaction and testing requirements — Proctor percentages by zone, lift thicknesses, testing frequency, and who pays for failed tests and retests all live in the spec, not the grading plan; a retest obligation with no assigned payer is a common, expensive gap. Import/export and haul assumptions — the stated cut/fill balance, disposal site and haul distance are exactly that, assumptions, and margin often comes down to how well they match the ground once excavation starts. Topsoil quantities and reuse — strip depths, stockpile locations and reuse-versus-import decisions are sometimes stated in two places that don't agree. Permits, approvals and their durations — ESC permits, road cut and occupancy permits, dewatering discharge approvals; a longer lead time than the schedule assumes belongs in the bid, not as a surprise at mobilization.
Sharing the site
| Trade | What to reconcile before you price |
|---|---|
| Building foundation trades | The excavation handoff line, subgrade acceptance criteria, and who protects open excavations between site work and foundation work. |
| Utility trades and authorities | Tie-ins, inspections, shutdown windows, and any utility-company schedule dependencies outside your control. |
| Concrete and paving trades | Subgrade and granular acceptance before slabs and paving proceed — confirm the sign-off protocol the specs require. |
| Landscaping | Topsoil handoff — depth, quality and placement boundaries, so neither trade is guessing where the other's scope starts. |
| General contractor | Site logistics: access roads, laydown areas, ESC maintenance during other trades' work, and mud-tracking obligations off site. |
Read the geotechnical report as carefully as the civil drawings — on most site work tenders it decides your risk, not just your quantities. Then chase the rock definition, the unsuitable-material decision authority, and the excavation handoff line specifically: three clauses that are individually easy to skip and collectively responsible for most of the disputes that surface after the ground's already been moved.