Site work is the trade where the drawings and the ground disagree most often, and the bid is only as good as the assumptions behind it. Cut/fill balances, compaction specs and haul distances look like clean quantities on paper, but each one is a statement about subsurface conditions the drawings can't actually verify — which is why the geotechnical report matters more here than on almost any other trade's tender, and why it's so often read less carefully than the civil drawings sitting next to it.
This is a working list of where site work scope actually gets decided, built from what shows up across real Canadian ICI tenders — not a civil engineering primer, a list of the specific clauses and assumptions worth verifying before the number leaves the office.
What's reliably yours
- 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 in this article is what those two numbers don't tell you.
- Site services — storm, sanitary and water within the property line per Division 33. Extract the tie-in points and the building-line handoff specifically, since 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. This is a duty with a duration attached to it, not a one-time installation, and pricing it as a single line item misses the maintenance obligation that runs for 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 to this scope rather than to the general contractor.
Where the fight actually happens
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 actually 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 determination 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 be defending 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 rather than a permitted discharge system running the length of a below-grade pour sequence. Extract 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 item tied to that schedule, not a contingency line.
The other half: what isn't yours, even when it looks close
- Building excavation handoff per the documents — where building 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. Extract the exact line, in writing, rather than inferring it from the drawings.
- Utility company work — utility-side services and their fees follow the utility's own rules, not the spec's. What you price is the demarcation point and any charges the tender assigns to the contractor on the customer side of it.
- Survey and layout where by others — control and layout are frequently the general contractor's or owner's responsibility rather than site work's. Re-staking costs after a busy earthwork schedule disturbs control points land somewhere, and "somewhere" needs an assigned party before it becomes a dispute.
Five things that hide outside the grading plan
- The geotechnical report, in full. Soil classifications, groundwater conditions, bearing capacity and reuse suitability make this 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 on 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 specification, not the grading plan — a retest obligation with no assigned payer is a common, expensive gap.
- Import/export and haul assumptions. The documents' stated cut/fill balance, disposal site, and haul distance assumptions are exactly that — assumptions — and the margin on a bid often comes down to how well they match the actual ground once excavation starts.
- Topsoil quantities and reuse. Strip depths, stockpile locations, and reuse-versus-import decisions for landscaping are sometimes stated in two places that don't agree — worth reconciling before pricing either quantity.
- Permits, approvals and their durations. ESC permits, road cut and occupancy permits, and dewatering discharge approvals carry both cost and schedule dependency; a longer approval lead time than the schedule assumes is a risk that belongs in the bid, not a surprise at mobilization.
Who you're actually sharing the site with
| 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 actually 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. |
The pass that catches most of this
Read the geotechnical report as carefully as the civil drawings, because on most site work tenders it's the document actually deciding your risk, not the one deciding your quantities. Then chase down 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 come out of a site work job after the ground has already been moved.