I get a lot of questions during the bidding period on the jobs that I design; and I try to keep a fair and level playing field.
I tell the bidders that redesign and substitute 'may' be acceptable, but that waiving any part of the requirements during bidding wouldn't be fair to everyone.
I also tell them that they are welcome to submit 2 prices; 1 per plans and specs and 1 that assumes that their changes are acceptable.
I tell the Owner during the bid reviews that he needs to look at BOTH numbers in order to make up his mind who to award it to; and I walk him through it as best as I can. This has worked very well in the past as there is a reduced incentive to make unapproved changes while whining "but I didn't bid it that way".
BTW, I answer the whines by insisting that the subsequent Change Order meeting include a copy of the bid exclusions from the initial bid. If it was listed as being excluded, we'll talk about more money. If it wasn't excluded, we have a very short meeting. I've been in far too many situations where work was actually included but the Contractor was coming up short in his profits and tried to play games.
One major job that I did came to a screeching halt when the Architect (sometimes they're pretty sharp) asked if the Bid was 'plans & specs' and got a YES. Halfway throught the meeting the Contractor said that his substitution "met the Code and that's what we bid". The next question was from the Architect who asked "So did you bid plans & specs or did you bid Code-minimum? Which one of your conflicting statements was the lie?"
WOW! Talk about a deer-in-the-headlights look.
