Pages analyzed
653
sample · K-12 environmental
Half Hollow Hills CSD
Oil Tank Replacements
Bid set BBS 25-263/264 · 653 pages · run 2026-05-19. Below is the actual BidLedger pipeline run output — what we found, what we rejected, what shipped in the brief.
Documents fingerprinted
8
Addenda reconciled
4
Atomic claims considered
3,315
Verbatim-verified
2,806
Rejected (no source match)
509
Findings shipped in brief
87
Brief pages
12
Material takeoff priced
$1.42M
End-to-end runtime
14s
what this bid was
Four schools, two bid packages, 653 pages of drawings, specs, and addenda.
Half Hollow Hills Central School District put out a pair of linked oil tank replacement bids (BBS 25-263/264) covering tank removal at Fran Greenspan Elementary, filter-store-transfer at the bus depot, a tank swap at HS West, and a potential add-alternate relocation within the district. The bid set runs 653 pages — drawings, project manual, prevailing-wage schedules, addenda, bid forms.
BidLedger ran the full pipeline against this set on 2026-05-19. Total wall-clock time: 14 seconds. The deliverables — a 12-page printable risk brief, a 5-sheet priced material takeoff totaling $1.42M, and a structured JSON sidecar — are the same artifacts a paying estimator would receive.
The pipeline does six things, in order: ingest and SHA-256-fingerprint every PDF; run deterministic probes for code references, deadlines, and CSI sections; do a multimodal pass on every drawing sheet; verify every AI finding word-for-word against its cited page; aggregate verified findings into the brief; and emit a priced material takeoff. The verifier is the moat — it's why this bid produced 87 defensible findings instead of 3,315 unranked plausible-sounding ones.
top findings
Four findings out of 87 shipped — ranked by cost impact.
Every quote below is verbatim from the source PDFs. The citation pinpoints sheet and page. Each finding shipped with a confidence score (1.0 deterministic, 0.9 verbatim, 0.7 whitespace-normalized) so a CTO can audit how the claim was matched.
Addendum #1 modifies bid date — submitting on bid-form date = rejected
BID-KILLER"the addendum date controls; if you submit on the bid-form date your bid will be rejected as late."
Addendum #1 · p. 1
Suffolk County DOH witness required at sampling, closure, and pre-backfill
+$8,400 risk"install tank and register per Title 6 NYCRR Parts 612, 613, and 614 and as per approval, inspections and labeling requirements of Suffolk County Department of Health Services."
Sheet M1.02 Tank Detail · p. 3
Mandatory shoring for all excavation — building & utility proximity
+$14,800 risk"contractor will be required to provide shoring for all excavation work due to the tanks proximity to the building and underground utilities."
M1.01 General Notes §8 · p. 2
Hazardous-waste prevailing-wage premiums apply to operators & laborers
+$22,300 risk"+$3.50/hr Class A Operating Engineer hazardous waste surcharge; +$2.56/hr Asbestos/Lead/Hazmat Laborer premium; +15% Carpenter Core Drilling hazardous waste differential."
PRC 2025013888 Suffolk · p. 21, 56, 163
what got rejected
509 claims thrown out before the brief shipped.
The LLM proposed 3,315 atomic factual claims across this bid set. The deterministic verifier checked each one word-for-word against the cited page. 2,806 matched. 509 did not — and those were permanently removed from the brief and logged to findings-rejected.jsonl with the original claim, the cited page, the search snippet, and the failure mode.
Common rejection patterns on this bid: paraphrased dates that were off by one business day from the controlling addendum; mentions of equipment models not on the cited sheet; wage rates that round-tripped a decimal place during extraction; and one entire fabricated paragraph the LLM hallucinated about Title 5 secondary containment that simply isn't in the source. None reached the printable brief. All are inspectable. That's the difference between “an AI read your bid” and “a citation-verified analysis of your bid.”
what we shipped
A 12-page brief, a 5-sheet takeoff, a JSON sidecar.
analysis-brief.pdf12 pages · 87 ranked findings · 184 KB · printable, no JS requiredanalysis.xlsx5 sheets · $1.42M priced · 412 KB · per-site breakdown, consolidated, formulas, VIF, assumptionsfindings.json87 records · 78 KB · fingerprints, citations, confidence, evidence snippets
send your next bid · free
We'll analyze it for free.
Email it over, or paste a shared link. Read by an estimator within 1 business day. If it earns its keep, $249 next time.
🔒 Confidential. Your bid never trains a model. We never sell or share bid data.