Roof Recommendation Memo

Roof Recommendation Memo

You are drafting the memo the owner (or their board/council) will read to authorize award. The memo must be decision-ready: clear recommendation in the first paragraph, defensible rationale, risks named with mitigations, and award conditions that protect the owner.

Reference Material

• fixtures/domain_knowledge/03_tender_evaluation_methodology.md §5 — recommendation memo structure
• fixtures/domain_knowledge/04_contractor_qualification.md §6 — BPS disclosure requirements (if applicable)

Preconditions

Manifest must have:

• comparison.recommended_bidder_id populated (from scoring)
• All ranked bids have scores.weighted_total and scores.rank
• Red flags consolidated on each bid

Working From a Deterministic Baseline

The /roof-review command runs scripts/render_memo.py before invoking this skill, which writes a mechanical baseline to <manifest-dir>/../recommendation_memo.md. Your job is refinement, not regeneration:

• Read the baseline first. Do not rewrite sections that are already correct.
• Polish §1 Recommendation — the auto-generated prose is accurate but terse; tighten for owner tone.
• Trim and reorder §5 Award Conditions — the renderer lists every needs_clarification gate plus every medium/high red flag, which can exceed what an owner memo should surface. Consolidate related conditions, prioritize critical ones, cut low-value clarifications.
• Leave §3 Scoring, §4 Compliance, §6 Risk, §7 Contract Form, §8 Next Steps alone unless the data is wrong. These are mechanical and the renderer already handled them.
• Add §2 Why-Not-Low-Bid depth only if the recommended bid is NOT the low compliant bid; the renderer's default prose is generic.

If no baseline exists (e.g., the command was run without step 5, or the renderer failed), draft from scratch using the procedure below.

Drafting Procedure

1. Identify the recommended bid. Use comparison.recommended_bidder_id. This is the highest weighted score among compliant bids.

2. Why-not-low-bid analysis. If the recommended bid is NOT the lowest compliant bid, you must explain. Locate the lowest compliant bid and articulate the reasoning against three lenses:

   • Technical differentiation (warranty tier, certified installer, cover board, etc.)
   • Qualification differentiation (references, years, certifications)
   • Risk differentiation (red flags on the low bid, price spread vs normal range)
   • Acknowledge the price premium percentage and justify with concrete value received

3. Award conditions. Assemble from:

   • Every needs_clarification gate on the recommended bid → "Prior to contract execution, bidder to provide written confirmation of..."
   • Every medium-severity red flag on the recommended bid → "Prior to contract execution, clarify..."
   • Standard conditions (add these on every award memo regardless of bid specifics):
     • WSIB clearance re-verification at clearances.wsib.ca within 7 days of contract signing — the PDF attached to the bid is presumptive but not authoritative per WSIB policy. Record the verification reference number in the contract file.
     • Statutory 10% holdback under Ontario Construction Act
     • Monthly progress certification
     • Substantial performance declaration at 97% per Construction Act s. 2
     • Manufacturer inspection within 30 days of substantial performance
   • If BPS owner: AODA training confirmation, French-language service capability where applicable

4. Risk assessment. Populate a risk table. For each significant risk, assign likelihood (low/med/high), impact (low/med/high), and mitigation. Typical risks:

   • Weather delay during tear-off phase (mitigation: staging plan, tarping protocol)
   • Wood deck replacement exceeding allowance (mitigation: unit price in bid, site review before tear-off)
   • Tenant/occupant disruption on occupied buildings (mitigation: communication plan, work hours restrictions)
   • Change orders from discovered conditions (mitigation: allowance for unforeseen, owner's rep reviews each)
   • Contractor insolvency during project (mitigation: performance bond, L&M bond, payment holdback)

5. Contract form recommendation.

   • OBC Part 3, value >$500K: CCDC 2 (2020)
   • OBC Part 3, value ≤$500K: CCA-1 stipulated price (2021)
   • OBC Part 9, residential: simple stipulated-price contract
   • Per fixture 03 §1

6. Render the template. Populate templates/recommendation_memo.md with manifest values. Write to <manifest-dir>/../recommendation_memo.md.

Voice & Tone

• First paragraph: unambiguous recommendation with contract price. No hedging.
• Second paragraph forward: defensible rationale, not marketing copy.
• Risk section: name risks plainly; owners distrust polished memos that pretend nothing can go wrong.
• No em dashes (owner memos read as formal; use semicolons or new sentences).
• Dollar amounts with comma separators. Percentages to one decimal.

BPS Note

If project.owner_type is municipal, school_board, hospital, or other_bps:

• Recommendation section must cite compliance with BPS Procurement Directive (fixture 04 §6)
• Add a disclosure paragraph confirming the procurement was conducted openly, fairly, and competitively

Output

• recommendation_memo.md at <manifest-dir>/../recommendation_memo.md

Summary to User

• Recommended bidder + contract price (incl. HST)
• Whether recommendation is the low compliant bid or a premium (with %)
• Top 3 award conditions
• Top 3 risks with mitigations
• File path