Roof Technical Review

Roof Technical Review

You are evaluating whether the bid's proposed system will (a) meet the RFP specification, (b) comply with the Ontario Building Code, and (c) qualify for the warranty the contractor claims. Every finding cites an authoritative source.

Division of responsibility vs roof-qualification-check

This skill owns technical disqualification — gate fails caused by scope/materials/warranty/schedule failures that cannot be cured by clarification without a re-bid. roof-qualification-check owns administrative disqualification — WSIB/CGL/bonds/training/declarations where an applicability filter decides whether fail is even permitted.

The two skills must not fail the same bidder on the same underlying issue. If you notice a qualification-tier problem (certification lapsed, subcontractor undisclosed, WSIB missing), leave it for qualification-check. If qualification-check notices a technical-tier problem (wrong membrane thickness, missing cover board), it must leave it for this skill.

Technical Disqualification Gates

Emit a fail result into bid.mandatory_gates.<gate_name> only when the RFP-specified requirement cannot be met by the proposed bid and cannot be cured by clarification. These are the gates this skill owns:

Applicability gate (enforced by scripts/reconcile_gates.py): the "RFP authority" column is not advisory. The reconciler uses gate_applicability.is_gate_applicable() (tier rfp_scope) to confirm the RFP actually specified the requirement before allowing a fail. If the spec field is absent (e.g., the RFP never set warranty_type_required), demote your finding from fail to needs_clarification and capture the underlying concern as a red flag — the reconciler will reject the manifest otherwise.

When in doubt, prefer a red flag with recommendation: clarify over a gate fail. A gate fail excludes the bid from rated scoring entirely; a red flag informs scoring and the memo without foreclosing the bid. Only fail when no clarification can cure the issue without re-tendering.

Reference Material

Read only these fixtures — do not load 03_tender_evaluation_methodology.md or 04_contractor_qualification.md, which are owned by roof-qualification-check:

Treat these as ground truth — cite section numbers in your findings:

• fixtures/domain_knowledge/01_ontario_roofing_codes.md — OBC Part 3 (commercial) and Part 9 (residential), wind uplift, SB-10/SB-12 R-values, ventilation ratios
• fixtures/domain_knowledge/02_roofing_materials_warranties.md — membrane/shingle specs, warranty taxonomy, certified installer programs, red flags catalogue

Decision Order

1. Scope compliance. Does the bid propose the specified system or a substitution? If substitution, evaluate equivalence against the RFP and fixture 02.

2. Thickness & membrane class. For commercial single-ply: minimum 60 mil TPO/PVC for commercial per fixture 02 §1 — 45 mil is a red flag for commercial. For mod-bit: confirm 2-ply cap + base, not just cap sheet.

3. Attachment method. Matches RFP spec and manufacturer approved methods? Induction-welded over mechanically-fastened is an upgrade, not a deficiency; ballasted over wind-design-required is a deficiency.

4. Insulation & cover board. Is insulation R-value specified? Does it meet SB-10/SB-12 for the climate zone (fixture 01 §1.3)? For commercial over polyiso: is a cover board (HD polyiso, DensDeck, or gypsum fiber) included? Missing cover board = critical red flag (fixture 02 §4).

5. Warranty validity.

   • Years and type meet/exceed RFP requirement? (Match warranty_requirements in rfp.json)
   • Is the contractor certified by the named manufacturer for the warranty tier claimed? (Fixture 02 §3)
   • Any system component substitutions that would void the manufacturer system warranty? (Fixture 02 §4 — mis-matched components)
   • "25 year" without type specified = unclear from extraction → warranty red flag

6. Wind uplift basis. Commercial low-slope: bid should state the wind uplift design (CSA A123.21 or FM 1-29) basis. Missing = high-severity flag (fixture 01 §1.2).

7. Fall protection & safety. Bid describes fall arrest approach, anchor points (CSA Z91 compliance), guardrail vs tie-off for parapet work? Missing plan = safety red flag (fixture 01 §3).

8. Waste & environmental. Asphalt shingle disposal plan? If pre-1980 built-up roof, DSA / asbestos plan per O. Reg. 278/05 (fixture 01 §4)?

9. OBC Part 9 specifics (if residential).

   • Slope meets shingle minimum (4:12 asphalt)
   • Ice & water shield at eaves per OBC 9.26.5.1 (900mm past wall plane, 300mm past eave)
   • Ventilation 1:300 (or 1:150 without 60/40 split) per OBC 9.19.1.2
   • Drip edge, starter strip, 4-nail (or 6-nail high wind) fastening

Sub-Score Outputs

Produce raw sub-scores (0-100) for the two rated criteria this skill owns. Each is computed as the sum of sub-factor points, not a single anchor match. Record the per-sub-factor points in bid.scoring_rationale.<sub_score>.sub_factors so the audit trail shows the math.

technical_approach (sum of five sub-factors, max 100)

warranty_materials (sum of five sub-factors, max 100)

If the sum exceeds 100 due to downstream fixture changes, cap at 100 and note in scoring_rationale.

Red Flag Category Ownership

To prevent double-writing the same issue, each red_flags.category is owned by exactly one skill:

If you notice an issue that would fall under qualifications (e.g., certification lapsed, subcontractor undisclosed), leave it for roof-qualification-check — do not write it here.

Red Flag Output

Append to bid.red_flags[]:

{
  "severity": "critical|high|medium|low",
  "category": "warranty|materials|safety|scope|substitutions",
  "description": "brief human-readable issue",
  "citation": "OBC 9.26.5.1 | CRCA bulletin | fixture 02 §1.3",
  "evidence": "page reference from extraction + direct quote if short",
  "recommendation": "clarify|negotiate|reject|accept-with-condition"
}

Severity Calibration

Overriding rule: if a flag voids the warranty the contractor is claiming, fails the Ontario Building Code, or creates a worker/occupant safety hazard, it is critical — regardless of which bucket the example lists below suggest. Apply the rule first, then use the examples to calibrate.

• Critical: non-compliance voids warranty, fails OBC, or is a safety hazard. Examples: no cover board on commercial polyiso with NDL warranty claim; installer not certified for the warranty tier claimed; no fall protection plan on a parapet-less roof; 45 mil TPO proposed where RFP specified 60 mil (voids the spec and likely the NDL warranty); warranty type unclear when RFP required total_system_ndl (owner cannot confirm they are getting what they required).
• High: material deviation from RFP or industry best practice that does not void warranty/code/safety. Examples: wind uplift design basis not stated but implied; workmanship warranty below market median (2 years vs typical 5); substitution proposed with weak equivalence justification on a non-critical component.
• Medium: ambiguity worth clarifying. Examples: insulation R-value not explicitly stated but the proposed system implies compliance; substitution with partial justification on an accessory component.
• Low: cosmetic or documentation gaps. Examples: missing product data sheet for accessory materials; page references missing from bid index.

Sidecar Output File

Write your results to a sidecar JSON file so the qualification-check skill can run in parallel without clobbering your writes:

Path: <rfp-dir>/roof-review-output/manifests/bid_<slug>.tech.json

Shape:

{
  "bidder_id": "<same as base bid manifest>",
  "mandatory_gates": { "<technical_gate_name>": { "result": "...", "evidence": "..." } },
  "scores": {
    "technical_approach": <0-100>,
    "warranty_materials": <0-100>
  },
  "scoring_rationale": {
    "technical_approach": { "sub_factors": { "...": <points> } },
    "warranty_materials": { "sub_factors": { "...": <points> } }
  },
  "red_flags": [
    { "severity": "...", "category": "scope|materials|warranty|safety|substitutions", ... }
  ]
}

Do NOT touch the base bid_<slug>.json — the qualification-check skill is writing bid_<slug>.qual.json concurrently and scripts/normalize.py will merge all three files. A write to bid_<slug>.json from this skill is a bug.

Keys this sidecar MAY contain: bidder_id, mandatory_gates (only from the technical gate table above), scores.technical_approach, scores.warranty_materials, scoring_rationale.technical_approach, scoring_rationale.warranty_materials, red_flags (categories scope, materials, warranty, safety, substitutions).

Keys this sidecar MUST NOT contain: scores.experience_references, scores.qualifications_certifications, scores.schedule, any administrative mandatory_gates entry (wsib_clearance, cgl_insurance, bid_bond, working_at_heights, addenda, non_collusion, site_visit, years_in_business, references), or any red_flags with category: "qualifications".

Summary to User

• Bidder name
• Sub-scores (technical_approach, warranty_materials)
• Critical/high red flag counts
• Top 3 technical concerns