roof-qualification-check

Roof Qualification Check

You are the gatekeeper for administrative and qualification gates. A bid fails this stage only when a gate is (a) applicable under the RFP or statute and (b) unrecoverable at the clarification stage. Technical scope/specification compliance — membrane thickness, cover board, warranty type, completion date — is owned by roof-technical-review and is the only basis for a technical disqualification. Every gate decision cites the source (RFP requirement, contractor evidence, and an authoritative fixture where relevant).

What goes in `mandatory_gates` — and what does NOT

mandatory_gates is reserved for the administrative and qualification items enumerated in this skill. Do not create mandatory_gates entries for technical scope or specification issues (membrane thickness, cover board presence, warranty tier, manufacturer match, wind-uplift design basis, substitutions). Those are owned by roof-technical-review and surface through red_flags[] with category: "technical", not through gates.

If you are tempted to add a gate named membrane_thickness, cover_board, warranty_type, manufacturer_system, substitutions, or similar: stop. That's a technical finding. It belongs in a red flag, not a gate. Only gates from the applicability table below may appear here, and each must use one of the canonical names from scripts/gate_applicability.py.

Why this matters: scripts/score.py now fail-fasts on any gate marked fail that is not applicable per the RFP, and on any gate whose results are split across fail and needs_clarification across bidders. A technical issue dressed up as a gate will either slip past applicability checks (if named as a statutory-tier string) or block scoring until it is removed. Either way you have created a defect. Keep technical findings in red_flags[].

Gate applicability — which gates can fail a bidder?

Before evaluating any gate, classify it into one of four tiers. This tier controls whether the gate can produce a fail result at all, or whether the strongest result available is needs_clarification. Applicability is enforced programmatically by scripts/gate_applicability.py and cross-checked by scripts/reconcile_gates.py — the code is the source of truth; this section documents the contract.

Statutory — Ontario law or Construction Act baseline. Always applicable, regardless of RFP text. Can fail a bidder.
- wsib_clearance (WSIA registration, fixture 04 §1)
- working_at_heights / wah_training (O. Reg. 297/13)
- cgl_insurance, additional_insured, completed_ops (standard commercial baseline, fixture 04 §2)
- performance_bond, labour_material_bond on OBC Part 3 projects (RFP §9.2 / Construction Act)
RFP-specified — administrative gates. Applicable only if the RFP invokes the gate via a populated rfp.mandatory_requirements.<field> OR names the item verbatim in rfp.submission_requirements[]. If the RFP is silent, the strongest result is needs_clarification — never fail.
- bid_bond (applicable only if bid_bond_percent > 0 or submission_requirements mentions it)
- site_visit / site_visit_required
- minimum_years_in_business / years_in_business
- similar_project_references / references
RFP-scope — technical-disqualification gates owned by roof-technical-review (NOT this skill). Applicability is driven by rfp.scope_of_work and rfp.warranty_requirements, not by mandatory_requirements. Documented here for completeness; do not emit these gates from qualification-check.
- scope_compliance, membrane_thickness, cover_board, insulation_upgrade
- warranty_type, warranty_duration
- completion_date, mobilization_date
- fire_rating, wind_uplift
Prudent-evaluator — items a careful evaluator asks about but which are not RFP requirements unless explicitly declared. Default: clarify only. Never a fail.
- addenda_acknowledgment / addenda
- non_collusion_declaration / non_collusion

If you cannot tell which tier a gate belongs to, treat it as prudent-evaluator and mark needs_clarification rather than fail.

Compliance Rule (revised)

Three-tier status, computed by scripts/score.py from the set of gate results:

compliant — every applicable gate pass.
conditional — no gate fail, but at least one needs_clarification. These bids are scored and ranked alongside compliant bids. Clarifications are captured in the memo's §5 Award Conditions and cured pre-contract, consistent with the RFP's negotiation clause (typically §9.1). This matches how Ontario procurement officers actually handle documentation gaps — they issue clarification requests, not disqualifications.
non_compliant — at least one gate fail on a statutory or RFP-specified gate. Excluded from rated scoring. Non-compliance must be classified in the memo as technical (scope/spec/schedule failure, cannot be cured without rebid) or administrative (documentation gap the bidder failed to supply at submission despite applicability).

Reference Material

Read only these fixtures — do not load 01_ontario_roofing_codes.md or 02_roofing_materials_warranties.md, which are owned by roof-technical-review:

fixtures/domain_knowledge/04_contractor_qualification.md — WSIB, CGL, Skilled Trades, bonding, BPS
fixtures/domain_knowledge/03_tender_evaluation_methodology.md §2 — mandatory vs rated split, Contract A/B doctrine (Ron Engineering 1981 SCC)

Gate Evaluation

For each mandatory requirement in rfp.mandatory_requirements, evaluate against the bid's qualifications data and produce a result: pass | fail | needs_clarification.

1. WSIB Clearance

Bid attaches certificate? wsib_clearance_attached = true?
Date within current validity window (per fixture 04 §1.3 — standard 90 days, but check WSIB's current cycle; the fixture notes a temporary quarterly renewal program active through 2026)?
"In good standing" text present on the attached certificate?
Pass criteria: Certificate attached + within validity window + good-standing text present. The PDF is not the final word (fixture 04 §1.4 — only the online verifier at clearances.wsib.ca is authoritative), but rather than block compliance on a check the owner can perform in 30 seconds, we pass the gate and record a standard award condition requiring online re-verification before contract signing. That condition is added automatically by roof-recommendation-memo — do not add it here.
Needs_clarification criteria: Certificate attached but unclear validity window (no date or ambiguous "in good standing" wording).
Fail criteria: No certificate, expired, or the certificate itself says "not in good standing" / "account in arrears."

2. CGL Insurance

Limit ≥ RFP minimum (cgl_minimum_cad)?
Owner named as additional insured on the COI?
Completed-operations coverage ≥ required years? (Fixture 04 §2 — critical for the post-install warranty period)
Named insured matches bidder legal entity? (Shell-company risk per fixture 04 §5)
Fail criteria: Limit below required, owner not named, no completed-ops tail, named insured mismatch.

3. Bid Bond / Bonding

Applicability check first: bid bond is RFP-specified. Fail is allowed only if rfp.mandatory_requirements.bid_bond_percent is set or rfp.submission_requirements names a bid bond. If neither, the strongest result for a missing bid bond is needs_clarification.

Bid bond attached at the required percentage (if applicable)?
Bonding capacity declared ≥ project value? (Fixture 04 §5) — always evaluable; below project value is a needs_clarification when the RFP is silent on bid bonds, not a fail.
Consent of surety for performance and L&M bonds present? — performance/L&M are statutory on Part 3; missing consent of surety on the successful bidder is a fail at contract signing, not at submission. At submission stage, mark needs_clarification.
Fail criteria: Missing bid bond when the RFP specifies bid_bond_percent or explicitly lists a bid bond in submission_requirements.

4. Working-at-Heights Training

Contractor confirms all on-site workers have current O. Reg. 297/13 training (3-year validity)? (Fixture 04 §3)
Fail criteria: Explicit denial or no mention when RFP requires confirmation.

5. Addenda Acknowledgment

Prudent-evaluator tier. Never fail. If missing, mark needs_clarification so the owner can request a signed acknowledgment before contract execution.

All issued addenda acknowledged in the Form of Tender?
Needs_clarification criteria: Missing acknowledgment. Per CCDC 23 the owner can still accept the bid and require the acknowledgment as a condition of award.
Fail criteria: Only when rfp.mandatory_requirements.addenda_acknowledgment_required is explicitly true AND the bid contradicts or refuses addenda terms.

6. Non-Collusion Declaration

Prudent-evaluator tier. Never fail. A missing declaration is clarifiable; a declaration present but contradicted by evidence of collusion is a separate matter (escalate to the owner's counsel).

Signed and dated?
Needs_clarification criteria: Missing or unsigned. Owner requests a signed declaration before award.
Fail criteria: Only when rfp.mandatory_requirements.non_collusion_declaration_required is explicitly true AND the declaration is not signed after clarification.

7. Minimum Years in Business

Meets RFP minimum?
Fail criteria: Below threshold.

8. Similar Project References

A reference is comparable to this project if ALL three hold:

Same building-code class (commercial ↔ commercial, residential ↔ residential — Part 3 and Part 9 don't substitute for each other)
Project value within 0.5× to 2× the subject project's value
Completed within the last 5 years

Count of comparable references ≥ RFP minimum?
Needs_clarification criteria: References present and count meets minimum, but one or more fail the comparable test above (scope or size or recency divergence).
Fail criteria: Count of comparable references below RFP minimum.

9. Site Visit (if required)

Bid confirms attendance at mandatory pre-bid site meeting?
Fail criteria: Required but not attended.

Sidecar Output File

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

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

Shape:

{
  "bidder_id": "<same as base bid manifest>",
  "mandatory_gates": { "<gate_name>": { "result": "...", "evidence": "...", "notes": "..." } },
  "scores": {
    "experience_references": <0-100>,
    "qualifications_certifications": <0-100>,
    "schedule": <0-100>
  },
  "scoring_rationale": {
    "experience_references": { "sub_factors": { "...": <points> } },
    "qualifications_certifications": { "sub_factors": { "...": <points> } },
    "schedule": { "sub_factors": { "...": <points> } }
  },
  "red_flags": [
    { "severity": "...", "category": "qualifications", "description": "...", ... }
  ]
}

Do NOT touch the base bid_<slug>.json — the technical-review skill is writing bid_<slug>.tech.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, scores, scoring_rationale, red_flags (only category: "qualifications").

Keys this sidecar MUST NOT contain: scores.technical_approach, scores.warranty_materials, any mandatory_gates entry from the technical table in roof-technical-review (scope_compliance, membrane_thickness, cover_board, insulation_upgrade, warranty_type, warranty_duration, completion_date, mobilization_date, fire_rating, wind_uplift), or any red_flags with a category other than qualifications.

Output per Gate

Write each gate result into the sidecar file's mandatory_gates.<gate_name>:

{
  "result": "pass|fail|needs_clarification",
  "evidence": "page reference + what was found or missing",
  "notes": "any calibration comments"
}

Red Flag Category Ownership

This skill owns exactly one red_flags.category value: qualifications. Everything warranty/materials/safety/scope/substitutions belongs to roof-technical-review — do not write those categories here even if you notice the issue. If a single problem has two aspects (e.g., a lapsed certification that also affects warranty eligibility), record the qualifications aspect here and let technical-review record the warranty aspect.

Qualification Red Flags

In addition to gate results, append qualitative flags to bid.red_flags[] with category: "qualifications" for issues that don't rise to a fail but warrant owner attention:

Certification programs claimed but lapsed (fixture 02 §3)
Subcontracting the actual roofing crew to unnamed entities (fixture 04 §5)
References that include affiliated entities
Pattern of Ministry of Labour orders in past 3 years (if surfaced in extraction)
WSIB rate notably above industry average (financial-distress signal per fixture 04 §5)

Sub-Scores

Produce raw sub-scores (0-100) for the three 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.

`experience_references` (sum of three sub-factors, max 100)

Sub-factor	Points	Criterion
Count of comparable references (Gate 8 definition)	0	zero comparable
	20	1-2 comparable
	40	3-4 comparable
	60	5+ comparable
Recency of most-recent comparable reference	0	>5 yrs or none
	10	3-5 yrs
	20	1-2 yrs
	25	<1 yr
Verifiability (named contact, value, date, photo/contact for site)	0	missing most fields
	8	partial (contact only, or value only)
	15	complete on every reference

If experience_references = 0 and RFP minimum reference count is unmet, the bid fails Gate 8 (handled there, not here).

`qualifications_certifications` (sum of four sub-factors, max 100)

Sub-factor	Points	Criterion
Years in business (from `qualifications.years_in_business`)	0	<5 yrs
	15	5-9 yrs
	25	10-14 yrs
	35	15+ yrs
Manufacturer certification at or above warranty tier claimed	0	none
	15	certified at required tier with one manufacturer
	25	multiple manufacturer certifications
	30	top-tier program (e.g., GAF Master Elite, Soprema PAQ+S, Firestone Platinum Master Contractor)
Skilled Trades C of Q crew	0	none identified
	10	foreman only
	15	majority of crew
	20	full crew
Industry membership	0	none
	8	regional/provincial association
	15	CRCA member

`schedule` (sum of four sub-factors, max 100)

Sub-factor	Points	Criterion
Timeline realism vs scope	0	unrealistic or absent
	15	aggressive with thin justification
	30	realistic duration
	40	detailed phase sequencing + milestones
Crew adequacy	0	crew size not stated
	15	minimum crew for scope
	20	adequate + named foreman
	25	multiple crews / surge capacity for occupied buildings
Mobilization and completion dates vs RFP	0	misses RFP dates
	10	meets substantial completion only
	20	meets both mobilization and completion
Occupied-building accommodation (auto-15 if building is vacant — do not penalize)	0	not addressed
	8	generic after-hours / dust commitments
	15	named tenant-coordination plan + communication protocol

Compliance Rule (see the revised rule at the top of this skill)

The three-tier model (compliant / conditional / non_compliant) is computed in scripts/score.py::compliance_status(). Do not reimplement compliance logic here — emit gate results and let the scoring pipeline assemble the tier. Cross-bid uniformity and applicability are audited by scripts/reconcile_gates.py after scoring.

Summary to User

Bidder name
Gate pass / fail / needs-clarification counts
Compliance status
Sub-scores (experience_references, qualifications_certifications, schedule)
Critical qualification issues