| name | roof-qualification-check |
| description | Use when evaluating a roofing contractor bid's mandatory pass/fail gates — WSIB clearance, CGL insurance, bonding, working-at-heights training, addenda, references, years in business. Populates `mandatory_gates` and contributes qualification-related red flags and sub-scores.
|
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_requiredminimum_years_in_business / years_in_businesssimilar_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_upgradewarranty_type, warranty_durationcompletion_date, mobilization_datefire_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.
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, BPSfixtures/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> } },
<points>
<points>
...
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
