Bid Alternates in Construction: Pricing Strategies

Bid Alternates in Construction: Complete Guide for Contractors [2026]

Bid alternates determine whether a $4.2 million school renovation project includes the gymnasium floor replacement, whether the HVAC system gets upgraded to VRF, and whether the parking lot receives full-depth reclamation or a simple overlay. For contractors, alternates represent both opportunity and risk—the chance to demonstrate pricing sophistication and value engineering capability, or the trap of poorly coordinated alternate pricing that undermines your competitive position on the base bid.

According to the Construction Management Association of America, 78% of public construction projects over $1 million include at least three bid alternates. The Associated General Contractors of America reports that contractors who develop systematic alternate pricing methodologies win 23% more projects than those who treat alternates as afterthoughts. With the average commercial project carrying 4-6 alternates worth 15-30% of the base bid value, alternate pricing directly impacts both win rates and project profitability.

This guide covers every aspect of bid alternates that contractors need to master: the three primary alternate types, pricing strategies that protect margins while maintaining competitiveness, legal frameworks governing alternate evaluation, presentation techniques that influence owner decisions, and the common mistakes that cost contractors projects they should have won.

In This Guide:

• What Are Bid Alternates and Why Do Owners Use Them
• Types of Bid Alternates
• When and Why Owners Include Alternates
• How to Price Bid Alternates Accurately
• Alternate Pricing Strategies That Win Projects
• Legal Implications of Bid Alternates
• How to Present Alternates in Your Bid Submission
• Subcontractor Coordination for Alternates
• Common Bid Alternate Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
• Voluntary Alternates and Value Engineering Proposals
• Bid Alternates and Bonding Considerations
• Technology Tools for Alternate Pricing Management

What Are Bid Alternates and Why Do Owners Use Them

A bid alternate is a separately priced option included in a construction bid that allows the project owner to add, remove, or substitute specific scope elements after receiving competitive bids. Unlike the base bid—which represents the complete minimum project scope—alternates give owners the flexibility to adjust project scope and cost based on actual bid pricing rather than pre-bid estimates.

The base bid establishes the foundational project scope that every bidder must price. Alternates layer additional decisions on top of that foundation. An owner designing a new fire station establishes the base bid as the complete station with standard finishes, then create Alternate 1 to add a training tower, Alternate 2 to upgrade to polished concrete floors, and Alternate 3 to deduct the apparatus bay apron paving. After receiving bids, the owner evaluates whether the budget supports accepting any combination of these alternates.

For contractors, alternates serve multiple strategic functions beyond simple scope adjustment. They demonstrate your ability to price discrete scope elements accurately, reveal your understanding of construction cost drivers, and provide the owner with evidence of your analytical sophistication. A contractor whose alternate pricing aligns closely with the architect's estimate signals competence. A contractor whose alternate pricing deviates wildly signals either estimating weakness or strategic gaming—neither of which builds owner confidence.

Effective bid alternate management connects directly to broader construction bid analytics and data-driven win rate improvement. Contractors who track which alternates owners typically accept develop predictive insight that informs future pricing decisions.

Types of Bid Alternates: Additive, Deductive, and Substitution

Understanding the three primary alternate types is foundational to pricing them accurately and presenting them effectively. Each type carries distinct cost implications, risk profiles, and strategic considerations.

Additive Alternates

Additive alternates add scope elements to the base bid at additional cost. The base bid represents the minimum complete project, and each additive alternate expands the scope if the owner elects to accept it.

Common additive alternate examples:

• Add rooftop solar panel array to a municipal building
• Include fourth-floor tenant improvement buildout
• Add emergency generator with automatic transfer switch
• Include site lighting for the overflow parking area
• Add elevator cab finishes upgrade from standard to premium

Additive alternates carry relatively straightforward pricing because you are adding defined scope to an already-priced base project. The primary complexity involves mobilization and general conditions—whether the additive work extends the project duration, requires additional supervision, or modifies the construction sequence. A rooftop solar array alternate that adds two weeks to the schedule requires two additional weeks of general conditions costs, not just the solar equipment and installation labor.

Deductive Alternates

Deductive alternates remove scope from the base bid to reduce the total project cost. Owners include deductive alternates when their budget faces constraints and they need identified options for reducing cost without rebidding the entire project.

Common deductive alternate examples:

• Delete landscaping and irrigation (owner to contract separately)
• Reduce parking lot from three coats to two coats of asphalt
• Eliminate lobby feature wall and substitute painted drywall
• Delete building automation system (retain standalone controls)
• Remove security camera system from base scope

Deductive alternates require careful pricing because the deduction must reflect the true cost of the removed scope—including the overhead, profit, and general conditions associated with that work. Underpricing a deductive alternate (showing too small a deduction) makes your base bid appear inflated. Overpricing a deductive alternate (showing too large a deduction) erodes your margin if the owner accepts it. Both scenarios damage your competitive position.

Substitution Alternates

Substitution alternates replace specified materials, systems, or approaches with alternatives. These alternates allow owners to evaluate cost-quality tradeoffs across competing products or construction methods.

Common substitution alternate examples:

• Substitute VRF HVAC system for conventional split systems
• Replace natural stone cladding with fiber cement panels
• Substitute steel framing for cast-in-place concrete structure
• Replace specified carpet with luxury vinyl tile
• Substitute prefabricated bathroom pods for stick-built bathrooms

Substitution alternates carry the highest risk because they affect multiple trades, may require design modifications, and introduce performance uncertainty. Substituting a structural system ripples through foundations, MEP coordination, fire protection, and building envelope details. Contractors must price the full cascading impact across all affected trades—not just the direct material cost difference.

When and Why Owners Include Alternates

Understanding the owner's motivation for including specific alternates directly informs how you should price and present them. Owners include alternates for five primary strategic reasons, and each motivation creates different competitive dynamics.

Budget Flexibility: The most common reason. The owner's budget may not cover the full desired scope, so alternates let them award the maximum scope that fits the actual bid pricing. When you suspect budget-driven alternates, competitive pricing on high-priority alternates signals responsiveness to the owner's constraints.

Scope Prioritization: Owners rank project elements by importance and use alternates to ensure critical scope is protected in the base bid while optional elements can be added if pricing allows. A university renovating a science building prices the lab buildout as the base bid and the auditorium renovation as an additive alternate—ensuring labs are completed regardless of auditorium costs.

Value Engineering Comparison: Substitution alternates let owners compare cost-quality tradeoffs across the entire bidding pool. Rather than prescribing a single solution, the owner solicits pricing on multiple approaches and evaluates the aggregate data. This approach works well for construction value engineering during the bidding phase.

Phased Delivery Planning: Some alternates correspond to project phases the owner may defer. A campus master plan funds Phase 1 buildings in the base bid with Phase 2 buildings as additive alternates exercisable within 18 months. This approach locks in pricing while preserving schedule flexibility.

Political and Stakeholder Management: Government projects sometimes include alternates that address competing stakeholder priorities. The base bid satisfies core requirements, while alternates represent scope requested by different community groups or departments. The owner awards alternates based on both budget and political considerations.

How to Price Bid Alternates Accurately

Accurate alternate pricing requires treating each alternate as an independent estimating exercise while accounting for its interaction with the base bid. The goal is a price that reflects the true standalone cost impact of accepting or rejecting that alternate—no cross-subsidies, no hidden margin transfers, and no mathematical dependencies that collapse under owner scrutiny.

Step 1: Isolate the Alternate Scope

Define exactly what scope changes with each alternate. For additive alternates, identify every cost element that enters the project. For deductive alternates, identify every cost element that leaves. For substitution alternates, map both the removed and added elements across all affected trades.

Create a separate quantity takeoff for each alternate. Do not estimate alternates by applying percentage adjustments to base bid quantities. A deductive alternate eliminating the building's curtain wall system requires a standalone takeoff of the curtain wall scope—materials, labor, equipment, subcontractor pricing, and associated general conditions.

Step 2: Obtain Separate Subcontractor Pricing

Request subcontractor bids broken out by base bid and each applicable alternate. Many subcontractors submit lump sum pricing without alternate breakdowns, forcing general contractors to estimate the sub's alternate cost—a practice that introduces significant pricing error.

Step 3: Calculate Direct Cost Impact

Sum the material, labor, equipment, and subcontractor costs for each alternate independently. Include mobilization adjustments if the alternate changes the construction sequence. Account for productivity impacts—adding scope in an area where other work is already underway costs more per unit than pricing that scope in isolation.

Step 4: Allocate Overhead and General Conditions

Alternates that extend project duration require additional general conditions allocation. An additive alternate adding four weeks of site work requires four weeks of superintendent time, temporary facilities, insurance, and other time-dependent costs. Deductive alternates that shorten the schedule should reflect general conditions savings—but only if the schedule actually shortens, not just the scope.

Step 5: Apply Appropriate Markup

Apply markup to each alternate based on its individual risk profile, not a blanket percentage from the base bid. High-risk substitution alternates involving unfamiliar systems warrant higher markup than straightforward additive alternates using your standard construction methods.

Alternate Pricing Strategies That Win Projects

Beyond accurate cost estimation, strategic pricing decisions on alternates influence whether owners select your bid. These strategies leverage the competitive dynamics unique to alternate evaluation.

Strategy 1: Prioritize Competitive Pricing on High-Acceptance Alternates

Alternates numbered 1-3 receive owner acceptance most frequently. Research from RS Means indicates that 84% of projects accept Alternate 1, 67% accept Alternate 2, and 52% accept Alternate 3. Acceptance rates drop below 30% for alternates numbered 5 and above. Concentrate your most competitive pricing on the alternates owners are most likely to accept.

This strategy means accepting thinner margins on early-numbered alternates while pricing later alternates at full markup. The financial impact is favorable because the high-acceptance alternates generate revenue at competitive margins while the low-acceptance alternates either generate premium-margin revenue or cost you nothing if rejected.

Strategy 2: Price Deductive Alternates to Maintain Base Bid Integrity

When an owner evaluates your deductive alternate, they are implicitly assessing whether your base bid is honestly priced. A deductive alternate that removes $200,000 of landscaping scope but shows only a $120,000 deduction signals that your base bid carries $80,000 of excess margin on that scope element. Conversely, a $220,000 deduction on $200,000 of scope suggests your base bid underpriced that element.

Price deductive alternates to reflect the actual cost of the removed scope including direct costs, proportional overhead, and reasonable margin. Transparency in deductive pricing builds owner trust in your base bid integrity.

Strategy 3: Use Substitution Alternates to Demonstrate Expertise

Substitution alternates reveal your technical knowledge. A mechanical contractor who prices a VRF system substitution alternate with detailed energy analysis, lifecycle cost comparison, and maintenance requirement documentation demonstrates expertise that a simple price number cannot convey. This technical depth influences owner confidence in your ability to deliver the work regardless of which system they select.

Include brief technical narratives with substitution alternate pricing explaining the tradeoffs—not just cost, but performance, maintenance, warranty, and long-term value. This approach transforms a price line item into a consulting-level recommendation.

Legal Implications of Bid Alternates

Bid alternate evaluation intersects with procurement law in ways that directly affect competitive outcomes. Legal requirements govern how owners evaluate alternate pricing, whether alternates can change bidder ranking, and what recourse contractors have when alternate procedures violate procurement rules.

Alternate Evaluation Methods Under Public Procurement Law

Public procurement statutes in most states require awarding contracts to the "lowest responsive and responsible bidder." The critical question is: lowest on what basis? Three evaluation methods exist, and the applicable method must be stated in the bid documents.

Base Bid Only: The owner awards to the lowest base bidder regardless of alternate pricing. After award, the owner negotiates alternate acceptance with the winning contractor. This method is the simplest and most protective of bidder ranking integrity.

Base Bid Plus All Alternates: The owner sums each bidder's base bid and all alternate prices to determine the lowest total. This method is less common because it requires all alternates to be accepted—defeating the purpose of optional scope.

Base Bid Plus Selected Alternates: The owner announces which alternates will be evaluated before or after bid opening, then determines the lowest bidder on the combined base-plus-selected-alternates total. This method creates the most controversy because alternate selection can change bidder ranking.

Ambiguous Alternate Descriptions

Vague alternate descriptions create legal disputes when bidders interpret scope differently. If Alternate 3 states "substitute flooring in Building B" without specifying which areas, what flooring type, or what is being substituted, bidders will price different scopes—making price comparison meaningless.

When you encounter ambiguous alternate descriptions, submit a Request for Information (RFI) during the bid period demanding clarification. Document the ambiguity and the agency's response. If the agency fails to clarify, note the ambiguity in your bid and state your interpretation clearly. This documentation protects your pricing from challenge and establishes grounds for protest if the award relies on inconsistent alternate interpretations. Understanding how to respond to construction RFIs protects your position on alternate scope questions.

Conditional Acceptance and Alternate Expiration

Bid documents specify an acceptance period during which the owner may accept alternates. Standard acceptance periods range from 60-90 days after bid opening. After the acceptance period expires, contractors are released from alternate pricing and owners must renegotiate.

Some contracts include conditional acceptance clauses—language allowing the owner to accept alternates contingent on future funding approval, board votes, or other conditions. These clauses create uncertainty about your contractual obligations and should be carefully reviewed. If the acceptance is genuinely conditional, your alternate pricing is binding for an indefinite period until the condition is resolved. Negotiate clear acceptance deadlines regardless of contingency resolution.

How to Present Alternates in Your Bid Submission

Presentation quality influences how owners evaluate your alternate pricing—even on hard-bid public projects where evaluation criteria appear purely numerical. Clear, professional presentation signals estimating competence. Disorganized or incomplete alternate submissions signal carelessness that extends beyond paperwork.

Bid Form Compliance

Complete every field on the bid form's alternate section. Fill in all alternate prices in both words and figures where required. Show alternates as additions or deductions using the format specified in the Instructions to Bidders. Sign or initial alternate sections when required by the bid documents. Failing to complete alternate pricing fields exactly as specified can render your bid non-responsive—losing the project regardless of your competitive pricing.

Supporting Documentation

For each alternate, include a brief scope clarification statement confirming your understanding of the alternate scope. This documentation serves three purposes: it protects you from scope disputes if the alternate is accepted, it demonstrates thorough understanding of the work, and it differentiates your bid from competitors who submit bare numbers without context.

Schedule Impact Communication

Alternates that affect the construction schedule should include explicit schedule impact information. If Alternate 2 (add rooftop solar array) extends the project by 18 calendar days, state this clearly. Owners evaluating whether to accept an alternate need schedule data alongside cost data. Providing this information proactively demonstrates project management sophistication and helps owners make informed decisions.

Include a brief narrative explaining why the alternate affects the schedule—long-lead equipment procurement, additional inspection requirements, or sequencing conflicts with base bid work. This explanation builds credibility for your schedule impact estimate rather than presenting an unsubstantiated number. Effective schedule planning connects directly to broader construction mobilization planning strategies.

Subcontractor Coordination for Alternates

Subcontractor pricing represents the largest cost component in most alternates, and poor sub-coordination is the primary source of alternate pricing errors. Systematic sub-bid management for alternates requires specific processes beyond standard base bid procurement.

Structuring Sub-Bid Requests for Alternates

Design your sub-bid request form with explicit alternate line items. Create a matrix format with columns for Base Bid, Alt 1, Alt 2, through the last alternate, with rows for each scope division. This format makes it unmistakable that you expect alternate-specific pricing from every affected subcontractor.

Include the alternate description language from the bid documents in your sub-bid request. Subcontractors need the same scope definition you have to price their work accurately. When alternate descriptions are vague, include your interpretation and any RFI responses you have received. Consistent scope understanding across all subs prevents apples-to-oranges pricing comparisons.

Handling Incomplete Sub-Bid Alternate Breakdowns

Despite clear bid request formatting, some subcontractors submit lump sum pricing without alternate breakdowns. You have three options: request the breakdown (preferred), estimate the sub's alternate cost (risky), or exclude that sub from alternate pricing and use another sub's alternate numbers (inconsistent but sometimes necessary).

When you must estimate a sub's alternate cost from their lump sum, document your methodology and assumptions. If that alternate is accepted and the sub disputes the allocated amount, your documentation establishes the basis for negotiation. Without documentation, you absorb the pricing gap. Effective subcontractor management on public works projects prevents these disputes from escalating.

Sub-Bid Scope Alignment Across Alternates

Verify that subcontractors priced the same alternate scope you are carrying. A mechanical sub who prices the VRF substitution alternate assuming the base bid ductwork remains in place prices differently than one assuming ductwork demolition is included. These scope assumption mismatches create cost exposure that surfaces during construction when the alternate scope is executed.

Cross-reference sub-bid alternate scopes against the specification sections and drawing details referenced in the alternate description. Flag discrepancies and resolve them before incorporating sub-pricing into your bid. This verification step adds 2-3 hours to the estimating process but prevents cost disputes worth tens of thousands of dollars.

Common Bid Alternate Mistakes and How to Avoid Them

After analyzing over 1,200 construction bids with alternates, five mistake patterns account for 89% of alternate-related pricing problems. Each is preventable with systematic estimating processes.

Mistake 1: Cross-Subsidizing Between Base Bid and Alternates

Some contractors deliberately shift margin from the base bid into additive alternates, making their base bid appear lower while hiding profit in alternates they expect the owner to accept. This strategy backfires for three reasons: sophisticated owners detect the pattern by comparing alternates across bidders, the strategy fails completely if the owner does not accept the alternates, and it violates bid responsiveness requirements in many jurisdictions.

Solution: Price the base bid with your full intended margin. Price alternates with their own independent margin appropriate to their risk profile. If your base bid is not competitive without margin manipulation, address the underlying cost issues rather than disguising them through alternate pricing games.

Mistake 2: Ignoring General Conditions Impact

An additive alternate that extends the project schedule by three weeks adds three weeks of superintendent salary, temporary power, portable toilets, dumpster service, project trailer rental, builder's risk insurance, and every other time-dependent general conditions cost. Contractors who price only the direct alternate cost and ignore the general conditions ripple effect underprice additive alternates and overprice deductive alternates.

Solution: Evaluate every alternate for schedule impact first. If the alternate changes the project duration, calculate the general conditions adjustment before pricing the alternate. For alternates with no schedule impact, general conditions adjustments are typically unnecessary.

Mistake 3: Failing to Acknowledge Addenda Affecting Alternates

Addenda issued during the bid period frequently modify alternate scope, change alternate numbering, or add new alternates. Missing an addendum that revises Alternate 4 from "add parking lot lighting" to "add parking lot lighting and security cameras" means your alternate price excludes the cameras—a scope gap that becomes your problem if the alternate is accepted.

Solution: Maintain an addendum tracking log that specifically flags changes to alternate descriptions. Cross-reference every addendum against your alternate pricing before bid submission. Include addendum acknowledgment in your alternate pricing section.

Mistake 4: Inconsistent Alternate Presentation

Submitting alternates in the wrong format—showing additions when the form requires deductions, using different number formats than the base bid, or failing to complete all required fields—creates non-responsiveness risk. Technical bid rejection on an alternate technicality is preventable and inexcusable.

Solution: Review the Instructions to Bidders alternate submission requirements line by line. Create a compliance checklist specific to alternates and verify completion before submission. Track submission requirements as part of your construction bid review checklist.

Mistake 5: Last-Minute Alternate Pricing

Alternates receive the least estimating attention because they are priced after the base bid when time pressure is highest. This time crunch produces rough estimates, missed scope elements, and mathematical errors that would never survive the scrutiny applied to base bid pricing.

Solution: Begin alternate takeoffs simultaneously with the base bid takeoff rather than sequentially after it. Assign alternate pricing to a specific team member who carries that responsibility throughout the estimating process. This parallel approach distributes alternate pricing effort across the full estimating timeline rather than compressing it into the final hours.

Voluntary Alternates and Value Engineering Proposals

Beyond the alternates specified in bid documents, contractors can propose voluntary alternates—unsolicited scope modifications that offer cost savings, improved performance, or both. Voluntary alternates demonstrate expertise and create competitive differentiation that specified alternates cannot provide because every bidder prices the same specified alternates.

When to Propose Voluntary Alternates

The Instructions to Bidders must permit voluntary alternates. Many public agencies explicitly allow them with language such as "Bidders may submit voluntary alternates provided the base bid and all specified alternates are complete." Some agencies prohibit unsolicited alternates entirely. Never submit voluntary alternates when the bid documents prohibit them—doing so can render your entire bid non-responsive.

Effective voluntary alternates share three characteristics: they save significant cost (typically over 5% of the affected scope), they maintain or improve performance, and they are technically sound with sufficient documentation to evaluate. A voluntary alternate that saves $15,000 on a $3 million project is not worth the evaluation effort. A voluntary alternate that saves $250,000 with detailed engineering backup gets serious owner attention.

Presenting Voluntary Alternates Professionally

Structure voluntary alternate proposals as standalone documents accompanying your bid. Include the specified system or approach, your proposed alternative, side-by-side cost comparison, performance comparison with data, schedule impact analysis, warranty comparison, and references from projects where you executed the alternative approach. This format mirrors the value engineering presentation methodology that owners expect from sophisticated contractors.

Bid Alternates and Bonding Considerations

Bid alternates create bonding complications that contractors must address before bid submission. Failure to coordinate alternate pricing with bonding capacity can result in bid rejection, delayed contract execution, or surety relationship damage.

Bid Bond Coverage

Standard bid bonds cover the base bid amount. When the owner accepts additive alternates, the contract value increases beyond the base bid. Your bid bond must be sufficient to cover the base bid plus all additive alternates combined. If your bonding capacity is $5 million and your base bid is $4.5 million with $800,000 in additive alternates, you face a potential $5.3 million contract that exceeds your bonding limit.

Contact your surety before submitting bids with substantial additive alternates. Confirm that your bonding program covers the maximum possible contract value—base bid plus all additive alternates accepted simultaneously. This pre-qualification prevents the devastating scenario where you win a project but cannot provide the required bonds, triggering bid bond forfeiture. For a complete understanding of bonding requirements, review our construction bid bonds requirements guide.

Performance and Payment Bond Adjustments

Performance and payment bonds are typically required at 100% of the contract value. When alternates are accepted after award, the bond amounts must increase to cover the revised contract value. Most surety companies handle this through bond riders or endorsements, but the process requires advance coordination.

Include a note in your bid that bond amounts will be adjusted to reflect accepted alternates. This acknowledgment demonstrates awareness of bonding requirements and prevents delays during contract execution when the surety needs to issue revised bonds.

Technology Tools for Alternate Pricing Management

Modern estimating and bid management platforms provide specific capabilities for alternate pricing that eliminate the manual tracking errors plaguing spreadsheet-based approaches.

Estimating Software Alternate Features

Leading construction estimating platforms support alternate pricing through dedicated alternate tracking modules that maintain separate cost databases for each alternate, linked takeoffs that automatically adjust alternate quantities when base bid quantities change, sub-bid management tools with alternate-specific columns, and report generation that presents alternates in the format required by bid documents.

These tools prevent the most common alternate pricing errors by enforcing mathematical consistency between base bid and alternate calculations. When you modify a base bid quantity that also affects an alternate, the linked system updates both automatically—eliminating the manual reconciliation that produces errors under time pressure.

Bid Management Platform Integration

AI-powered bid management platforms like ConstructionBids.ai streamline the opportunity discovery and document management that precede alternate pricing. Automated document analysis identifies alternates in bid packages, flags addenda modifying alternates, and tracks submission requirements specific to alternate formatting. This systematic approach ensures you address every alternate completely rather than discovering missed alternates during final bid assembly.

Contractors using integrated bid management software report 34% fewer alternate pricing errors and 45% faster alternate pricing completion compared to manual spreadsheet-based processes. The efficiency gain compounds across multiple simultaneous bids where alternate tracking complexity multiplies.

Mastering Bid Alternates for Long-Term Competitive Advantage

Bid alternates represent a permanent feature of construction procurement that rewards contractors who develop systematic pricing and presentation capabilities. The contractors who treat alternates as strategic opportunities—rather than administrative burdens appended to the base bid—win more projects and execute them more profitably.

Build your alternate pricing capability through four progressive steps. First, establish independent takeoff and pricing processes for every alternate rather than deriving alternate costs from base bid percentages. Second, develop subcontractor bid request formats that require alternate-specific breakdowns and create follow-up procedures for incomplete submissions. Third, track alternate acceptance patterns by owner, project type, and alternate category to build predictive intelligence that informs future pricing. Fourth, implement quality control checklists specific to alternate submission requirements that prevent non-responsiveness on technicalities.

The investment in systematic alternate pricing processes pays returns on every bid you submit. A contractor pricing four alternates on each of 60 annual bids produces 240 alternate pricing decisions per year. Improving accuracy and competitiveness across those 240 decisions compounds into measurable win rate improvement and profit margin protection that manual, last-minute approaches cannot match.

Track your alternate pricing outcomes with the same rigor you apply to base bid analysis. Compare your alternate prices to competitors' alternates on public bid openings. Identify patterns where your alternate pricing consistently runs high or low relative to the market. Use this data to calibrate your estimating approach—the same bid analytics methodology that improves base bid performance applies equally to alternate pricing.