TRI-CITIES SYSTEM MAPTri-Cities Poly-B Guide
(778) 900-3103ext. 235
← Whole-system mapProposal matrix

Compare Pipe Scope, Access and Restoration

Comparable repipe bids need the same property facts and a complete fixture-and-branch map. Leave missing information visible rather than assuming it is included.

  1. 1

    Align the system scope

    Compare fixture counts, branches, shutoffs, routes, proposed materials, connection details, insulation and testing. Begin the piping map with a date and its branch, fixture and room; attach the available evidence before making the pipe, access or restoration decision. The next checkpoint is “Mark inaccessible or uncertain routes.” Request current material documentation. Keep that action beside its observation. The repipe-scope reviewer can then distinguish the intake piping map from repipe closeout package material added during later pricing or investigation.

    Request current material documentation.
  2. 2

    Mark inaccessible or uncertain routes

    Review pipe routes, access quantities, finish restoration, shutdowns, permits, testing and observable closeout evidence in the context of the actual property rather than as a standard allowance. Two repipe prices are not aligned when one carries drywall, paint and fixture reconnection while the other leaves restoration undefined. Separate base work, allowances and alternates; then request current material documentation. Label each pipe photograph, drawing and prior record by branch, fixture and room and date. When a concealed route or material question remains, record it in the piping map; identify the repipe-scope reviewer review or repipe closeout package document that could resolve it. One visible grey pipe does not confirm material or completeness elsewhere in the building.

    Separate base work, allowances and alternatesRequest current material documentation
  3. 3

    Normalize access and restoration

    Compare openings, cabinets, protection, drywall, texture, paint, flooring and owner-item responsibilities room by room. Describe each branch, fixture and access location separately, citing its supporting pipe photograph, measurement or dated document. Use unit rates or written methods for added openings. A finding at one branch, fixture and room may alter the proposed pipe, access or restoration decision; unobserved parts of the water-distribution system stay outside the available evidence.

    Use unit rates or written methods for added openings.
  4. 4

    State colour-match limitations

    “State colour-match limitations” belongs on its own line in the piping map. For the branch, fixture and room, pair the pipe photograph evidence with any concealed or untested water-distribution system limits. Record hazardous-material assumptions. Use unit rates or written methods for added openings. Cross-reference the repipe and restoration response answer to its pipe photograph; include the piping map drawing, a product document for the repipe and restoration response, or a dated reply from the repipe-scope reviewer. Set the plumbing or access review before openings are patched, piping is concealed or restoration selections are released.

    Record hazardous-material assumptionsUse unit rates or written methods for added openings
  5. 5

    Compare permits, shutdowns and closeout

    List authority tasks, inspections, service interruptions, schedule assumptions, changes, photos and final records. Before proceeding, avoid warranty or leak-free promises. Give task ownership to the repipe-scope reviewer; place its checkpoint before the pipe, access or restoration decision, then name the expected repipe closeout package. This separates current piping map evidence from the proposed repipe and restoration response. Put manufacturer information and repipe-scope reviewer input in the repipe closeout package; file authority questions under the relevant water-distribution system decision.

    Avoid warranty or leak-free promises.
  6. 6

    Verify responsibilities rather than inferring them

    Resolve “Verify responsibilities rather than inferring them” before ranking proposals. State the baseline branch, fixture and room, proposed repipe and restoration response, exclusions, quantities and written change process. Compare payment stages with evidence milestones. Avoid warranty or leak-free promises. Review each pipe photograph while it can still change the pipe, access or restoration decision. Record a dated pipe, access or restoration decision choice or assign the remaining concealed route or material question. Track that uncertainty in the repipe closeout package, outside the lump-sum total.

    Compare payment stages with evidence milestonesAvoid warranty or leak-free promises
  7. 7

    Complete the proposal matrix record

    Finish this proposal matrix as a piping map: include its starting evidence, location map, proposed repipe and restoration response and unresolved limits. For “Compare Pipe Scope, Access and Restoration,” justify each repipe and restoration response inclusion and assign the next concealed route or material question. In the piping map, list the approvals, product records and repipe closeout package expected. Continue with “Record Markings and Locations Without Opening Walls”, “Map Every Branch, Fixture and Access Point”, “Define Openings, Protection and Finish Repair”, “Clarify Unit, Common-Property and Shutdown Responsibilities”, and “Verify Requirements with the Right Parties” for related water-distribution system decisions. Use the piping map guide links for any wider repipe and restoration response comparison. Retain the dated material, municipal or strata source with the branch or responsibility question it informed.

    Name the next pipe, access or restoration decision, responsible repipe-scope reviewer and piping map evidence still requiredRetain dated official water-distribution system sources and guide links within the repipe closeout package