A headline price tells you one number. A scope tells you what that number covers, what it assumes and what it leaves out. When two foundation-repair proposals differ by thousands of dollars, the difference is often in the details rather than the work itself: one may exclude permits, another may specify an engineer's letter, a third may leave the method vague. Comparing scope, not price, means laying each proposal against the same set of questions and recording what each one actually says.
That is a recording exercise, not a judgment call. This publication does not diagnose structural movement, recommend repairs or supply prices. The useful output is a list of documented items and a second list of gaps.
Start with a fixed set of comparison fields
Use the same fields for every proposal so you are not comparing a detailed bid against a vague one on unequal terms. A workable set:
- Observations documented — what the proposal says was seen, and where.
- Investigation specified — any testing, measurement, soil work or engineering review named in the document.
- Scope and method stated — what will be done, in what sequence, with what materials.
- Exclusions — what the price does not include.
- Permits — who pulls them and whether they appear in the price.
- Warranty terms — duration, transferability, what voids it.
- Unanswered questions — your own notes on what the document does not address.
The private comparison tool is built around exactly these fields. It shows missing information rather than a quality score, keeps entries editable in your browser, and offers a local Markdown export and reset. Nothing is transmitted, and no account is needed.
Registration status belongs in the comparison
San Antonio separates contractor registration by work type. The City's Development Services page states that you must be registered as a Residential Building Contractor for foundation repairs, alongside new residential construction, structural alterations and additions, and detached accessory buildings over 300 square feet. That registration requires an FBI national background check, government-issued photo identification, a $170 fee for two years, and liability insurance naming the City as certificate holder at minimum limits of $500,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 total, and $500,000 for products and completed operations. The registration holder, or one affiliated agent, must also obtain a Residential ICC Certification or another certification approved by the Building Official. See the City's Building & Home Improvement page.
A separate Home Improvement Contractor registration covers limited repair and replacement such as non-structural remodeling, conversions and modernizations, at a $150 fee for two years and lower insurance minimums. The City page places structural work and foundation repairs in the other category, so it is worth checking which category a proposal's contractor actually holds. The same page states there are no license or registration requirements for commercial general contractors — a statement about that category only.
Note the qualification: requirements and fees are as published when retrieved and can change. Verify current terms with the City rather than relying on this summary.
Permits and inspections in the proposal text
Permits are a common silent gap. A proposal may state a price without saying whether the permit is included, who applies, or who meets the inspector. The City's inspections page describes building inspections across construction phases including foundations, framing, electrical, mechanical, plumbing and third-party special inspections. The supplied copy of that page is a German translation, so wording here is paraphrased; the English original may differ.
Two details from that page are worth writing into your notes. First, inspection requests submitted before midnight are scheduled for the following day, and scheduling by phone at 210-207-1111 carries a $3 fee per appointment. Second, the City accepts a confirmation letter from an engineer or industry expert for specialized work performed. Neither detail tells you whether your project needs a permit or an engineer's involvement — only that these are the City's stated processes.
The same page states that special inspections during construction must be performed by specially trained inspectors approved by the City's building department, with experience and qualifications submitted through an application process. If a proposal refers to special inspection, the comparison field for investigation is where that should be recorded.
Where a licensed engineer fits — and where it does not
Texas does not license engineers by discipline, but licensees must not practice outside their competence under Board Rules §137.59(a), according to TBPELS webinar material. The same material states that an engineer may sign and seal only work personally performed or performed under direct supervision, and that reviewing and sealing someone else's work is a violation. If a proposal includes an engineering letter or sealed document, record who produced it and what it covers.
TBPELS also lists enforcement limitations: the Legislature has not given the Board authority to assess monetary damages, settle a disputed boundary, force a licensee to remedy a problem, or investigate a registered firm's business practices such as billing and project timing. That matters when you assume a complaint will resolve a contract dispute — it will not.
For whether a project needs an engineer at all, TBPELS publishes a flow chart alongside the statutory definition of engineering on its Is a Texas Licensed Engineer Required? page. The page points to the flow chart; it does not decide the question for your project.
A hypothetical comparison, labeled as such
The following is illustrative only, not a description of any real company or address.
Suppose proposal A lists a lump sum and says "foundation repair." Proposal B, at a higher number, names the method, states that the permit is included and pulled by the contractor, attaches a one-page observation summary, and lists exclusions for landscaping and interior finishes. Proposal C sits between them and states a warranty of ten years but does not say whether it transfers on sale.
A price-only comparison ranks C as the middle option. A scope comparison shows that A leaves most fields undocumented, B leaves warranty blank, and C leaves method and permits blank. None of those observations says which proposal is better work — they say which questions remain open. That is the honest output.
Recording warranty terms and exclusions
Warranty language is where proposals most often differ quietly. Record the stated duration, whether it covers materials, labor or both, what maintenance voids it, and whether it transfers. Record exclusions verbatim where possible: soil conditions, drainage, landscaping restoration, plumbing and interior repair are common carve-outs. The companion guide on recording warranty terms and exclusions goes through this field by field.
Practical limitations to keep in view
- This guide summarizes public pages. It is not engineering advice, a permit determination or a contractor evaluation.
- City requirements and fees change; confirm current terms with Development Services.
- One supplied City page exists only in translation here; treat paraphrased wording as approximate.
- The comparison matrix records documentation. A missing field is a question to ask, not proof of poor work.
- Vague proposals cannot be made comparable by better note-taking — sometimes the fix is to request a written revision.
Before you begin, the guide on what to gather before a foundation proposal lists the documents worth having ready, and questions for a licensed engineer covers what to ask if engineering review is part of your project.
