AI Go/No-Go Scoring

Why it matters in construction

Every GC has a go/no-go process on paper, and most of them break down under pressure. A favorite client calls, the pipeline looks thin, or a principal likes the project, and the scoring sheet gets filled in to justify a decision already made. The cost is real: estimators burn weeks on pursuits with a 10 percent hit rate while better-fit jobs get a rushed bid.

AI go/no-go scoring applies the same process to each opportunity, using the firm’s actual history. It records the reasons for a score before the meeting starts.

How it works

1. Opportunity profile. The model pulls owner, project type, size, location, delivery method, schedule, and competition if known from the RFP or lead record.
2. Historical comparison. The model retrieves similar past pursuits from the CRM and estimating history, looking at hit rate, margin, and outcome by owner, project type, and size band.
3. Capacity check. The system pulls in current backlog, estimating workload over the bid window, and staff availability during the proposed construction schedule.
4. Criteria scoring. Each criterion on the firm’s go/no-go rubric, such as client relationship, relevant experience, competitive position, margin potential, and risk terms, gets a score with a short written rationale.
5. Recommendation and reasoning. The model produces a weighted score and names the factors that had the most influence on it.

The output needs to show its work. A score of 62 without an explanation is not useful. A score that notes the firm lost its last four hard-bid jobs for that owner by an average of 6 percent gives the team something concrete to discuss.

Example in practice

Suppose a commercial GC is looking at two opportunities in the same week: a 28 million dollar hard-bid public school addition and a 14 million dollar negotiated office renovation for a client they have built for twice.

The scoring shows the school at 41 out of 100. The firm has bid seven public K-12 hard-bid jobs in five years and won one, at a 2.1 percent margin. Eight bidders are expected. Estimating already has three bids due in the same two-week window. The office renovation scores 78: two prior projects with this owner at 7 and 8 percent margin, one competitor expected, and the schedule lands in a quarter where backlog drops off. The BD meeting takes twenty minutes. They pass on the school, put a senior estimator on the renovation, and log the decision with the score attached so they can check it against the outcome later.