Roofing estimate comparison checklist

At least two for any full replacement, and three if the proposals differ significantly in approach or price. The point is not to find the cheapest but to see the same roof described more than once — differences in description are where you learn what the roof actually needs.

Not necessarily. Compare the scopes before the totals. Differences in measured area, tear-off assumptions, deck allowance, ice protection extent, flashing replacement, and disposal routinely account for a gap that looks like margin.

It is your call, but asking each to price an identical written scope is more useful than negotiating on a number. It gets you comparable documents rather than a matched price on an unmatched scope.

Treat it as information. Vermont requires a residential contract at or above $10,000 to state a price provision, estimated start and completion dates, a description of services and materials, and a written change-order process. A company unwilling to describe scope is declining something you are entitled to.

Yes, within limits. Where the contract states a maximum price or time-and-materials with a not-to-exceed maximum, Vermont caps the down payment at one-half the cost of labour or one-half the price of materials, whichever is greater. A request for substantially more is worth questioning.

Keep them with the signed contract, change orders, permits, photographs, invoices, product documentation and warranties. That file is what makes a future warranty claim or a sale disclosure straightforward instead of a reconstruction.

Not the wording, but the same specified scope items — area, tear-off, deck allowance, ice protection extent, flashing approach, ventilation, disposal. Different companies will phrase things differently; what matters is that each addresses the same list of decisions.

No — a legitimate roofing company expects and welcomes this, since it is how they demonstrate what is included. Reluctance to itemize is itself useful information about the proposal.

List each proposal's manufacturer material warranty, manufacturer system warranty (if applicable), and installer workmanship warranty separately, with their durations and what voids them. Comparing 'lifetime warranty' as a single word across two companies compares nothing.

No, but it should prompt the same scope comparison as any other. A lower price is usually a thinner scope rather than a scam, and the way to find out is to compare the itemized documents rather than assume either good or bad faith.

You can ask, but a more useful conversation is whether the competitor's scope is actually equivalent. If it is, a company may or may not choose to compete on price; if it is not, matching the number without matching the scope is not a comparable offer.

Length is not the test — clarity and specificity are. A short document that clearly answers the key scope questions can be more useful than a long one padded with generic boilerplate that does not address your specific roof.