Most property management and procurement policies require about three competitive bids over some dollar threshold. That number is a control, not a magic formula — and three bids you can't actually compare are worth less than one bid you fully understand.
Why three is the usual rule
Three bids give you a spread to spot an outlier in either direction and enough of a paper trail to show ownership you ran a fair process. It's a reasonable default. But the policy quietly assumes the bids are comparable — same scope, same basis — and that assumption is where most decisions go wrong.
Comparable beats numerous
If one bid covers the full job, one leaves out disposal and code work, and one is a lump sum with no breakdown, you don't have three bids — you have three different jobs priced three different ways. Normalizing them to one scope matters far more than collecting a fourth or fifth quote.
When to get more (or fewer)
- Large or complex capital projects: more bids reduce the odds of a single misfire.
- Emergency or specialized work: one or two qualified bidders is often the honest reality — document why.
- A single bid is fine to review on its own — you still check completeness, exclusions, and risk.
- Don't chase a bid count at the expense of comparability; that's the box-checking the policy was meant to prevent.
BidsScores reviews whatever you have — one bid or six — normalizes them to a single scope, and produces the documented rationale your policy is really asking for.