US sitework bid references and document directory

Find the agency documents and scope questions relevant to your civil bid. Choose a state, then a county or city case. Each reference addresses a specific approval, document or scope question and links its source.

Our estimating support is remote and based on the supplied plans. A location listing represents a project-document reference, not a local branch, completed project, approved engineering design or a statewide soil assumption.

Start with a sourced bid reference

Florida

For Florida bids, first separate FDOT contract quantities, construction-stormwater controls and any environmental-resource or dewatering scope. The estimating problem is establishing which approvals and details govern each work package, not assuming every Florida site has the same groundwater depth.

Review bid decisions and sources

Texas

Build a Texas sitework bid around the contract owner, TxDOT specification edition where incorporated, and the project SWP3. A TxDOT highway bid and a private Houston development need different document registers; a Texas address alone does not make every TxDOT item applicable.

Review bid decisions and sources

Virginia

Virginia bids can combine VDOT road work, local site-development approvals and state construction-stormwater requirements. Keep those responsibilities separate so that utility, frontage and stormwater quantities are measured against the right drawings rather than a single statewide specification label.

Review bid decisions and sources

California

California sitework packages need a controlled register of Caltrans standards where adopted, project special provisions and construction-stormwater documents. For a private project, the city or county approved grading and drainage drawings remain essential; Caltrans references are not a substitute for that local review.

Review bid decisions and sources

New York

A New York sitework bid should distinguish NYSDOT contract items, DEC construction-stormwater requirements and the municipality or utility owner serving the parcel. New York City projects add a city review context that should not be projected onto upstate or Long Island work.

Review bid decisions and sources

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania bid preparation requires separate attention to PennDOT contract specifications, Chapter 102 earth-disturbance documents and municipal stormwater requirements. An E&S plan and a post-construction stormwater plan describe different work and should not be combined into one generic erosion-control allowance.

Review bid decisions and sources

Choose by the document you need

  • For a state-highway contract, identify the standards edition and special provisions incorporated into the bid.
  • For private development, confirm the parcel jurisdiction and obtain accepted grading, drainage and utility details.
  • For soil reuse, rock, undercut or dewatering, obtain site-specific investigation and design inputs.
  • For a quantity method, use the service scope reference or pre-bid checklist.

The site-condition review guide explains how to turn missing geotechnical and groundwater inputs into clear bid questions.

State references by bid-review topic

Browse all 50 state references. Open a state for its local references; city-specific guidance is labeled within the county page and does not imply a countywide rule.

  • AlabamaCBMPP preparation and field implementation responsibilities
  • AlaskaWinter shutdown is a planned control phase
  • ArizonaUse the active 2025 permit rather than an expired coverage assumption
  • ArkansasAutomatic coverage still has a documented SWPPP basis
  • CaliforniaBid, specification and approval review
  • ColoradoConstruction stormwater and dewatering are separate permit programs
  • ConnecticutSPCP submission depends on the project review category
  • DelawareDelegated review, construction inspection and maintenance inspection
  • FloridaBid, specification and approval review
  • GeorgiaPrimary, secondary and tertiary permittee paperwork
  • HawaiiAgricultural ground preparation versus farm buildings and roads
  • IdahoCurrent IPDES coverage and construction inspections
  • IllinoisAn ILR application listing does not prove approval
  • IndianaLocal MS4 review does not replace the IDEM NOI
  • IowaConstruction GP2 is different from material-production GP3
  • KansasOwner/operator transfer is a project handoff
  • KentuckyConstruction support areas belong in the stormwater scope review
  • LouisianaLarge construction coverage follows the common development plan
  • MaineStormwater PBR does not substitute for MCGP coverage
  • MarylandConfirm the renewed state coverage record against approved plans
  • MassachusettsDewatering and remediation coverage depends on the discharge activity
  • MichiganPart 91 controls and certified stormwater inspections
  • MinnesotaInfiltration eligibility must be established before measuring the practice
  • MississippiPrime-contractor certification and coastal supporting information
  • MissouriRoot-zone disturbance is part of land-disturbance review
  • MontanaSage-grouse consultation can be part of the SWC application package
  • NebraskaSearch receipt dates are different from project dates
  • NevadaSWPPP completion, NOI and approval letter are separate milestones
  • New HampshireAlteration of Terrain is its own state review input
  • New Jersey5G3 authorization and district certification follow different submissions
  • New MexicoLocate the actual construction permit record
  • New YorkBid, specification and approval review
  • North CarolinaNCG01 coverage must match financial responsibility
  • North DakotaCERIS-ND holds the current transfer and termination process
  • OhioBig Darby and Olentangy watershed appendices
  • OklahomaOKR10 site descriptions include off-site support and peak disturbance
  • OregonGeneral-use and government-agency construction permit routes
  • PennsylvaniaBid, specification and approval review
  • Rhode IslandA combined application can still contain several water-resource scopes
  • South CarolinaCritical-area authorization before coastal work quantities
  • South DakotaOwner certification and contractor authorization remain distinct
  • TennesseeARAP water alterations are a separate construction input
  • TexasBid, specification and approval review
  • UtahSingle residential lots and broader construction use different routes
  • VermontRisk category changes the construction submission package
  • VirginiaBid, specification and approval review
  • WashingtonDischarge monitoring needs its own scope assignment
  • West VirginiaGeneral construction and oil/gas construction use distinct program resources
  • WisconsinNOI signing commits to implementing the control plans
  • WyomingLarge-site applications include a documented public-road access route

Official starting points

These resources help identify an agency or mapped soil information. They do not replace the project contract, permit conditions or geotechnical investigation.