WHAT THIS SERVICE ADDRESSES
When you need to know what defective work will cost to fix, what an abandoned job will cost to complete, or whether contractor billing reflects the work performed, this practice provides the independent construction cost analysis to answer those questions.
25+
Years as a Licensed Class B Contractor. Pricing, bidding, and supervising residential construction.
Scott Biller has 25+ years pricing, bidding, and supervising the same categories of residential construction now under dispute. Cost figures are formed from direct field knowledge and published industry data.
Independent, line-item remediation estimates developed from field-documented defects and current market pricing.
Independent assessment of what remains unfinished on an abandoned project and what completion requires.
Independent evaluation of invoices, draw requests, and AIA pay applications against field-documented work.
Construction cost analysis opinions in this practice area are developed through direct site inspection, documentation review, and application of published cost data to the specific scope of work at issue. The scope of analysis available includes:
Developing an independent, line-item cost-to-cure estimate from field-documented defects and scope failures — grounded in how the work is estimated and priced in this market, not derived from generalized damage categories
Evaluating what remains unfinished on an abandoned or incomplete project and quantifying what completion requires based on the contracted scope, the work performed, and current market pricing
Reviewing contractor invoices, draw requests, and payment applications against documented work performed — identifying overbilling, unsupported charges, and payment applications that exceed the value of work in place, and producing an independently documented record separating legitimate charges from those that are not supported by the work built
Evaluating compliance with AIA contract payment standards and identifying applications that do not accurately reflect project completion percentages or stored materials. Scott Biller’s contractor experience includes submitting and reviewing AIA pay applications and draw requests as part of project management — the same documents now evaluated in these disputes, producing an independent assessment of whether each draw accurately reflects project progress
Cross-referencing billing records against field-observed conditions to identify discrepancies between what was billed and what was built — providing the evidentiary foundation for a payment dispute where the contractor’s own billing records are the subject of challenge
Where defect identification and cost quantification are both at issue, both analyses are grounded in the same field inspection record — with no gap between the scope of what must be repaired and the cost of repairing it
Responding to opposing expert opinions on remediation scope, cost methodology, and payment application accuracy
where construction defects must be documented and evaluated before construction cost analysis (in plain terms: establishing what went wrong before pricing what it costs to fix), that analysis is addressed in Practice Area 01: Construction Performance & Defect Analysis. Both analyses are available from the same expert and the same field inspection record.
Quantifies what it will cost to remedy identified construction defects. Scott Biller’s 25+ years pricing, bidding, and executing the same categories of residential repair work now under dispute makes this analysis credible from the field up — not from reference tables down.
Documents what was performed and quantifies what completion requires, grounded in the contracted scope, work performed to date, and current market pricing for the remaining work.
Where a dispute turns on what was billed versus what was built — overbilling, unsupported draw requests, or AIA pay applications that overstate completion — this analysis provides an independent record of what the billing reflects against what the field conditions support. Scott Biller’s contractor experience includes submitting and reviewing the same AIA pay applications and draw requests now under dispute.
The contractor completed the project but the work was defective. The contractor walked off before completion, and a dispute has arisen about what was done, what remains, and what it will cost to finish. The contractor is seeking payment for work you believe was not performed or was overbilled. Draw requests or pay applications do not reflect actual completion. An opposing expert has produced a cost figure that appears built backward from a damages target rather than forward from the work required.
In each, analysis begins with what the matter requires — field inspection, document review, or both — and is applied independently to that documented scope. The starting point is a direct conversation; no formal intake process is required.
If you need to know what it will cost to fix defective work, finish an abandoned job, or challenge a bill you believe is inaccurate, this practice provides independent cost analysis grounded in the field inspection and the data.
If the contractor left the job unfinished, this practice can document what was completed and what it will cost to finish it at current market rates. If the work was done badly and you need to know what it will cost to fix it, that cost-to-cure analysis is developed from what the field inspection finds — not from what either side in the dispute wants the number to be. If you are being billed for work you do not believe was performed or completed, invoices and draw requests are reviewed against what was actually built. In each situation, the construction cost analysis produced is independent: grounded in the inspection record and market data, and defensible on its own terms.
Cost analysis opinions are developed with the admissibility requirements of each jurisdiction in mind.
Across all three jurisdictions, cost opinions are formed from field inspection and industry data developed independent of the pending litigation — not manufactured for the purpose of testifying. The methodology applied reflects the specific scope documented during inspection, not a generalized estimate applied to a category of damage.
Cost-to-cure and cost-to-complete opinions are formed in accordance with Va. Code § 8.01-401.1 and Va. Sup. Ct. R. 2:702, grounded in facts and data observed or made known to the expert. Published cost databases and market-verified pricing are widely used within the cost estimation field. Opinions are formed from field experience developed independent of the pending litigation.
Opinions are developed under Maryland Rule 5-702 and the Daubert standard adopted in Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020): based on sufficient facts or data, the product of reliable principles and methods, and those methods reliably applied to the case. Methodology is grounded in published industry data and direct market knowledge applied to the documented scope of work.
Opinions are developed under W. Va. R. Evid. 702. Construction cost estimation using published databases and market-verified pricing applied to field-documented scope is established, widely accepted practice and does not implicate the heightened scrutiny under Rule 702(b) reserved for novel science.
Cost opinions in this practice have been subjected to cross-examination across Circuit Court, General District Court, U.S. District Court, and arbitration. The analytical basis for each cost figure — data source, field-documented scope, and methodology — is recorded and available before deposition begins, not reconstructed in response to it.
Expert reports are prepared to meet disclosure requirements under applicable court rules. Rebuttal analyses are available where opposing expert opinions raise issues of methodology, data selection, or scope. Prior reports, transcripts, and disclosure materials are available for pre-retention review on request.
Matters across Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia — Circuit Court, General District Court, U.S. District Court, and arbitration — retained by both plaintiff and defense counsel.
Retained by plaintiff counsel to evaluate property conditions following unauthorized tenant alterations. Site inspection documented the full scope of damage; cost-to-cure analysis was developed from the same field record. Resolved at settlement conference prior to trial.
Retained by defense counsel in a multi-phase dispute involving deck, hardscape, and landscape installation defects, including independent plant inventory and cost-to-cure analysis. Provided deposition testimony; analysis held under examination.
Retained by defense/counter-plaintiff counsel in a matter involving construction defect claims, unauthorized change orders, billing disputes, asbestos abatement scope, and AIA pay application analysis. AIA compliance was evaluated against field-documented completion percentages. Resolved at pre-trial settlement conference.
Retained by plaintiff counsel in a matter involving porch ceiling and trim installation defects. Field inspection documented workmanship deficiencies; cost-to-cure analysis using published cost data provided the evidentiary basis for the damages claim.
Retained by plaintiff counsel in a matter involving vapor barrier, insulation, HVAC performance, and mold remediation scope. Field inspection across all affected systems; cost-to-cure analysis verified against market sources for the specific work required.
Each involved a contested cost of remediation, completion, or correction — and each required independent cost analysis grounded in field inspection and market-verified data. Behind each was a property owner facing the same question: what will this cost to fix, and how do I prove it?
When construction projects raise difficult questions about performance, costs, or change orders, Biller & Associates delivers the independent, third-party analysis you need to document as-built conditions, quantify costs, and report findings.
Contact us below to schedule a consultation and receive a detailed evaluation of your project.
