You have a sewer replacement quote on the kitchen table, the number is big, and you’re wondering whether a second opinion is being smart or being difficult. This guide is for that moment.
First, the frame. Checking a quote is not an accusation. Contractors expect big-ticket bids to get scrutiny, and the good ones make scrutiny easy by showing their evidence. What you’re evaluating isn’t the person. It’s two specific things: the diagnosis behind the number, and whether the proposed method fits that diagnosis.
Second, what this page won’t do. It won’t tell you your quote is right or wrong, because nobody can judge a quote without seeing your line. It won’t quote prices, because every line’s length, depth, and access are different. It teaches the criteria, and you apply them.
One reassurance before the checklist: nothing here requires confrontation. Most of these checks happen at your own kitchen table, with the paperwork and the footage in front of you, and the questions they produce are ones any competent contractor answers routinely. If asking them strains the relationship, that’s information too.
The good news is the criteria are simple. A replacement quote rests on a camera inspection somebody ran, or should have. The footage either supports the diagnosis or it doesn’t. The method, whether trenchless or open trench, either matches the findings or it doesn’t. And good inspection footage has a recognizable shape, which the rest of this guide walks through.
What a legitimate diagnosis includes
Start with the evidence, because everything else hangs on it. A replacement-grade diagnosis has three parts.
Footage you can watch. Not a description of footage. The actual video, shown to you, with the problems visible. You don’t need training to see roots filling a pipe or a joint sitting an inch out of line. If the camera inspection happened, the video exists, and showing it costs nothing.
Problems located and named. “The line is shot” is a verdict, not a finding. A finding sounds like: offset joint at 34 feet, roots at 41 and 52, belly holding water from 60 to 68. Located problems can be verified, marked from above ground, and compared against another opinion. Vague problems can’t, and that’s usually why they’re vague.
Reasoning that connects findings to fix. The proposal should explain why these findings need this method. Damage repeating along the whole line supports full replacement. One documented break at one location supports a repair, and a replacement bid for it should explain what makes the rest of the line unsalvageable.
Notice what’s not on the list: urgency. Located, documented findings keep. A pipe with an offset at 34 feet will have the same offset next week, and a diagnosis that can’t survive a few days of thinking wasn’t much of a diagnosis. Real evidence is patient, and its patience is one more way to recognize it.
Here’s the test that catches the most trouble: when was the method named? If a fix was proposed before any camera went into the pipe, the diagnosis is a guess wearing work boots. Maybe a lucky guess. But a bid built on footage beats a bid built on a hunch, every time, and you’re allowed to say so.
Questions to ask any bidder
-
Can I watch the footage?
A real diagnosis comes with video you can see yourself.
-
Where exactly is the damage?
Problems should be located by distance and depth.
-
Why this method?
The findings should point to the fix, not the reverse.
-
What did the camera rule out?
A thorough inspection also says what's not wrong.
-
Who handles the permit?
Settle the paperwork question before work starts.
-
What happens to the yard?
Restoration scope belongs in writing, up front.
Does the method match the findings?
You don’t need to be a plumber to sanity-check a method. You need one sentence per method, and the willingness to compare each against what the footage showed.
Pipe lining cures a new pipe inside the old one. It suits lines that are damaged but still hold their shape and slope. Cracks and root-entry joints, yes. Collapsed or badly deformed pipe, no, because a liner takes the shape of whatever it cures inside.
Pipe bursting pulls a new pipe through while breaking up the old. It suits lines too far gone to line but still continuous enough for the equipment to pass, and it can upsize an undersized line.
Excavation digs down and replaces the pipe outright. It suits what nothing else can fix: collapse, severe misalignment, failed slope. The trenchless options page covers the first two in more depth.
Now hold your quote against your footage. A lining bid on a pipe the video shows as crushed should raise a question. So should an excavation-only bid on a line whose footage shows intact pipe with root-entry joints, without an explanation of why trenchless was ruled out. Sometimes there’s a good answer. Access constraints, utility conflicts, and slope problems all legitimately rule methods out. This section can’t tell you whether your quoted method is wrong for your line. It tells you what each method suits, so you can ask the question and judge the answer.
A second camera run settles it
When a second opinion on a sewer quote is worth it
Some situations justify the cost of an independent second look at the line. These are the clearest.
No watchable footage came with the quote. The whole diagnosis is verbal, and requests for video go nowhere. A second camera run rebuilds the missing evidence from scratch, and this time you watch it live.
The findings float. Nothing is located by distance or depth, so nothing can be checked. An independent inspection produces the located findings the first one should have.
The method doesn’t match the stated problem, and the explanation doesn’t hold up when you ask. The trenchless vs. excavation comparison shows which findings point which way, so you can tell a real justification from a shrug.
The number is simply large. This one is underrated. When a quote reaches a certain size, an independent inspection costs a small fraction of it. If the second look confirms the first diagnosis, you proceed with real confidence. If it doesn’t, it just paid for itself many times over. Either outcome beats signing on faith.