Solar Installer Bid Comparison Board

3.10

Derivation Chain

Step 1 Rapid growth in solar power generation

→

Step 2 Surge in small-scale solar installation demand

→

Step 3 Solar contractor quote comparison Platform

→

Step 4 Automated contractor bidding and quality certification

Problem

Building owners and farmers who have decided to install solar panels must individually contact 3-5 contractors to get quotes, and since each quote uses a different format (price per kW, panel brand, inverter type, warranty terms), direct comparison is difficult. The average quote variance reaches 30-50%, and over 300 complaints per year are filed due to the lowest-bidder contractors delivering substandard installations. There is no objective standard for verifying construction quality in advance.

Solution

(1) When installation conditions (address, area, roof type) are entered, automatic bid requests are sent to registered contractors, (2) Standardized quote format enables side-by-side comparison of price per kW, panels, inverters, and warranty periods, (3) Contractor track record (completed projects, defect complaint rate, customer ratings) is displayed as a trust grade.

Target: Building owners and farmers considering solar installation (ages 40-60), apartment management offices (common area solar), public facility managers

Revenue Model: Free for building owners (contractors pay bid fees), contractor Monthly Subscription 99,000 KRW/month (~$74) for bid participation, 2% success fee on contract deposit

Ecosystem Role: Consumer

MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty

1.0/5

U Urgency

4.0/5

M Market

5.0/5

R Realizability

2.0/5

V Validation

4.0/5

NUMR-V Scoring System

N Novelty	1-5	How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency	1-5	How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market	1-5	Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability	1-5	Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation	1-5	Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.

SaaS N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20 Senior N=.25 U=.25 M=.05 R=.30 V=.15

Feasibility (70%)

Tech Complexity

29.3/40

Data Availability

20.6/25

MVP Timeline

20.0/20

API Bonus

0.0/15

Feasibility Breakdown

Tech Complexity	/ 40	Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability	/ 25	Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline	/ 20	Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus	/ 15	Bonus for viable public API leverage.

Market Validation (62/100)

Competition

8.0/20

Market Demand

9.4/20

Timing

16.0/20

Revenue Signals

12.0/15

Pick-Axe Fit

12.0/15

Solo Buildability

5.0/10

Validation Breakdown

Competition	/ 20	Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand	/ 20	Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing	/ 20	Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals	/ 15	Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit	/ 15	How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability	/ 10	Practicality for lean-team implementation.

Technical Requirements

Backend [medium] Frontend [medium] Data Pipeline [low]

Dashboard