Yes, and it is the strongest argument in the project: one scope means the pad, the engineered slab, the anchor layout, and the steel all build to the same drawings, one schedule, and one fixed price, with no gap between contractors for the classic slab-versus-steel mismatch to hide in.
More detail
The traditional way to build a shop or commercial building is three contracts: a dirt contractor builds a pad, a concrete contractor pours a slab, a steel crew erects the building, and any mismatch between them surfaces at the worst time, with the frame on the ground and the crane on the clock. The anchor bolts are an inch off the base plates; the pad is a half-foot low and the aprons now slope backward; the slab cured a week behind the erection date. Each party built to their own understanding, and the gaps between contracts are exactly where the expensive problems live, because nobody owns them. A combined scope closes those gaps by making them internal: the pad is built to the elevation the slab design assumes, the slab is engineered from the building manufacturer's actual reactions and its anchor bolts set from the actual template, the erection schedule respects the actual cure curve, and the flatwork ties to the doors the building actually has. One accountable schedule, one mobilization plan, one fixed price, and one place responsibility lands if anything is wrong. The combined path also prices tighter than the sum of three padded contracts, because each contractor in a chain prices the risk of the others. Where an owner has already bought their building kit, the combined scope still works: pad, slab, and erection from the kit's drawings under one contract. Either way, the scope in writing is what welds the chain.