Commercial Estimators

We have been preparing for the change over to the new 2004 numbering system since the summer of 2004. It is now four years later and we have still not made the transition even though almost everything is in place. Our entire company is anticipating that this change will take place or would have taken place by this time. Our first reaction as with many was that it seems to be a lot of work to accomplish for a benefit that was not certain. After reading and re-reading and doing the preparation for the change over however it appears that the new changes will benefit construction and offer no more difficulties than the original.

Having said that, we are feeling a significant frustration with design professionals that are waivering on the use of the numbering system either previous or new. It is our opinion that the level of complexity required of estimates and the inherent possibily of errors is compounded when the design professional will not decide which numbering format will be used and instead produces a document that incorporates both systems in different sections of the specifications. We have received document using the new 2004 numbering system for divisions 3 through 14 and the 1995 numbering system for divisions 2, 15 and 16. On other occasions we have recieved exactly the opposite. We have even received documents using differing numbering systems within the same division. To say the least this creates an added possibilty of error and confusion.

Has anyone developed an answer to this problem that does not include injuring the egos or impinging on the rights of the design professionals.

Our success at this attemp has been limited.

Austin D. Mayberry

I don't know if there is an answer.  As design firms compete for fewer and fewer trained architects and engineers with larger salaries and have to bid on work they have negotiated in the past, the old "boilerplate" specs look pretty convenient.  Many jobs are designed by addendum.  The design is 90% complete and some portion of the other 10% is designed as RFI's come in during the bidding process. 

 At contract time the design might be at 95% or less.  That's 5% design hours saved for the design firm.  Being short-handed, those saved hours are used on the next project and the Project Manager gets the project built by enforcing the "design intent" clause and the last 5% is design-build by the subcontractors and suppliers. 

Look at the shop drawings of the fabricators required to prepare shop drawings for the permit process.  From the footing rebar to the support system for the insulated metal siding, the design is done by the supplier and stamped by THEIR engineers, not the architect.  A cut and paste of a few generic rebar details from the last 10 projects and a vague cross section of a furring strip with the note, "siding support design the responsibility of the supplier" is called a complete design these days. 

The answer lies with the owners.  When some of them get burnt by the errors Bud Mayberry is talking about, they will insist on the new system to be used consistently on all their projects.  Architects that can't get out of the 20th century, will be left behind.  Dinosaurs killed off by the meteor of progress.

 You sure feel the pain alot of others are feeling and have for some time. Even before the new Format was being introduced CSI codes seemed to fluctuate from Architect to Architect, and sometimes from project to project with the same firm....  I don't think there is an answer for all of it until a "forced change" comes about....

I understand the pain you are going to. I quit my first estimating job for the same reason.

I was working for small custom home builder company, The owner/CEO was trying to "organize" the company and change the estimates and specs formats from the company "own particular format" to an industry standard format (MF 2004 or Uniformat).

The owner and the computer geek decided to go with Master format for the parts book and uniformat for the estimate WBS. I admit the owner did not know what he was getting into.

When the first estimates in the new format came out, he did not like it because he could not see the cost the way he was used to see it. Therefore, the WBS was changing as per his request from one estimate to the next.

It was really fustrating for me because regardless the WBS I had to make sure everything was acounted for.

On my third job, I'm having similar challenges in which the senior estimator wants to use MF but the general construction manager wants to keep it the way it is (we have our own particular WBS).

My opinion is, prior to changing the system everybody involved in creating, reviewing and using the estimates should be trainned and explained the importance of knowing and understanding the WBS (that include: owners, managers estimators, accountants, sales and site superintendants). Many people agree with changing it but do not give the importance of actually knowing the new system and seeing the future challenges.