Relationships and their place. Push Vs. Pull

[rockstar.esq]

A quick view of most advertisements for the construction industry will reveal a few consistencies in how they perceive their client and their product.  Trite sayings hinging upon "building relationships" abound in construction advertisement.  Taken out of context, these same marketing efforts would have more in common with personal ads than custom manufacturers.

 

What would you say you do here?

 

Most General Contractors in the Commercial market do not self-perform the majority of the work.  In point of fact, they're called General Contractors not builders because administering contracts is really what they do.  As a result most of them lack substantial focus on what they're really there to do which is to faithfully execute the design according to the contract.  This means that the subcontractors are where the "rubber meets the road" so to speak since the subcontractors are the ones actually building the job.  Interestingly few if any General Contractors make mention of their relationships with subcontractors when promoting their company.

 

Luxury car makers don't advertise the special relationship they have with their clients.  They emphasize that they make the best car,  period.  Construction companies seem loath to admit that they  build what is designed; they don't get to choose the level of quality, aesthetic appeal, or social prominence of their projects.

 

"Dang it Carl, I said move the Church AFTER the wedding."

 

Put your back into it.

 

So what is a client getting when they call a GC?  Mostly they're getting risk management, project control, contract administration, and subcontractor "pull".  "Pull" in this sense is the market value of that particular GC to any given group of subcontractors.  GC's with a reputation for not paying their subcontractors have less pull than better GC's.  There's a lot that goes into your pull.  For example, if a GC has been on a losing streak, they'll lose pull with subcontractors.  GC's that chase bad clients will lose pull with subcontractors.

 

Bringing focus back to estimating, the amount of pull you can generate has a lot to do with how you handle your bids.  For most subs, the only thing they have to go on is how you communicate with them.

 

Like a lot of things in life, it's the outcome that matters not the intent.  Some folks get hung up on sending everyone the exact same message, without actually pausing to consider how that reads to an individual.

 

Bid invitations are a good example of this.  It's fast and uniform to send everyone on the bid list the exact same message.  Often these invites cover a few key points like the deadlines, site walks, and such while excluding individual trade-level details for fear of it not applying to all recipients.  It's pathetic how frequently invitations to bid fail to evoke any enthusiasm for the project, the client, or the opportunity.  Mostly they're a bland memo directing the bidders through the GC's particular brand of bureaucracy.  When coupled with bid-letting services, these invitations can end up appended to a "donotreply" email that conceals everything from the recipient until they summit the mountaintop of logins, sales pitches, and file downloads.

 

 

As an outcome, this is counterproductive to pulling subcontractors towards the opportunity the estimator is pursuing.  A great deal of what's wrong in business relationships comes down to pushing when it would be better to pull.

 

Design relationships

 

Design teams fall victim to this process as well.  Traditionally, the Architect brought all the engineering disciplines together to develop a cohesive and thorough plan.  Like most industries, the concept of compartmentalization rose to the fore and now its common practice for a project to have a long roster of design consultants working in degrees of isolation from one another.

 

I don't know what's existing and neither do you, but it won't be me that pays.  It'll be you.

 

Projects that must refer to existing conditions are often riddled with notes declaring that all bidders have tacitly accepted responsibility for field verification of unknowable items.  These "gotcha" requirements are used in lieu of consultants making their own site inspection and designing accordingly.

Site inspections,  coordination meetings, and construction oversight are sometimes viewed as "add alternates" to the design package.  Clients often accept or decline these services based on their budget, schedule, and professional proclivities.  Clients pre-disposed to "hurry up" work can't spare the time for consultants to fully fledge their designs.  Noteworthy examples are property managers pushing for Tenant Improvement projects that close the deal on a lease.

To the client, the savings in design fees and duration may appear worthwhile until the market pricing reflects the additional risk imposed by an incomplete design.  During market slumps, these clients use competitive bidding to flesh out the issues with the design which they ask bidders to solve.  Once they've got the answers, they incorporate them via addendum and put it back out to bid.

 

There's no time to do it right the first time, but we'll find time to do it again.

 

This "refine-design-by-bid" tactic initiates an unfortunate dynamic in the market.  Bidders who've invested in "helping" the client are rewarded with several costly rounds of bidding before the project goes to contract.  They know that rolling these expenses into their next proposal will all but guarantee a loss.  They also know that every answer they provide will be used to assist their competitors in arriving at a complete proposal.  Every round of bidding further diminishes the profitability of the project.  For some bidders the "solution" is to seek recompense in overpriced change orders.

 

This adversarial attitude angers clients who feel they invested heavily to see their project happen and feel exploited by greedy build teams.  Clients who've weathered this experience often arrive at the next bid with an enthusiastic commitment to pound out the issues before they sign another contract. Very rarely do they see the connection between "refine by bid" and overpriced change orders.

 

Perhaps the most frustrating observation to offer here is that the total pre-construction cycle on "hurry up" projects often end up matching the duration of having it properly designed in the first place.  Complete designs mitigate change orders, and bidding once restores profitability for the build team.  There's more incentive to actually finish the job quickly when it's clear the only profitable path is efficiency.   A critical aspect here is that clients need to comprehend that an invitation to bid is supposed to be a commitment to actually hire the winning bidder.  Distorting the pre-construction process by eliciting free design help and  re-bidding is communicating a very one-sided  and unethical view of the Client-GC relationship.  It's unreasonable to expect fair and ethical treatment when it's not reciprocated.

 

Bringing this back to relationships it's worth pointing out that departures from traditional responsibilities can't and won't happen without consequences.  Pushing off design responsibilities onto the build team will corrupt their relationships with the work and with each other. It also serves to alter the consultants relationship with the project in that they move away from taking responsibility for their design and move towards evading liability for every conceivable issue.  If consultants aren't given sufficient time and opportunity to inspect existing site conditions, they tend to think there's little alternative but to pass the buck.

 

Engineers haven't been the same since we took the trains away from them...

 

Professional conduct

 

Much of the hijinks mentioned above is more prevalent during recessions than at other times.  Given the choice, most professionals would rather pursue legitimate work that offers sufficient time and opportunity to do a good job.  GC's are by definition, subcontracting the bulk of the work they bid. Viewing the Construction Documents (CD's) as a liability, many estimators believe their role is to ensure that every scope item is included in one of the subcontracts.  When the focus is exclusively covering your hind end, it's easy to miss opportunities to better understand where the subcontractors are coming from.  Subcontractors bidding to notorious cowards will be reluctant to offer insights into how discrepancies in the plans may offer opportunities to win.

 

Opportunity may only knock once

 

GC estimators that don't dig in and really make the effort to know what's going on with a project are constantly caught flat-footed when subcontractors call with questions. Whether its incompetence, cowardice, or a lack of commitment, the result is the same; subcontractors will take their best ideas to wherever they'll profit the most.  In practical terms that can mean competing GC's will get better pricing or it could mean that subcontractors make tough decisions about how best to "play" the situation.

 

For example, I've encountered situations where subcontractors choose to take a chance on a scope discrepancy without telling the GC estimator because they had proven themselves to be unwilling and/or unable to take a measured risk. Since the subcontractor can't rely on protection from the GC if their gambit doesn't work, they hedge their bet by keeping a goodly portion of the potential savings.

 

Don't be an obstacle to success

 

The GC estimator rolls into the bid carrying that subcontractor because they're lower than their competitors but fails to fully capitalize on what that subcontractor relationship has to offer them.  The relationship becomes more about what the subcontractor can achieve despite the GC estimator than what the team can accomplish together.  It's a short leap from not sharing the bounty achieved through special insight, to purposely working on deals to exploit weak GC estimators.  Subcontractors who view themselves as king-makers aren't likely to be positive force in the market.  This is how they get their start.

 

"I don't know what this is, what do I do?"

 

None of which is to say that a GC Estimator can't rely upon their subcontractor relationships to help them with issues and scope items they don't fully understand.  Skilled trades require an incredible amount of specialized knowledge that a GC estimator couldn't be expected to possess.

There is however a difference between blind leadership, and taking the council of trusted allies.  The GC estimator should be consulting with trusted subcontractors on scope items they don't understand with the goal of building a working knowledge of the issues involved.   It's an odd thing but it's often possible to change the dynamic of a bad relationship by asking for help in understanding what the other person is facing.   Be a good student and retain what you've learned to earn a reputation as a consummate professional.  Before long you'll likely encounter a situation where you're relating something you've learned to a bidder thereby re-paying the market for its investment in your education.  Keep that in mind the next time you hear a "dumb" question.

Once again, there's greater benefit to all concerned when professionals actively seek out responsibility to pull the project forward rather than pushing responsibility for incomplete work down the line.

 

Civilization is in retreat because it's become unfashionable to do the right thing.

 

Understanding the critical relationship between quality outcomes and individual professionalism at every stage is the metaphorical keystone supporting the project arch.   Every buck that's passed get's a "vig" tacked on and when the bill comes due (and it will) the project will pay.  It's important to break from thinking of your task as being done in a small room with a door in and a door out.  What gets passed down the line matters.  Many projects with supernaturally bad design teams get built anyway.  Just because someone passed the buck to you, doesn't mean you must pass it on in turn.  An estimator converts the nebulous construction documents into a real and enforceable, construction contract. Some Project Managers have a well-earned disdain for estimators who've bound them to build a disaster with a schedule and a budget. Don't be that guy.

 

Actions have consequences, make certain that you are pulling in the right direction and that everyone "downstream" is as well.  Project Management needs to keep the promises made at the bid stage, and they need to ensure subcontractors hold up their end as well.  Otherwise subcontractors may again "game" the estimator knowing they can exploit Project Management once they've slipped past the bid stage.

 

What does the client care about?

 

An awful lot is put out about when to invest in this or that.  Terms like "Value" become little more than boardroom chaff.  In reality the client is very concerned with value, however what they value isn't always so obvious.  Answering questions and making them feel good about their purchase may be contingent for a sale however it's not what they THINK they're paying for.  In fact, most of the talking, drawing, thinking, and demonstrating doesn't really factor into their concept of what they've hired you to do.

 

What they see

 

To the client, actually making the thing is where the magic happens.  Those are the skills they imagine they're paying you for.  Since they perceive your pre-construction time as "free" they indulge in every tangential thought that comes to mind.  During a project they perceive the job site to be chock-full of workers and materials so changing this or that seems easier than if they imagined that change as a separate job going out to bid.  Design teams are keenly aware that their mistakes, oversights, and mis-communications are costing time and money.  During construction the client typically views the design team more as an adviser and quality control enforcer than anything else.  GC's' are generally loath to expose design team shortcomings for fear of retribution.   Diplomatic efforts to price necessary change orders stemming from design shortfalls can devolve into bickering about cost legitimacy versus design integrity.

 

The client and design team camp may shake their heads at the gall of the build teams prices while the build team shares their exasperation with projects that are changing direction while the clock runs out.

 

The pattern of pushing project responsibility down the line without each tier pulling their own weight is the root cause.  Returning to the opening of this article; "Building relationships" need not be a vacuous and misdirected approach to success.  Clients are not in a position to actually know that decisions to short-change a fully developed design will cause the problems they sought to avoid by hiring a design professional if nobody has the courage to tell them so.

 

"Sure you're attracting lots of attention, I'm just saying you might take a different route next time"

 

Making mediocrity acceptable through placation, participation, and proliferation of stupidity is not "worth it if you get the job".  Lowering standards and passing the buck are the stock in trade of hacks.  Blurring the line between hacks and pros from the clients perspective represents a strong deterrent to future business.

Be better, be honest, and don't be afraid to speak up.

 

It's in everyone's best interest to speak truthfully with the client.  Many incomplete designs are put to bid by design teams who are deeply (and silently) frustrated by the client's miserly haste.  GC estimators often succumb to pressure from marketing and pre-construction directors to bid risky designs.  Pushing rather than pulling.  If instead the GC Estimator took the opportunity to present solutions before bidding, they might persuade the client to make changes that profoundly improve their odds of an ideal outcome.  At worst, the estimator could articulate the issues that could hurt the client, pulling them in the right direction.

 

Now it's time to bring this all back to relationships.  In my experience, there's a contingent of dubiously moral folks in the market who rely on "relationships" to cover or offset the fact that they're neither a good value, nor a market leader.  They are "connected" and often use their connections to exploit or extort the industry.  It's foolish and dangerous to allow these people to "do you a favor" because they'll be sure to demand what you "owe" them.  Working around them will incur their wrath as well.  It's bad business wherever they're involved so pick your path with care.

 

At the opposite end of the spectrum are the people who are a veritable institution of good value, straight dealing, and integrity.  It's a privilege to work with these rare individuals.  The sad truth is that they are rare no matter how common it is to read an advertisement extolling these virtues.  I hope this article has inspired you to choose that legacy for yourself.

[Wroughton]

Always a treat Rockstar. Even if it made my stomach churn.
It's like you are sitting on my shoulder.
I had a run in with a giant multistate G.C. (One Cali job is in the 50m range) recently and your
points resounded time after time.
I will never do work with them again and i know they wont be used again by the architect or client either.
After defining the bid AND our scope within the job for them they continually added road blocks to stall the job from being completed
In a very poorly veiled attempt to drag out the work. Disclaimers galore, from on site workplace safety to unknowns on plans.
Communication, other than heaps of digital plans, like spam, was poor and without substance until a heated meeting with the architects and client which fixed things to a very small degree.

Yeeesh, almost started a rant i couldn't stop!

I agree wholeheartedly Rockstar.

[rockstar.esq]

Thanks Wroughton, although I am sorry to haunt you!  Bad jobs leave a mark on you for sure.  Years later I still can't bring myself to shop at stores we built with (or for) terrible companies.  

 

Probably the single biggest reason that it's not really feasible to "scale up" projects using the same methods as smaller ones is the exponential impact that bad relationships can have on them.  

 

It's counter-intuitive but smaller jobs tend to work around a trouble-maker because there isn't sufficient opportunity to exploit the confusion for the fence-sitters.  The whole "pile on" mentality doesn't get traction as a result, so the majority opt to cooperate.

 

Big jobs dramatically increase the odds of a hack slipping in because the work is more compartmentalized and the communication lags allow them plenty of opportunity to misbehave.  I have a colleague who works in "project controls" which is a fancy term for production auditor.  In the entirety of his career auditing large industrial construction projects ranging from mining to chemical refining, he's never once encountered a project that was properly designed, bid, scheduled, managed, budgeted, or completed.  The company counters this information by "factoring in" extra time and money into their new sales.  They expect to fail yet somehow they always exceed expectations!

 

His sad duty is to report the degree to which the firm is screwing up across disciplines.  These projects are "design as you go" since there's never sufficient time to engineer a one-off factory before starting construction.  The engineers merely attempt to stay ahead of the build team.

 

The clients know that absolutely everything will take longer and cost more than the company promised so they factor in contingencies for both.  My buddy's overseen the shutdown of at least two multi- million dollar jobs because his company was burning through the contingency at an unsustainable rate.

 

At the core of the situation is a group of engineers who've botched their work at the very start figuring they'd pass it on down the line. Since the firm is a design-build operation, the "build team" is full of entrenched buck-passers. One of the two shut-downs was because the engineers designed the entire building foundation (several acres of interior space) approximately 60% smaller than they really needed  to fit the equipment inside.  This equipment constitutes the entire point of the project yet this oversight wasn't brought to light until the roof was going on.  Incredibly the project was already over budget and behind schedule BEFORE this discovery.

 

Literally thousands of workers lost their jobs but those engineers continue on as "valued assets" despite the incredible evidence suggesting malpractice at best and sabotage at worst.

 

I genuinely wonder how long it will take until this industry recognizes the incredible price of allowing this irresponsibility to continue.  This is a moral issue that's driving the market into peaks and valleys according to the respective clients financial forbearance.  Pretending "it just happens" makes it acceptable, to everyone's loss.

[Timothy Miller]

This really rings true do you write professionally?  I recently got asked to quote a job and every RFI was replied with see drawings and check ASTM-XXX.  A simple 10 min conversation with the engineer could have cleared things up instead it took 6 people a a week to figure things out.  Our company tries to be upfront and honest its probably why we are doing well and growing.  

[Judson Yaggy]

Hear, hear Tim, we try to be the same way and sometimes run into the same thing.

 

Rockstar, I hope you are writing a book and testing out your chapters on us.  If more designers, builders, GCs and subs knew what you know the architectural world would be a much better place.

[rockstar.esq]

Tim, Judson,

 

Thank you both!  I don't write professionally, I just reached a point about six months ago where I realized that an awful lot of professionals do unprofessional things because they've lost sight of their purpose.  

 

Most of the problems I see on a daily basis are caused by folks at every level who don't see the whole picture.  Since it's often less work to actually solve a problem than it is to avoid responsibility, I figured that things might improve if more people saw that option.  

 

To that end I started a blog in the hopes that helping people with this stuff would lead to a better living for everyone.  These posts are copies from my blog: estimatorsplaybook.com .  So far my blog doesn't get much traffic, I think it's because estimating sounds like a dry topic.  

 

I hope that anyone who's found something worthwhile in my posts will give it a look and pass it on to others.  Long term I'd love to make a living by helping people make their ventures successful.  For now, it would be enough to know that I'm at least helping to ease the struggle.  Posting these on IFI has been very fulfilling - I genuinely appreciate all of you.

 

Thanks,

[Wroughton]

To fee, or not to fee, that is the question.

Keep blogging and I'll keep learning.

Thank you sir.

[rockstar.esq]

Thank you.