---
id: 2026-04-18T18:44:11
title: "2026-04-18 18:44:11"
tags: []
daily: "[[2026-04-18]]"
---
# 2026-04-18 18:44:11

I don't see many anymore
on account of my change in workplace,
but I think often of [[construction-estimating|estimators]]
like I once knew well,
who somehow managed to be in the industry for decades
while believing that it is poor estimating
to accept any [[risk]] in a bid,
that all [[uncertainty]] must be clarified.

Of course,
they didn't believe that with their actions,
only their words.
Suppose though we take them at those words,
like you do when you're a new estimator
who barely knows what the word means,
you're just happy to be out of the field
where it's hot and no one is ever happy.
But you've got a brain between your ears,
so you ask the estimator---
we'll call him Steve---
you ask Steve what the limit is,
because obviously some scope 
Steve cranes his neck and squints at you, mouth half open.
This is how he expresses incredulity.
With that invitation, you continue:

Your time costs your owners about fifty dollars an hour
including salary and burden,
and Steve's time is worth even more.
Between the time spent
* quadruple checking that the question isn't answered in the documents,
* considering whether you should wait until you have more questions,
* typing the RFI and sending the email,
* parsing the engineer's inevitably unhelpful response,
* consulting with Steve for his interpretation,
* and so on and so on,
it's a safe bet that the average cost
to officially resolve uncertainty of any magnitude
is in the hundreds of dollars.

Assuming a contract win rate of fifty percent,
any cost of [[risk-mitigation]]
greater than half the reduction in [[value-at-risk]]
represents a loss.

Steve moves the goalposts,
says of course he didn't mean "the small stuff",
and also that you're overcomplicating it.
