---
id: 2026-01-11T11:00:00-0500
title: 2026-01-11 11:00:??
tags:
  - topic/estimating
daily: "[[2026-01-11]]"
---
# 2026-01-11 11:00:??

%%
Comment on a flawed understanding of [[construction-estimating]],
common even among estimators.
%%

![[my-favorite-quotes#"It Takes an Engineer to Build a Bridge that Barely Stands"]]

The value that estimators provide for a contractor
is in _modeling project cost_.
If the goal were simply to present a number that the cost will not exceed,
than anyone could be an estimator.
If the goal were only to present a reasonably accurate figure,
with no other constraints,
then there are few who in the world who couldn't,
given infinite time for a single bid.
The _true_ value of an estimator, then,
is in their ability to model project cost _efficiently_, that is,
to achieve _acceptable_ accuracy and precision as quickly as possible,---
much as the engineer's is in building a bridge that _meets_ the requirements
as cheaply as possible.

Estimating "as accurately as possible"
is akin to building a bridge "as strong as possible";
it sounds nice, but ignores the actual objective of _optimal cost-efficiency_.

I think that most estimators believe this to be the case,
but, whatever they believe in mind, they believe in practice
that the goal is to model cost as accurately and precisely as possible,
_given the time allowed for bid_.
Estimates tend always to take exactly as many weeks as until the bid due date,
even those of significantly different turnaround but equal scope and complexity.
This behavior is objectionable,
since if an acceptable estimate _could_ be provided in two weeks,
it is not cost-effective[^1] to allow it to take four.[^2]

[^1]: "Cost" referring both to estimator salaries and the opportunity cost of declined bids.

[^2]: Supposing a contractor maintained a [[modern-portfolio-theory]] styled record of estimates
    including pending bids, and projects ongoing and completed
    (each with confidence estimates),
    uncorrupted by [[estimating-culture#Incentives|perverse incentives]],
    they may have reasonable basis to set sliding standards for estimate precision
    to be specifically determined at consideration of the opportunity for bid
    according to current climate (i.e. their transient risk appetite).

    I believe my use of the absolute is still fair:
    No contractor is doing that,
    so they lack a competent measure of risk tolerance
    besides continuing to tolerate what they have tolerated historically.

> [!important]
> Objectionable as it is,
> it is to be expected that estimators will use all time allowed them
> when the standards for **acceptability** are inadequately defined.
