---
id: 2026-02-27T13:58:30-0500
title: 2026-02-27 13:58:30
tags:
  - status/draft
  - occupational
daily: "[[2026-02-27]]"
date-created: 2026-02-27T13:58:30-05:00
---
# 2026-02-27 13:58:30

## Conversation Regarding ConEst Pre-Takeoff Email Template

A conversation with a peer via Microsoft teams
regarding [[conest|ConEst]]'s
recent implementation of [[conest-pre-takeoff-email-template]].

### Peer @ 13:42

> _A screenshot of the new Pre-Takeoff email template._
> _The fields "Breaker Types" and "AIC Ratings" are highlighted._

At what point is it no longer spoon feeding
and instead should be considered fully chewing and digesting?
What is the purpose of such information?
What does procurement do?
What does operations do?
I have no involvement whatsoever in the decision making
of these very specific lines
or how they are applied to the job;
my takeoff is in no way affected or altered by this.
Why, pray tell, the fuck,
do I need to tell someone else this information?
If I am expected to supply this information,
should I not also check and cross reference quotes?

I want to hear from the electrical contractor
who has built a multi-family residence
where bolt-on breakers were specified for unit panels,
submitted, approved, ordered and installed,
never being mentioned in a VE.

### Me @ 15:15

I thought you'd have a fun time with some of those.
At least you and I had seen the words before,
imagine the rest of us.

I've heard other estimators say it shouldn't be our job
because it doesn't affect our takeoff,
but I think that's misguided.
It could be said that it's always been ConEst's purpose
to check [[pdi-bid-estimating|Bid]]'s work _generally_, even outside of takeoff,
only until now, the things we considered important enough to check
have happened to line up with takeoff.

They (whoever _They_ is) want Bid to handle more volume,
which requires that Bid spend less time on a single estimate,
which requires ConEst to pick up slack to maintain the same rigor.

Regardless, it is totally reasonable to be upset
that their was no training (or even warning) prior.

***

>  If I am expected to supply this information,
>  should I not also check and cross reference quotes?

This is my gripe too.
Let us check required manufacturers for wire and cable, sure,
no one else could reasonably be expected to if not us or Bid,
but Procurement has to check gear specs already,
and ConEst doesn't have the experience necessary
to make the redundancy cost-effective.

My 100% baseless speculation
is that ConEst has recently been blamed for losses
(very easy to do:
"ConEst was looking at these specs for two weeks
and they didn't say anything")
and rather than argue the point,
our plan is to ensure that we have written record
that we made Bid aware of significant issues.

Poor plan in my opinion,
since it's foolish to expect nothing will be missed,
and we are _taking responsibility_ where we thought we had none before.

### Peer @ 15:36

Poor plan indeed. 

From the perspective of someone under a Senior
who, after the initial meetings regarding this template,
stated it was "about some email shit"
I see this as poorly implemented.
I believe some basic and general education
about each line should be put into place,
to help those of us that are unfamiliar with these things.
For example, the original template states
'Generator: Acceptable manuf., enclosure specs,
sound rating, remote tank & size, load banks.'
My issue is with the vagueness of 'load banks.'
Not the only instance, but quite annoying
as some may not have any idea what a load bank is,
how it is incorporated into a system, or, most importantly,
what information the template is asking of you.

> They (whoever _They_ is) want Bid to handle more volume,
> which requires that Bid spend less time on a single estimate,
> which requires ConEst to pick up slack to maintain the same rigor.

Where does this come from?

### Me @ 15:53

More baseless speculation.
I'm assuming that there's a legitimate reason
to pass this responsibility to ConEst,
rather than just the natural preference for least effort.

My experience was the same as yours,
what I sent was quite different from the template.
It had to be for the job I used it for,
but I don't expect most will be easier.

I'll forward you it, but the source
(the cooler version) is at
"zmVault/timestamped/2026-02-11_12-12-16.md"

Bid reacted exactly how I said they would,
that it was way too much information.
