vault backup: 2026-04-01 18:14:07

This commit is contained in:
2026-04-01 18:14:08 -04:00
parent d82948d3f8
commit b77bf80fa7
35 changed files with 568 additions and 116 deletions
+1 -1
View File
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ dg-publish: true
### Belle Meade Director Review
Estimating Director Review for [[belle-meade-plaza]]
[[estimating-director-review]] for [[belle-meade-plaza]]
lead by [[corwin-fluit]],
attended by [[joel-jansen]] and myself.
+1 -1
View File
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ dg-publish: true
# 2026-01-07 16:03:??
There is a palpable animosity for [[pdi-estimating#Bid Estimating|Bid]]
in [[pdi-estimating#Construction Estimating (ConEst)|ConEst]],
in [[conest]],
stemming (I believe) from an lack of buy-in on Bid's part.
The lack is easily explained by their [[estimating-culture#Incentives|incentive structure]]:
+2 -2
View File
@@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ dg-publish: true
---
# 2026-01-13 11:28:14
### 2100 Crystal Drive ConEst Manager Review
### 2100 Crystal Drive: ConEst Manager Review
ConEst Manager Review for [[2100-crystal-drive]]
[[conest-manager-review]] for [[2100-crystal-drive]]
lead by [[josh-ford]],
attended by [[joel-jansen]] and myself.
+1 -1
View File
@@ -13,6 +13,6 @@ dg-publish: true
---
# 2026-02-03 16:17:00
Valued in [[pdi-estimating#Construction Estimating (ConEst)|ConEst]] estimators:
Valued in [[conest]] estimators:
* **consistency**
* **humility** --- willingness to say "I don't know that, please teach me"
+1 -1
View File
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ dg-publish: true
## Questions for ConEst
[[pdi-estimating#Construction Estimating (ConEst)]]
[[conest]]
### Purpose of ConEst
+3 -11
View File
@@ -20,17 +20,9 @@ yearly: "[[2026]]"
## Hampton Roads Navy - Norfolk: Director Review
Director Review of [[hampton-roads-navy_norfolk]].
### Dramatis Personae
Director of ConEst: [[corwin-fluit|Corwin Fluit]]
Bid Estimator: [[christian-pereiro|Christian Pereiro]]
Senior ConEst Estimator: [[joel-jansen|Joel Jansen]]
ConEst Estimator: [[zane-meyers|Zane Meyers]]
[[estimating-director-review]] of [[hampton-roads-navy_norfolk]]
lead by [[corwin-fluit]],
attended by [[christian-pereiro]], [[joel-jansen]], and myself.
### Lighting Control
+1 -1
View File
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ yearly: "[[2026]]"
## Conversation Regarding ConEst Pre-Takeoff Email Template
A conversation with a peer via Microsoft teams
regarding [[pdi-estimating#Construction Estimating (ConEst)|ConEst]]'s
regarding [[conest]]'s
recent implementation of a "pre-takeoff email template".
[[conest-pre-takeoff-email-template]]
+2 -1
View File
@@ -18,7 +18,8 @@ yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-03-18 11:31:07
Takeoff directive for [[charlotte-south-end-hotel]]
Directive for [[feeders-takeoff]] and [[switchgear-takeoff]]
for [[charlotte-south-end-hotel]]
from [[joel-jansen]]:
## Feeder Length Rounding
+8 -3
View File
@@ -23,20 +23,25 @@ yearly: "[[2026]]"
Direction for [[telecom-takeoff]] and [[low-voltage-takeoff]]
concerning the proper interpretation of "free-air per code"
as used by [[pdi-estimating#Bid Estimating|Bid]] to qualify our scope.
Relevant to [[charlotte-south-end-hotel]].
> [!quote] [[charlotte-south-end-hotel]] Proposal 2025-12-12 Ex. B Notes
> [!quote] Charlotte South End Proposal 2025-12-12 Ex. B Notes
> * All Fire Alarm and Low Voltage cabling
> is to \[be\] installed via free-air
> in all areas excepted \[sic.\] by code
Strictly speaking, requirements for communications wiring
(governed by [[nfpa-70_national-electric-code#^ch8|NEC Chapter 8]])
(governed by [[nfpa-70_national-electric-code#Chapter 8 Communications Systems|NEC Chapter 8]])
are minimal.
> [!quote] [[joel-jansen]] 2026-03-24 (pp.)
> If rough-in for Telecom or a Low Voltage system is included,
> even if qualified as "free-air per code" or similar,
> always provide backboxes and conduit stub-ups for outlets
> in other than units.
> in other than units[^1].
Joel confirmed this direction is not region specific.
[^1]: Where "free-air per code" applies to units,
conduit and backboxes should never be provided for Telecom or LV.
See [[2026-04-01_13-24-18#Unit Telecom/LV Outlets Where "Free-Air Per Code"]]
+1
View File
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ tags:
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
- occupational
daily: "[[2026-03-26]]"
date-created: 2026-03-26T08:49:49-04:00
dg-publish: true
+2 -2
View File
@@ -18,9 +18,9 @@ yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-03-26 14:10:46
## 1990 K Street ConEst Manager Review
## 1990 K Street: ConEst Manager Review
ConEst Manager Review for [[1990-k-street]]
[[conest-manager-review]] for [[1990-k-street]]
lead by Josh Ford and [[joel-jansen]]
### Purpose of ConEst Manager Review
+24
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
---
id: 2026-04-01T08:54:53-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-01 08:54:53
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-04-01T08:54:53-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-01]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W14]]"
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-01 08:54:53
## Corporate Jargon
* circle back
* go from there
* touch base
+34
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
---
id: 2026-04-01T11:08:18-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-01 11:08:18
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
- occupational
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-04-01T11:08:18-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-01]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W14]]"
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-01 11:08:18
## Exterior Amenity vs. Site
Clarification from [[joel-jansen]] on [[pdi-breakdowns]],
provided while he reviews [[charlotte-south-end-hotel]].
![[exterior-amenity-vs-site.png]]
In the example above,
the uplights (XS-B, XS-G) should be [[pdi-breakdowns#Bid Item Site|Site]]
and the downlights (XR-D) should be [[pdi-breakdowns#Phase Back of House (BOH)|Back of House]].
==Only the enclosed area should be [[pdi-breakdowns#Area Exterior Amenity]].???==
In my takeoff I considered all of these Exterior Amenity,
though I'm not sure of my rationale, if I had any.
+34
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
---
id: 2026-04-01T13:24:18-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-01 13:24:18
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
- occupational/takeoff
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-04-01T13:24:18-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-01]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W14]]"
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-01 13:24:18
## Unit Telecom/LV Outlets Where "Free-Air Per Code"
Direction from [[joel-jansen]]
relevant to my [[units-takeoff]]/[[telecom-takeoff]]
for [[charlotte-south-end-hotel]].
I originally included EMT to the corridor for unit data drops.
Joel asked if I had seen a note in the drawings or otherwise requiring this.
I assumed I must have and went to find it, but stopped.
Recalling our discussion described in [[2026-03-25_08-14-59#"Free-Air Per Code"]],
I asked if it would even matter if I had.
Joel replied that it wouldn't,
and said that he would be swapping the assemblies
for their LV-bracket-only equivalents.
+119
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
---
id: 2026-04-01T13:56:44-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-01 13:56:44
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
daily: "[[2026-04-01]]"
date-created: 2026-04-01T13:56:44-04:00
dg-publish: true
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W14]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-01 13:56:44
### Charlotte South End Hotel: ConEst Manager Review
[[conest-manager-review]] for [[charlotte-south-end-hotel]]
lead by [[josh-ford]],
attended by [[joel-jansen]] and myself.
#### Feeders
"MSA TO BUSDUCT"
needs more elbows: added.
Josh talked about necessary pullboxes,
but they were not added.
Josh stated the purpose of the closeout budget
is to prevent procurement from buying sizes
that may be chosen arbitrarily.
Added $5,000 to the budget.
Concern was expressed
that feeders up from Main Elec may need to be lengthened
to follow MSA TO BUSDUCT routing shown on floor plans.
***
> [!quote] Josh Ford
> I really like that your feeders are whole numbers, that's nice.
***
Generator control wiring missing?
may be taken off as mech?
not resolved, moved on?
#### Subfeeds
##### Unit Mech Connections
concern that subfeeds may be double dipping
suggest decreasing if tightening is needed
##### Routing
Josh complemented subfeed routing:
"That's taking pride in your work."
I have had hesitation that it was worth doing,
if someone told be it was a waste of time,
I would not have been inclined to disagree.
#### Units
Unit receptacles are shown controlled by master switch system.
I assumed full control (not half) so no made no consideration in takeoff.
Approved.
#### Lighting Control
DO NOT USE `System` "LV - Lighting Controls System" EVER
#### My Mistakes
> [!failure]
> Port Cochere was taken off as Exterior Amenity.
> Joel corrected this without telling me.
> [!failure]
> Missed unit occupancy sensors
#### Closeout
> [!quote] Josh Ford
> We're carrying material handling
> because we own fixtures and its a tall building
#### Labor Plan
\$1.41 per sf garage, expected ~\$1.00
***
0.182 hrs/sf seems incredibly high,
expected ~0.120.
#### Aside
> [!aside]
> [[estimating-golf]] question:
> "you only have one main switchboard?"
***
Josh found the answer to a question of scope
in the qualifications of Bid's proposal.
he said he did not immediately think to look for them
because they are rare of current proposals.
Apparently they are penalized by the Proposal Audit Scorecard.
"They wanted it uniform so they stopped putting qualifications on proposals"
***
[[megan-blizard]]
+68
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
---
id: 2026-04-01T16:36:31-04:00
aliases: []
title: 2026-04-01 16:36:31
tags:
- authorship/original
- destiny/permanent
- status/draft
- type/periodic/timestamped
dg-publish: true
date-created: 2026-04-01T16:36:31-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-01]]"
weekly: "[[2026-W14]]"
monthly: "[[2026-04]]"
quarterly: "[[2026-Q2]]"
yearly: "[[2026]]"
---
# 2026-04-01 16:36:31
My peer working on [[virginia-live-casino-and-hotel]]
pointed out the raised floor system used in the gaming area.
They asked if MC cable would be acceptable
for a mechanical connection in the area.
I replied that it would be acceptable
according to the [[nfpa-70_national-electric-code|NEC]],
but that I wouldn't be surprised
if it was specifically forbidden by the specifications.
In response they asked what _would_ be acceptable
assuming that MC cable was not.
I said immediately "EMT",
but corrected myself that PVC is also code permissible,
and they would need to rule it out before jumping to EMT.
I pointed out that this consideration was also relevant
to the floor boxes shown in the same area.
The heating designations built for the purpose by the previous estimator used PVC.
These were likely built from the existing floor box assemblies without modification.
At this, the estimator and I discussed wiring method selection in general.
For the jobs the two of us are assigned,
PVC is usually never acceptable except underground or in-slab,
however I explained that this is due to near universal specification,
not code compliance.
It is apparently typical of Florida jobs to run PVC
in most areas we would expect to use EMT,
even where in plain view.
The estimator said their strategy is to assume EMT assemblies
with the expectation that they may need to substitute them
following [[conest-senior-review]].
This is a [[heuristics|heuristic]]
in that it achieves an outcome acceptable to the estimator
despite being objectionable according to established[^1] [[conest]] practice.
[^1]: As far as it can be said to be established...
Many seniors would expect that every estimator
know how to determine acceptable wiring method selection
for arbitrary construction considerations
given the project documents.
This is a deceptively naive expectation:---
What is acceptable according to the drawings and specifications
is frequently in contradiction with what was sold,
which is frequently in contradiction with what was _believed_ to be sold.
Determining "acceptability" then, is nontrivial for estimators
who, by all rights, ought not have to concern themselves
with resolving ambiguity so egregious it ought to be reprimanded.