---
id: 2026-04-01T16:36:31-0400
title: 2026-04-01 16:36:31
tags:
  - status/draft
date-created: 2026-04-01T16:36:31-04:00
daily: "[[2026-04-01]]"
---
# 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|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.