While preparing estimates, the methods and rules that estimators follow depend on several factors, including training, experience, the type of project and company culture. In some instances, estimating practices may not mesh well with project management requirements. One of the most common discussions I have had with project managers is in regard to the level of detail in an estimate.


Keeping it simple


Most of the estimators I know were first taught the manual methods of electrical estimating. We were taught to simplify assemblies and other details to save time during an estimate preparation. For instance, we broke down a duplex receptacle to a box, ring, device and plate. The other minor materials needed to install the receptacle were covered with a “miscellaneous material” markup, which could be anywhere between 5–10 percent of the extended material cost for a commercial project. The logic was simple: If we added more items to the assembly breakdown, it would increase the time needed to manually price, labor and extend the materials for that assembly.


We were also taught to keep the bid breakdown as simple as the bid form allowed, again to save time during the estimate preparation. The argument for simplicity was why should we spend a lot of time breaking an estimate down in a highly detailed way when we were only getting about 10 percent of the projects we bid.


The point of this is, while our simplified estimates saved a lot of time, they were not very helpful to management. The lack of detail hindered the project’s buying and management.


Enter the computer


Today’s estimating software has the power to close the rift between estimating and project management. Most of the systems I am familiar with contain thousands of very complete assemblies that can be modified to meet your company’s requirements. You also can build your own assemblies if needed. The organizational abilities of the current estimating systems are even more impressive. Most of them offer many ways to organize and break down an estimate.


Even with all of this computing power, time can still be an issue in estimate breakdowns. Every time an estimator has to enter a duplicate item, it adds to the time needed to complete an estimate. 


My favorite example is residential complexes. Let’s say project management wants the estimate broken down by building and floor. For a seven-­building, three-story complex, an estimator would need to enter most assemblies 21 times. Even if there were only 30 different assemblies, the estimator would have to make 630 entries to capture the required detail. That would be a significant increase in the time necessary to input a takeoff. However, technology has come up with a way to help with this problem—paperless takeoff. Most paperless takeoff systems can significantly reduce the time needed to create a more detailed estimate breakdown.


I also have had problems with project management and field personnel not understanding the nature of an estimate. As one of my teachers explained, “It’s an estimate, not an accurate.” The estimate is based on the estimator’s training, experience and the requirements of his or her employers. The estimate indicates one possible way the project could be built, while trying to be competitive enough to become a contract. As estimators, we count on the field making installations that do not exceed the material and labor we included in our estimates. This is an area where bringing project managers into the estimating process can help. Also, the employer often dictates the level of detail and the construction methods included in an estimate. For most of my work, the KISS philosophy (keep it simple, stupid) has been the order of the day. However, a few of my customers believe that you should be able to use the estimate to place a project’s entire material purchase. Of course, this type of estimate takes a lot longer to prepare.


The relationship between the estimator, field management and the project manager should continue after a project has been won, because each person has knowledge and experience that can be contributed to the project. For example, I once worked with my general foreman to figure out the support racks for a building that had trusses on 30-foot centers. We discovered the National Electrical Code requires supports for 4-inch rigid conduit on 15-foot, instead of 10-foot, centers. Teamwork and cooperation between the estimator and the field created more profit on that project.