Help needed....

[e57]

Bean counting junket for the wife - Hmmmmm :roll:

Sure a fire rated poke-through could very easily hit the $500 mark... 5-6 accumulated hours of your lead guys time discussing placement and finish with whimsical design team of 15 year old well dressed kids, X-ray, relocate with 'design team' x-ray again, coring charges from whoever - then drop a 2-300 dollar unreturnable pie tin through the hole and the labor to install it on both sides.... Decide you don't those other two.... $500 could be a bargin! If you want them take 'em.... I'll say this from experaince - if you have two floor outlets that DID NOT GO IN - but showed up to a job, then there are layers of hours attached to each, and the rest of them... Just having them on site says poor planning up front, and all the way though to near the end of the job - JMSO

~30' of any conduit - could very easily be 40'... Whether it is 31' or 29' there needs to be an account for waste, unless of course you want 1' scraps peiced in, or all of the boxes moved to where 30' fits perfectly. Could be 4 sticks at 7'6" each. I wonder how many of us bill by the foot for conduit?

And in that same light, 13' of a size like 4" could very easily be 40'. Sizes like that are running the fine line of being paralel duplicate runs. Sure - if it were double that would only be 26' - but 30-40' are going out to the job-site.

 

[mikeames]

Bean counting junket for the wife - Hmmmmm :roll:

Sure a fire rated poke-through could very easily hit the $500 mark... 5-6 accumulated hours of your lead guys time discussing placement and finish with whimsical design team of 15 year old well dressed kids, X-ray, relocate with 'design team' x-ray again, coring charges from whoever - then drop a 2-300 dollar unreturnable pie tin through the hole and the labor to install it on both sides.... Decide you don't those other two.... $500 could be a bargin! If you want them take 'em.... I'll say this from experaince - if you have two floor outlets that DID NOT GO IN - but showed up to a job, then there are layers of hours attached to each, and the rest of them... Just having them on site says poor planning up front, and all the way though to near the end of the job - JMSO

~30' of any conduit - could very easily be 40'... Whether it is 31' or 29' there needs to be an account for waste, unless of course you want 1' scraps peiced in, or all of the boxes moved to where 30' fits perfectly. Could be 4 sticks at 7'6" each. I wonder how many of us bill by the foot for conduit?

And in that same light, 13' of a size like 4" could very easily be 40'. Sizes like that are running the fine line of being paralel duplicate runs. Sure - if it were double that would only be 26' - but 30-40' are going out to the job-site.

I am with you. Sounds like soemone is trying to scrutinize a job that sounds reasonable.

 

[e57]

I am with you. Sounds like soemone is trying to scrutinize a job that sounds reasonable.

More like nickle and dime it down post defacto.

 

[c2500]

Well, there is going to be a big Pow Wow in the next day or so. I am not trying to defend my wife here but lets take a quick look at the numbers.....

original work $1600...including poke thrus.

changes, delete poke thrus, add an unrequested circuit, add another 3/4 conduit for ceiling access, unrequested, plus the 1 "conduits, $4400 on top of the $1600.

Please keep in mind the 4" is simple a raceway to house a VGA and other data cables. So now we are at $7000. The entire bid for the electrical work for the entire project was $9000.

While I concede I am predominately residential with light commercial sometimes, I cannot help but question the math. I am all for companies making money, but even the GC is now questioning the amount for the work done. Please bear in mind, this is a non union area, and labor rates for the help are not excessively high. Also, I can't give every detail as I am not directly involved with the project.....I just get to hear about it alot.
c2500

 

[emahler]

Ok. You just lost me. Originally 1600. The 4400. The 7000. But originally 9000. Wtf?

 

[c2500]

Original electrical bid.....for the entire project was $9000. The room in question was originally $1600. That amount included the poke thrus.
They added $4400 for the deletion of the poke thrus, and the above mentioned items in my previous post, making the one room $7000 instead of $1600.

c2500

 

[e57]

Still sounds like a disconnect between the GC and the EC, via poor design shifts. To include possible ones the GC and (I assume) their CPA are unaware of.

I find this often when an Architect will show up on site, or a site Super - will give direction verbally, then do no documentation. It will then show up as wild CO's in billing.

FWIW not too many EC's will just randomly do work they don't expect payment for, or had direction to do. (i.e. extra circuits and conduits....)

There may much more to this story.

 

[growler]

They added $4400 for the deletion of the poke thrus, and the above mentioned items in my previous post, making the one room $7000 instead of $1600.

There is only one question that needs to be answered. Do they have signed change orders with the proper authorization for the additional work?

If they do then they are now my new heros. :grin:

 

[e57]

Just watch - there will be a huge stack of documentation of the owner/client requesting stuff around the GC.... :roll: How many have seen that?!?

 

[emahler]

i think i'm just not understanding the $500 charge for the poke thrus....if they were in the original quote, why is there an additional charge for them? did they issue a credit for them from the $1600?

 

[e57]

And I assume these CO's were T&M? There is no mention of labor (T) at all, just Material (M).

If not why are you even trying to break down material cost as a basis of a change in scope cost?

 

[c2500]

i think i'm just not understanding the $500 charge for the poke thrus....if they were in the original quote, why is there an additional charge for them? did they issue a credit for them from the $1600?

No, they did not credit them. Which goes back to the whole point that something is amiss.

I know alot has been looking at material. The point was to build some basis for what they cost. Then my wife added in an excessive amount of labor. The math still doesn't work. And yes, there is nothing signed by her for the additional circuit or the extra conduit run from the table to the ceiling via the wall. Thus, there will be some revisions.

I will say that there are alot of complaints about GC's on here, and how they shaft electricians. This is appearing to be a prima facie case of the EC pulling a stunt normally reserved for the GC.

c2500

 

[e57]

This is appearing to be a prima facie case of the EC pulling a stunt normally reserved for the GC.

c2500

Not so sure you know if it was a "stunt" yet?

 

[bradleyelectric]

Not so sure you know if it was a "stunt" yet?

well, if they are billing additionally for the deletion of the poke throughs that were in the original bid without giving a credit for them, I believe it is just a mater of how much stunting is involved.

 

[growler]

Please keep in mind the 4" is simple a raceway to house a VGA and other data cables. So now we are at $7000. The entire bid for the electrical work for the entire project was $9000.

This is where things get confusing on a job like this. It appears that a bid of 9K was submitted and accepted.

Now it's contract time. In the original contract there should be a clearly defined "scope of work". This is what you get for the 9K that you are willig to spend. Also in that contract there should be a proceedure for additional work request ( change orders ) and how this will be handled and just who can authorize any additional charges.

When an invoice is submitted for payment there is not a lot of explanation needed to clear things up, just a reference to the change order number.

The change order should address how any credit for the fire rated poke throughs will be handled.

For an item that can't be returned I would never give full credit. That means that you may carry it as inventory for quite awhile before it's actually used. Not a good idea. But the customer really has no use for the item so I would offer to say splite the cost of the item and then carry it as inventory for 50% of actual cost.

I'm not sure if this is a stunt or just a company that doesn't know how to keep their paperwork straight. There are still people out there that don't understand why man learned to write in the first place.

It's much easier just to keep records because the customer doesn't really have to pay for any unauthorized work. Many customers may just go ahead and pay for the invoiced amount but I wouldn't ever count on it.

If you keep records straight no one can ever call you a crook because there are records to back up any charges made.

 

[e57]

This is where things get confusing on a job like this. It appears that a bid of 9K was submitted and accepted.

Now it's contract time. In the original contract there should be a clearly defined "scope of work". This is what you get for the 9K that you are willig to spend. Also in that contract there should be a proceedure for additional work request ( change orders ) and how this will be handled and just who can authorize any additional charges.

When an invoice is submitted for payment there is not a lot of explanation needed to clear things up, just a reference to the change order number.

The change order should address how any credit for the fire rated poke throughs will be handled.

Exactly.... To each line item on CO's it should be referencing an ASI, RFI, or Site Meeting with an authorized signature or other authority....

Then again - with say a very poor design up-front, about 1/2 way through the GC or client will start asking to stream-line the process because every ASI or RFI response costs money.... And when that system breaks down - that's when you loose the audit trail for CO's, and you get things that sound like this IMO.

Or maybe that process never existed in the first place???

 

[c2500]

Update...

Update...

There was a meeting today with the GC, EC, and wife. It turns out that the "estimating" software cannot distinguish what is happening in the real world. A site visit would help, but I won't go there.

Suffice it to say they backed the original charge out when they realized they "double billed"(original price + change order price). There are also going to be additional adjustments because of assumptions made by the software that were not the case in real life.

So, for those of you rooting against my wife, she was right.

c2500

 

[e57]

So, for those of you rooting against my wife, she was right.

c2500

Na na - na nan -na...:roll:

But do understand you're talking to the EC's not the GC's - We all love being nickled and dimed on prices and work people have seemingly little understanding of.

 

[Article 90.1]

In some ways, who cares what the estimating software says: it said that this project will cost you $X. You referenced it as both a "bid," and a "quote," which means that if the software said $9000 and the authorized person signed/accepted the quote then that is what should be paid, whether or not 1' or 40' of 4" EMT was run, as long as the job was completed according to the agreed upon scope of work. But, perhaps, I missed something in the CO calculation discussion.

Like another poster said, it is quite possible that 40' of 4" EMT was delivered to the job site. If I was the contractor on this project, I would be happy to bring you back the scraps.

Bottom line, I don't envy the position you had to been in for this project. Nope, no fun at all.

 

[Power Tech]

Oh it's the EC, we can trust him. Just pay it. That would be my thank you for giving me the work.