Wisdom on a Bid

[Chamuit]

I see you are in Arizona are the other bids from a Contractor?
it sounds like they are tring to get around a permit by not getting APS or SRP involved.

That thought had crossed my mind at one point, but this is a gated Snottsdale development that the house is in. I don't think they could swing it without a permit.

 

[Chamuit]

Simple.

1. Bid he job using the existing service.

. . .

I'm not an EE but this 4000 sq ft house with 3 AC's falls into my ballpark method (over 4K ' and 3 AC's).

I say it needs a 400. It's only an extra $500 (cost) for the service equipment but the new underground (I assume it's UG) can be costly.

It is underground and would be expensive to change.

The Architect did agree with you.

Here are the e-mails:

Mine:

After visiting the Moron?s residence today, and reviewing the plans that Tom-Dick-Harry sent to me, I have noticed the architect has made an error on the size of the electrical service on the house. He had assumed the house had a 400 amp service. The house only has a 200 amp service. The existing 200 amp panel has only two spaces left to use. This would not be sufficient space to supply the required new circuitry in the Casita. Also, as noted on the plan, the 400 amp service is required for the increased electrical load because of the Casita.

This can mean an additional $5,000 ? $10,000 estimated cost to the project. The actual amount would depend on what the Power Company would require to be done to bring the new service to the house to feed a 400 amp panel. The additional work to be done would include trenching a new line (conduit) from the transformer to where the electrical panel located and changing the existing panel to a 400 amp SES with a 200 amp sub panel. The benefit of this would be the increased capacity to service any future loads/needs that may arise.

The Architect:

Thanks for forwarding the information from the electrician. With only 2 spaces available, his point is valid. The necessity to upgrade to a 400 amp system would be required in the event the existing system is full. The load calcs shown on the plan do not take into consideration the spaces available, simply the current demands.

Please forward this to Stephan if I mis-spelled his email address. A sub-panel location should be considered at this point as well since the Casita will require one. Perhaps he has a recommendation after visiting the home.

Upgrading to a 400 amp service is definitely advisable. Typically, custom homes in the 3500 s.f. plus range install 400 amp services to alleviate the issue of noticeable power drains, especially during vacuuming, blow dryers, appliances etc. I assumed this had one as well. Please keep me informed.

 

[Sierrasparky]

All of the load calcs were done by the Architect. And, yes, I don't want to get the job and have to own a 400 amp service because of someone elses error and because of bidding pressures.

Looks like the architect is an Idiot or a cheat. Either way you're in a pickle. Unless you have a great relationshio with both the Architect and the GC you have a problem getting the job if you're bid reflects a higher price because the other bidders did not see the issues.

I would give the architect a link to mike holts load calculator so maybe he won't make such a mistake again. I still have a hard time beliving this Arch visited the site looked at the service and cam up with 400 amps. I just don't by it. With the high use of digital cameras and all I bet this guy even has a picture of the Existing service.

Im my opinion this guy is FRAUD!!!!!!!!

 

[220/221]

With only 2 spaces available, his point is valid.

Space isn't generally the issue. We can almost always make space.:roll:

 

[gadfly56]

Unfortunatly the architect could have said it's your're fault you are the EC and must do a code compliant install. I'm sure the plans said as per code. Even if your bid said as per plans, You got lucky there! Any time you get the change in those circumstances you need to feel lucky. If I was the GC I'd say tough luck!

We've never had an issue that I know of when the scope turned out to be different on site vs drawings. In this case we bid to the EC so we weren't the direct sub. From first contact to sending the bid was 32 minutes (they needed it in a bit of a hurry :roll and we are careful to include the device counts in our bids.

It is true that many drawings include the usual CYA notes regarding code-compliant installation. However, the end user can't expect that his architect, through negligence or guile, provides contractors with code-deficient drawings and then receives the value of a code-compliant installation. In contract law that could be considered "unjust enrichment". If the drawings had been perfect, all the bids received would have been higher, all things being equal. The change order in this case does not result in any harm to the end user since he would have had to pay for it up front if the drawings had been correct and now he's paying for it on the back end instead.

And by-the-by, if I provide the components installed in a code-compliant manner, I've met the CYA note; it's just not a code-compliant design!

 

[Sierrasparky]

We've never had an issue that I know of when the scope turned out to be different on site vs drawings. In this case we bid to the EC so we weren't the direct sub. From first contact to sending the bid was 32 minutes (they needed it in a bit of a hurry :roll and we are careful to include the device counts in our bids.

It is true that many drawings include the usual CYA notes regarding code-compliant installation. However, the end user can't expect that his architect, through negligence or guile, provides contractors with code-deficient drawings and then receives the value of a code-compliant installation. In contract law that could be considered "unjust enrichment". If the drawings had been perfect, all the bids received would have been higher, all things being equal. The change order in this case does not result in any harm to the end user since he would have had to pay for it up front if the drawings had been correct and now he's paying for it on the back end instead.

And by-the-by, if I provide the components installed in a code-compliant manner, I've met the CYA note; it's just not a code-compliant design!

customers for the most part are probably Honest. I live and work in CA. We do have laws regarding unjust enrichment. The problem here is that the plans speak for themselves. If the home needs a 400 amp and your bid is a lump sum then you on the hook. Who's to say that your bid did not include the 400 amp because you did a site survey as the plans specify. All I can say it's a mess. If the customer complains to the License board you WILL LOOSE as 99% of the time they side with the consumer. Thats CA for you.