1. The Problem
We were hired by a regional General Contractor to perform a third-party estimate review on a $14M high school renovation prior to finalizing their Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) contract with the school district. The GC had already received bids from their preferred mechanical and electrical subcontractors.
2. The Scope Gap
During our Constructability Review, our MEP estimators overlaid the Mechanical Equipment Schedule (M-601) with the Electrical One-Line Diagram (E-401).
The mechanical schedule listed 14 large Air Handling Units (AHUs) requiring Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs). The mechanical specs stated: "VFDs provided by Div 23, installed by Div 26." However, the electrical drawings showed standard motor starters, not VFDs, and the electrical specs explicitly excluded "mounting of mechanical VFDs and associated control wiring."
3. The Pre-Bid RFI
Plan Review: MEP Coordination
Generic takeoff services just click lines. Our estimating team reviews the architectural details against the structural and MEP notes. When we find a conflict, we highlight it on the plans and generate an RFI before you bid.
We issued an immediate RFI: 'Please confirm which trade is responsible for mounting the 14 VFDs, providing the fused disconnects ahead of the drives, and pulling the 0-10v control wire from the BAS panel to the drives. Neither Div 23 nor Div 26 has claimed this scope.' The engineer responded: 'Div 26 to mount and terminate. Div 23 to provide low-voltage control wire.'
4. The Bid Leveling Catch
We reviewed the actual bids submitted to the GC. The lowest electrical bidder (Sub A) had rigidly followed the electrical drawings and explicitly excluded "mechanical equipment mounting and DDC wiring."
If the GC had simply awarded the contract to Sub A based on the raw low number, the GC would have been hit with an $85,000 change order on day one to mount the drives, upsize the disconnects, and pull the low-voltage wire.
Electrical (Div 26) - Bid Leveling Matrix
| Scope Line Item | Subcontractor A | Subcontractor B | Subcontractor C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raw Base Bid | $1,450,000 | $1,520,000 | $1,550,000 |
| GC Plug: VFD Mounting, Disconnects & Control Wire (RFI #12) | + $85,000 | INCLUDED | INCLUDED |
| True Leveled Bid | $1,535,000 | $1,520,000 | $1,550,000 |
5. Margin Protected (The Result)
By using the "Plug" methodology in our bid leveling matrix, we proved that Subcontractor B was actually the lowest responsible bidder, as they had proactively included the VFD mounting labor. The GC awarded the contract to Sub B, preventing an $85,000 hit to their contingency and completely eliminating the inter-trade dispute before construction began.
Case Study Summary
- Project Type K-12 Education ($14M)
- Failure Point Div 23 / Div 26 Interface
- Margin Protected $85,000.00