I am seeing more projects that go out to bid with at least one addendum. Addendums are becoming the norm instead of an occasional thing. Sometimes the changes are clouded on the drawings, other times the changes are issued on new drawings. Sometimes there are simple changes to the specifications, other times entire spec sections are either added or removed. It does not matter how they are identified – addendums add room for errors in your estimate. You could miss an item that has been deleted or changed. There is always a possibility that you may miss an addendum altogether because it was not passed on to you.
Where estimators really have to worry is when not all of the changes are identified on the drawings. The best way that I have found to eliminate any missed changes is to overlay each drawing to confirm each change. Doing the review will take time but it will help eliminate costly mistakes. Also qualifying your bid as to what addendum(s) are included can help you. In the market today any mistake is a costly mistake!
5 Comments
I’ve also recently blogged about how addenda are a pain! I’m an architectural specifications writer. I have a question for you estimator types regarding addenda:
If you receive an addendum that modifies a specification section, and the entire spec section isn’t issued – only the correction is, in a text narrative – which is better?
Choice A: Revise Section 08110 “Steel Frames” as follows:
Article 2.5 Fabrication, Paragraph B Hollow Metal Frames, add a Subparagraph 2, to read as follows:
“Sidelight and Transom Bar Frames: Provide closed tubular members with no visible face seams or joints, fabricated from same material as door frame. Fasten members at crossings and to jambs by butt welding.”
OR Choice B: Revise Section 08110 “Steel Frames” as follows:
2.5, B, add 2, to read as follows:
“Sidelight and Transom Bar Frames: Provide closed tubular members with no visible face seams or joints, fabricated from same material as door frame. Fasten members at crossings and to jambs by butt welding.”
The only differences are that in Choice A, I called out that 2.5 is an ARTICLE, and I mentioned its title, “Fabrication”, I called out that B is a PARAGRAPH, and I mentioned its title, “Hollow Metal Frames”, and I called out that 2 is a SUBPARAGRAPH.
Does labeling that info help estimators in the morass of addendum changes? Or is it just more stuff to worry about?
The major thing to do is clearly note that a subparagraph is being added. Both option A and B say that there is a new subparagraph added, but I think that option A states it better.
The more clearly the change is stated the better. The estimators are usually pushed for time and the faster they can review the addendum and know what is changing the better for everyone.
Thanks so much. A personal goal of mine is to improve construction communications in Colorado. There’s a lot of room for improvement! I’m glad I found this blog.
A colleague and I are going to write an article about this sort of issue – using CSI PageFormat to clearly communicate modifications to the specifications (via an Addendum, an ASI, a Proposal Request, or a Construction Change Directive). We think it’s important to consistently use the proper terminology, in order to more clearly and correctly communicate the intent. Can we quote you or name you in our article? Liz
Yes you can. Thank you for reading our blog.