CASE STUDIES | ScrubPlan

SCRUBPLAN CASE STUDIES

JUST HOW FAST CAN SCRUBPLAN PROVIDE VALUABLE INSIGHTS?

In the demo video below, we showcase how efficiently ScrubPlan can identify and isolate details, significantly enhancing the productivity of your estimators and project managers. In this example, we review the natural gas piping requirements for an school building comprising 391 drawing sheets.

After a one-minute load time, ScrubPlan isolates the 38 sheets relevant to the natural gas scope and highlights the necessary locations on the drawings. Within the 40-second video, the estimator or project manager can easily navigate through the entire natural gas scope of the project, identifying requirements for site fire pits, gas water heaters, and food service equipment.

Using ScrubPlan on this project also facilitated the quick identification of gas requirements for the make-up air unit shown on the mechanical drawings. This make-up air unit was not depicted on the gas piping riser diagram in the plumbing drawings and could have been missed by the subcontractor estimating the gas piping.

Manually searching through all 391 pages for this information would typically take an estimator 60+ minutes. However, in just 2 minutes, ScrubPlan provides comprehensive visibility over the complete gas piping scope of work and identifies a design gap, preventing a potential change order.

PARKING DECK STRIPING IN EARLY RELEASE SITE PACKAGE

OVERVIEW

This case study examines a disputed change order submitted by a sitework contractor to a general contractor on an undisclosed campus located on a 45 acre site. Due to the sensitive nature of disputes and disagreements in project scope, both the general contractor and the sitework contractor elected to remain anonymous.

OUTLINE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S USE OF SCRUBPLAN

During the estimating phase of this project, the general contractor utilized ScrubPlan to assist in writing bid packages for each subcontractor. Additionally, the contractor utilized ScrubPlan's "share via link" feature to incorporate each ScrubPlan scope document into the bid package. After the estimate was finalized, the project management team reviewed bid packages and ScrubPlan scope document with each subcontractor prior to making an award on a package

OVERVIEW OF THE DISPUTE

Approximately 15 months following the release of the sitework package, a change order in the amount of $22,000 for parking space striping in the campus precast parking deck was submitted to the general contractor. The sitework was part of an early release package facilitated by the general contractor in order to maintain the overall delivery date required by the owner. The sitework subcontract explicitly mentioned that it included "all striping." However, the sitework contractor argued that the parking deck striping wasn't part of the agreed-upon price. Their reasoning was that the parking deck striping appeared only in the architectural drawings, within a separate parking deck drawing set, and not in the civil or landscape drawings.

PLAN VIEW OF SHEET A102

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

When finalizing the sitework subcontract, the discussion around the striping of the parking lots and deck was not given extensive attention, due to its minor significance relative to other elements of the package. However, the general contractor documented all scope assignments for the project using ScrubPlan, and this included a specific mention of the parking deck striping within the ScrubPlan sitework scope document. Upon a thorough examination of the ScrubPlan document, the sitework contractor acknowledged that the parking deck striping was indeed covered under the sitework bid package and subsequently withdrew the change order.

CONCLUSION

In a detailed examination of the contract, it becomes apparent that the phrase "all striping" was insufficiently specific, particularly in the context of the parking deck. This ambiguity arose because the site included various other striping projects, like basketball and pickleball courts, which were not part of the sitework package. Thus, the sitework contractor's assertion that the contract's language was too vague held merit, as the package did not encompass "all striping" as broadly interpreted. The deployment of ScrubPlan was crucial in this context, clearly delineating the scope of striping covered under the subcontract. Without ScrubPlan, the general contractor might have conceded to the change order.

This situation also underscores the value of using ScrubPlan for documenting even seemingly straightforward scopes of work like striping. It's understandable that the striping work, often straightforward and typically scheduled towards the project's end, may not be a focal point during the early stages of buying out a site package. However, this scenario demonstrates that even simple scopes of work can benefit from detailed documentation to avoid misunderstandings and disputes later in the project timeline.

Case Study Published 12/14/23

POWER TO SITE BEACONS DISPUTE RESOLUTION

OVERVIEW

This case study examines a disputed change order submitted by an electrician to a general contractor on an undisclosed building located on a 55 acre site. Due to the sensitive nature of disputes and disagreements in project scope, both the general contractor and the electrician elected to remain anonymous.

OUTLINE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S USE OF SCRUBPLAN

OVERVIEW OF THE DISPUTE

Approximately 11 months following the release of the electrical package, the electrician has submitted a change order totaling $66,000 to the general contractor. This change order is for the installation of power circuits for the perimeter fence beacons, which illuminate in the event of an alarm. Notably, these beacon lights are supplied by the security vendor and were exclusively shown in the security drawings.

The specific power circuit in question was detailed by the security consultant in a singular illustration on the security drawings but conspicuously absent from the electrical drawings. Moreover, the electrical drawings omitted any reference to circuits dedicated to the beacon lights on the panel schedule. The electrical engineer did not include this circuit on the electrical drawings due to not be aware of a change in the security drawings that shifted the beacon fixture from requiring 24V power to 120V power. As a consequence, the responsibility for the power and wiring scope of work for the beacons shifted from the security vendor to the electrician given that a significant number of security vendors lack the licensing for installing 120V power circuits. To accommodate this change, nearly 6,000 LF of underground conduit rough-in was needed, extending back to the nearest panel. The provided image illustrates the sole reference on the security drawings to provide 120V power to the beacon lights.

DETAIL ON SECURITY DRAWING EYC-4501

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Neither the project management team of the general contractor nor that of the electricians comprehended the full extent of the beacon power scope of work, exclusively delineated in the security drawings, during the subcontract finalization, and it remained undiscussed. But, within the electrician's subcontract, the general contractor included a note stating "power to all security equipment". However, the electricians contended that compensation was warranted for installing power to the beacons, citing their absence from the electrical drawings.

While the contractual language in the subcontract, stating "power to all security equipment," provided a legal safeguard for the general contractor, an additional layer emerged when the general contractor discussed the ScrubPlan scope document attached to the electricians bid package. This document meticulously highlighted all power requirements found exclusively in the security drawings. Upon reviewing the ScrubPlan document, which highlighted the specific details falling under their responsibility, the electricians reevaluated their stance and opted to void the change order. This decision stemmed from a newfound understanding that the ScrubPlan scope document effectively addressed the power needs outlined in the security drawings, rendering their compensation claim no longer valid.

CONCLUSION

While the general contractor had contractual coverage for including beacon light power within the electricians' scope of work, a dispute persisted until the review of the ScrubPlan scope document. This document, meticulously highlighting power requirements on drawings, served as a game-changer. The ScrubPlan scope document swiftly illuminated the electricians' scope gap, putting an end to their argument. This project contained over 1000 sheets with notes and details involving the electrical scope of work included on nearly every page, not just the electrical drawings. ScrubPlan's results streamlined the process for the general contractor's estimators and project managers, requiring minutes to provide a comprehensive list of all locations within the electricians' scope of work. This efficiency acted as a safeguard, protecting the general contractor from potential claims, including the one under dispute.

Case Study Published 12/7/23

SECTION VIEW

PLAN VIEW

LIGHTING DISPUTE RESOLUTION

OVERVIEW

This case study examines a disputed change order submitted by an electrician to a general contractor on a 3-story, 40,000SF amenities building located in Atlanta, GA. Due to the sensitive nature of disputes and disagreements in project scope, both the general contractor and the electrician elected to remain anonymous.

OUTLINE OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S USE OF SCRUBPLAN

OVERVIEW OF THE DISPUTE

Approximately five months after the award of the electrical package, the electrician submitted a change order amounting to $29,000 to the general contractor for color changing LED cove lights that were not shown on the electrical drawings. The lights in question had been depicted by the architect but were not included in any architectural plan view; instead, they were solely represented in section cut details embedded within the architectural drawings. Notably, there was a lack of coordination between the architect and the electrical engineer regarding the inclusion of these lights on the electrical drawings.. The provided images illustrate the sole references to these details on the reflected ceiling plan in the architectural drawings (left image) and the specific detail on sheet A701 (right image).

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Neither the project management team of the general contractor nor that of the electricians comprehended the full extent of the cove lighting scope, exclusively delineated in the architectural drawings, during the subcontract finalization, and it remained undiscussed. In their bid clarifications, the electricians explicitly stated, "lighting priced per electrical drawings" and contended that they were entitled to compensation This dispute came to a quick resolution after the general contractor's estimating team reviewed the dispute and showed the electricians clear ScrubPlan documentation and references in the estimating bid package to pick up the light fixtures on the architectural drawings.

CONCLUSION

The use of ScrubPlan in this project not only averted the general contractor from being susceptible to a $29,000 claim but also swiftly concluded the dispute within minutes upon reviewing the comprehensive ScrubPlan scope documentation. This efficiency translated into substantial time and energy savings for the project management team, who would otherwise have invested considerable resources in contesting the dispute with the electrician. While ScrubPlan is designed to proactively prevent disputes similar to this claim, instances resembling this one are not uncommon on many projects due to the demanding schedules of both general contractor and subcontractor estimating teams. The inherent challenge lies in their limited capacity to thoroughly review and coordinate every note and detail during the estimating phase.

Case Study Published 11/29/23

MIDTOWN HIGH RISE OFFICE BUILDING

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE STUDY TEST PARAMETERS

PROJECT VALUE: ~$200 million

PROJECT GROSS SF: 525,000SF

PAGE COUNT: 924 pages

CONSTRUCTION TYPE: 24 floor class A office building with full build out of all levels

STRUCTURE TYPE: concrete frame

This case study of a 24-floor midtown high rise office building was conducted during the buyout phase of this project. The estimate was finalized, the owner contract was signed, and the project team members were writing the subcontracts for this project. In conjunction with members of the project team, a ScrubPlan tech reviewed the scope specific terms of subcontracts using only the results created by ScrubPlan. Within this project, the following trades were reviewed: glazing, drywall, steel, sitework, plumbing, HVAC, and electrical. The ScrubPlan tech spent a total of 5 hours reviewing the ScrubPlan results for these 7 trades to find the below results.

MISSING AND/OR UNCLARIFIED SCOPE FOUND WITHIN SUBCONTRACTS

TRADE ITEM VALUE RESULT

STEEL

Steel angles were shown on the architectural drawings embedded in concrete curbs at the roof gardens. These angles were not shown in the structural drawings.

$7,300

The steel subcontract contained a note for "all angles" so the GC did not incur any additional costs. The subcontractor did not have these covered in thier initial quote but still had to cover the cost. The discovery of these angles during the case study prevented a schedule delay by allowing the project team to procure the material in time for the concrete pours.

GLAZING

Glass risers were shown in one detail at the monumental stairs. The glazing subcontract did not contain a note to cover this scope.

GLAZING

A detail for acoustical trim caps was shown where the drywall partition dies into a mullion. Neither the drywall sub nor the glazing sub had this material covered in their subcontract.

$4,100

$9,200

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the glazing subcontractor.

GLAZING

The sills of the opening had metal transition flashing wrapping around the facade. This was covered in the subcontract but the detail had not been reviewed.

This item could have been a scope gap if the subcontract was not written properly. The subcontractor agreed to cover all flashing but did not realize the magnitude of the detail. The GC and subcontractor have since held coordination meetings to ensure the detail is installed properly.

DRYWALL

The electrical and low voltage drawings contained a substantial amount of in-wall blocking and plywood. The subcontract contained an "all blocking" line but the drywall subcontractor was unaware of the magnitude of the scope.

$23,050

This item could have been a scope gap if the subcontract was not written properly. The subcontractor agreed to cover all blocking and plywood but admitted to not having the scope covered properly within their estimate and has asked the GC for help covering the costs

DRYWALL

The first floor of the building has a small amount of exterior insulation behind precast cladding. The drywall subcontract did not contain any exterior insulation.

PLUMBING

The food service drawings showed water filters to be "installed by PC". Neither the subcontractor nor the GC had this scope covered.

HVAC

One keynote with a mechanical sheet called for fire-wrapping of duct in a certain area. The subcontract did not cover fire-wrapping.

HVAC

One keynote with a mechanical sheet called for a custom grate over a radiator. Niether the steel nor HVAC subcontracts had this covered

ELECTRICAL

One detail within the electrical drawings showed a concrete curb around the busway at all levels. This curb was not shown anywhere else on the drawings. Neither the electrical nor the concrete subcontracts covered this scope of work.

$9,550

$1,500

$14,000

$8,000

$15,700

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the drywall subcontractor.

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the plumbing subcontractor.

The HVAC subcontractor was honest in having this scope covered within their estimate and no cost was incurred.

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the steel subcontractor.

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the electrical subcontractor.

ELECTRICAL

The security drawings show a rack mounted UPS at each station. Neither the electrical nor security subcontracts covered this rack mounted UPS.

SITE UTILITIES

Both the plumbing drawings and the civil drawings showed foundation drains around the perimeter foundation wall. Both the sitework subcontract and the plumbing subcontract had this scope covered.

$29,000

$14,000

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the security subcontractor.

This item was a scope double up and the GC deducted this scope from the plumbing subcontract.

SITE UTILITIES

A small section of hardscapes showed a soil cell system beneath the sidewalk. Neither the hardscapes subcontract nor the sitework subcontract contained this scope of work.

$12,700

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the sitework subcontractor.

CONCLUSION OF THE RESULTS

In total, the review of these 7 trades yielded just under $90,000 in scope gaps discovered. The total subcontract value for these trades was over $60 million making error percentage 0.15%. This value was well within the contingencies included in the project so the project team was successful in creating an accurate estimate. The use and review of the results provided by ScrubPlan during the estimating of this project would have prevented the project team from using the $90,000 of contingency. And, if this were a lump sum contract, the project would have made $90,000 more in profit at the end of the day.

Case Study Published 8/7/23

CARDIOVASCULAR HOSPITAL WING RENOVATION

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE STUDY TEST PARAMETERS

PROJECT VALUE: ~$31 million

PROJECT GROSS SF: 45,000SF

PAGE COUNT: 313 pages

CONSTRUCTION TYPE: hospital renovation

This case study of a 45 ksf cardiovascular center wing renovation was conducted during the buyout phase of this project. The estimate was finalized, the owner contract was signed, and the project team members were writing the subcontracts of this project. In conjunction with members of the project team, a ScrubPlan tech reviewed the scope specific terms of each subcontract using only the results created by ScrubPlan. Within this project, the following trades were reviewed: millwork, waterproofing, drywall, and painting. The ScrubPlan tech spent a total of 2 hours reviewing the ScrubPlan results for these 4 trades to find the below results.

MISSING AND/OR UNCLARIFIED SCOPE FOUND WITHIN SUBCONTRACTS

TRADE ITEM VALUE RESULT

MILLWORK

The drawings called for a "veneer plywood" but the millwork subcontract referenced this scope as "wood trim"

A wood wall panel wainscot detail showed plywood outboard of the drywall partition behind the wood wall panel. The millwork subcontract did not include providing plywood or blocking to support millwork outboard of the wall.

$21,300

The millworker had this scope of work covered so no additional cost was incurred but there was confusion over what this scope of work was intended to be provided.

$6,000

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the millwork subcontractor.

MILLWORK

WATER-PROOFING

A wood slat bench attached to the exterior of the building at the drop off area was not referenced within the millwork subcontract.

A single note within the structural drawings called for caulking at all control and expansion joints at the new concrete slabs and walls. Neither the waterproofing subcontract nor the concrete subcontract had this scope covered.

$4,000

The millwork subcontractor was honest in having this scope covered within their estimate and no cost was incurred.

$4,700

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the waterproofing subcontractor.

WATER-PROOFING

A single note within the architectural drawings called for caulking at the joint between the wood flooring and the railings. Neither the waterproofing subcontract nor the flooring subcontract had this scope covered.

$700

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the waterproofing subcontractor.

DRYWALL

PAINTING

The drywall subcontract did not contain any references to in-wall insulation.

A few blocking details noted to provide metal strapping or blocking. The drywall subcontract only contained references to in-wall wood blocking.

A note on the mechanical drawings called for gas piping in certain locations to be painted. The architectural drawings did not show any painting of exposed MEP pipes. The painting subcontract did not cover painting of any MEP pipes.

The drywall subcontractor was honest in having this scope covered within their estimate and no cost was incurred.

$3,000

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the painting subcontractor.

PAINTING

A note on the architectural drawings calls for epoxy paint to be applied on the plywood supporting the quartz countertops. Neither the painting subcontract nor the millwork subcontract included this scope of work.

$900

This item was a scope gap and a change order was written to the painting subcontractor.

CONCLUSION OF THE RESULTS

In total, this review of 4 trades yielded just under $10,000 in scope gaps discovered. The total subcontract value for these trades was ~$3 million, making the error percentage 0.3%. In addition to providing clarity while communicating scope coverage, the use and review of the results provided by ScrubPlan during the estimating of this project would have prevented the project team from using $10,000 of their contingency.

Case Study Published 8/7/23