Ounce of Prevention: Avoiding the Top 5 Mistakes of Preconstruction

In construction, the attention lavished on preconstruction pays off in a project completed on time, on budget, and of the highest quality. Preconstruction mistakes, on the other hand, can balloon into time-consuming rework, costly errors, and quality slip-ups.

This article explores how the five most common mistakes of preconstruction happen, their consequences, and the solutions found in communication and transparency.

The Keys to Success

Construction pros know the “project management triangle” as a guide for prioritizing time, cost, or quality in every decision.

Even when the choice demands trade-offs — which is usually the case — the goal is achieving balance through optimization.

Imbalances happen when information is scant and execution is careless, and they are the fuel for the top five preconstruction mistakes. The solutions are steeped in procedures designed to avert costly mistakes and excess risk.

Mistake #1: Unclear Scope Definition

Poorly defined assignments can let critical tasks fall through the cracks. The danger often lurks at the intersection of MEP trades, in those gray areas where one or the other could install a connection or a pipeline. For instance, responsibility for condensate lines could belong to HVAC or plumbing.

Unclear or absent scope definition leaves room for the trades to point fingers at each other for tasks left undone. The designer or GC who assumes that someone will do it, without writing it into anyone’s scope, faces unplanned costs and schedule disruptions.

In other situations, ambiguous language blurs the parameters of plans, specifications, and schedules. Confusion ensues when a contract calls for the “most stringent” specifications. Does that mean the “most stringent” price savings, timeline, or quality?

Staring at terms that are open to interpretation, readers will often default to the costlier options that make a bid less competitive.

The solution lies in clarification. All terms must be unambiguous, and subcontractors should be encouraged to submit disciplined RFIs that yield answers on intent and exact details.

Mistake #2: Poor Estimating and Budgeting

Just like computers, budgets are “garbage in, garbage out.” Estimates riddled with inaccuracies, assumptions, and holes result in lost profits and liquidated damages.

The solution encompasses these elements for accurate, trustworthy estimates:

1. Timely Confirmation

   The time from conception to bidding can take years, especially in public projects dependent on government allocations. Estimates should be based on the latest available drawings, specifications, and materials.

2. Clarification

   Once again, clarity is key. When a schedule calls for products that are obsolete or unavailable, detailed RFIs extract the next steps and recommendations needed for pinpoint estimates.

3. RFI Review

   A single RFI tells only part of the story. Wait for all RFIs and design changes, and then read them to understand each option in context.

4. Refreshed Quotes

   Today’s product prices and lead times are highly changeable. Stay one step ahead through constant contact with vendors, attending conferences, and cultivating strong professional networks.

Mistake #3: Incomplete Due Diligence

Every project revolves around strict parameters of site conditions, local codes, and permitting. Failure to research all physical and legal conditions leaves key insights on constructability, lead times, and code compliance stranded. The repercussions generate risk, costs, and inefficiencies.

The solution is making site visits and aligning drawings with every slope and utility line. Those drawings should also reflect the ever-changing local codes, which are updated as regions suffer the effects of natural occurances such as flooding or wildfires.

Mistake #4. Unrealistic Schedules

As construction timelines tighten, aggressive schedules stretch the boundaries of viability. Working under pressure, some designers and contractors skip the sequential dependencies of the critical path and the realistic timelines needed to complete them.

When the MEP and other specialty contractors who know the tasks most intimately aren’t consulted, the time needed for permitting, equipment lead times, site logistics, assembly, and other factors can be underestimated.

A process of early, collaborative scheduling with the trades generates healthy dialogue. Their expertise helps populate schedules with the realities of the work, for timelines honed to their most efficient and cost-effective.

Stay updated on what’s happening in construction.

Subscribe to Blueprint, Procore’s free construction newsletter, to get content from industry experts delivered straight to your inbox.

Subscribe

Mistake #5: Skipping Prequalification

A well-oiled handoff from estimating to construction management positions the right people for the right jobs.

However, some estimators don’t have opportunities to explain their recommendations — the reasoning that led them to choose the higher-priced supplier who can deliver on schedule or the Minority and Women-owned Business Enterprise that helps the project reach MWBE requirements.

Without those explanations, cost-conscious GCs and PMs might elevate their risk by selecting subcontractors and suppliers based on price alone.

A solution of prequalification criteria and systemized notes equips decision makers to award contracts on more than just price. It also drives efficiencies and timelines through assembly of top-flight teams and high-quality materials.

The solutions to avoiding the top 5 preconstruction mistakes emerge from collaboration, effective communication, transparency, systemization, and thorough documentation. Together, they prevent costly errors while bringing value to operations by delivering a project with the cost-time-quality triangle in balance.

Written by