1. Orlando
1.1. Jim
1.1.1. Applications
1.1.1.1. Timberline
1.1.1.1.1. Best in insdustry
1.1.1.2. OST
1.1.1.2.1. Like platform
1.1.1.3. Excel
1.1.1.3.1. Protect formulas
1.1.1.3.2. High margin for error
1.1.1.3.3. Tracking audit on
1.1.1.3.4. Does all math
1.1.1.4. Email
1.1.1.4.1. Receive bids through email
1.1.1.4.2. Sent to coordinator
1.1.1.4.3. Have Bid Box by division
1.1.1.5. Pipeline
1.1.1.5.1. Bid solicitation and management
1.1.1.6. Datto Workplace
1.1.1.6.1. plan storage, link to plans inserted in Pipeline
1.1.1.7. Favorite Bid Management software was Prime Bid, but it is no loger available. Was his favorite
1.1.2. Thoughts on Building connected
1.1.2.1. No person touch to bidders
1.1.2.1.1. Relationships are important, would make this a priority
1.1.2.1.2. Doesn't like that it looks like it comes from BC
1.1.2.1.3. Needs Heavy Branding to make it clear it is C&T
1.1.2.2. Perception
1.1.2.2.1. 30% loss if went completely automated.
1.1.2.2.2. Limited Bidders
1.1.2.2.3. Its hard to learn
1.1.2.2.4. Subs have to pay to get listed
1.1.2.2.5. BC is not Multi-user, so team can't collaborate
1.1.2.3. What if the inernet or BC site is down? No backup system
1.1.3. Change Disposition
1.1.3.1. Stated not opposed to change
1.1.4. General Process
1.1.4.1. 99% of bids come from email
1.1.4.2. Bids put in Bidbox then transferred to spreadsheet
1.1.4.2.1. Transferred from spreadsheet to Timberline
1.2. Anthony
1.2.1. Applicatoins
1.2.1.1. DWP
1.2.1.1.1. Plans and links
1.2.1.2. Pipeline??
1.2.1.2.1. No hands on?
1.2.1.3. ISQFT
1.2.1.3.1. Best market share
1.2.1.3.2. Largest
1.2.1.3.3. Bet would be best
1.2.1.3.4. Best market share
1.2.1.3.5. Managing the Bidder list is Challenging
1.2.1.4. Excel
1.2.1.4.1. opportunity to improve
1.2.1.4.2. Error risk
1.2.1.4.3. Tabulation
1.2.1.4.4. Uses his own spreassheet for tabulation but doesn't use Jim's
1.2.1.5. 30-50 projects per year, CM and Negotiated
1.2.1.6. Getting good subcontractor coverage is biggest challenge
1.2.2. Thoughts on Building Connected
1.2.2.1. New to the market
1.2.2.2. Subs may not have an account
1.2.2.3. Challenting market conditions
1.2.2.4. have to be competitive - BC doesn't help this
1.2.2.5. Have to have good sub coverage
1.2.2.5.1. Doesn't beleive BC has a good sub database
1.2.2.6. Database not as good, don't control
1.2.2.7. Have to have an account for sub (more difficult)
1.2.2.8. Business intelligence would be useful
1.2.2.8.1. Historical bid info would be helpful
1.2.2.9. Low confidence in using an "app" for tabulation
1.2.2.10. Each project different
1.2.2.11. Dupliate effort
1.2.3. Change disposition
1.2.3.1. Open to new ways
1.2.3.1.1. Open to Bid Analysis software
1.2.3.1.2. Would like a robust tool to help team understand why a specific selection was made
1.2.3.2. Ok with subs entering Bids into system but not a selling point
1.2.4. Perceptions
1.2.4.1. Suns want what requires the least amount of effort
1.2.4.2. Subs have boiler plae info that they want to inlcude with bids
1.2.4.3. Having a bidder check a box to conirm bidding is not reliable
1.3. Sheila
1.3.1. Applications
1.3.1.1. Pipeline
1.3.1.1.1. Easy to use
1.3.1.1.2. Easy to manage
1.3.1.1.3. Easy to work with Trades
1.3.1.1.4. Easy to manage bids we've sent
1.3.1.1.5. Addendums can be sent to everyone easily
1.3.1.1.6. Send only to those bidding
1.3.1.1.7. User friendly
1.3.1.1.8. Can see if they opened email
1.3.1.1.9. Bounceback email problem
1.3.1.1.10. setup email reminders
1.3.1.2. PHone
1.3.1.2.1. Call every sub to see if they are bidding / personal touch
1.3.1.3. No experience with other Bid Management software
1.3.2. Thoughts on Building Connected
1.3.2.1. Lack of privacy
1.3.2.1.1. thinks subs can see each others bids
1.3.2.2. Shy away from it
1.3.2.3. Knowledge came from others
1.3.2.4. Rating system may help sort out HVAC
2. Raleigh
2.1. Mary
2.1.1. Applications
2.1.1.1. Pipeline
2.1.1.1.1. Writes invitation
2.1.1.1.2. Send invitation
2.1.1.1.3. Brenda selects sub that will be invited
2.1.1.1.4. Pipeline doesn't track emails ** (training or methodology?) This creates lots of work.
2.1.1.1.5. Still learning, working with it for 7 months
2.1.1.1.6. Feels limiting
2.1.1.1.7. Each phase is like a brand new project (CM) Would like to be able to re-send out to bidders for subsequent phases
2.1.1.1.8. Duplicate effort
2.1.1.1.9. Suncontractor rating system not robust - simple 5 star rating.
2.1.1.1.10. Some subs keep info update
2.1.1.2. Excel
2.1.1.2.1. Personal spreadsheet used to track emails sent
2.1.1.3. Datto
2.1.1.3.1. Mary Keeps 2 drawing sites
2.1.2. Thoughts on BC
2.2. Brenda
2.2.1. Applications
2.2.1.1. Pipline
2.2.1.1.1. Big supporter
2.2.1.1.2. Invitations and Notices look the same, needs improvement - confusing
2.2.1.1.3. Have created columns to tract things in Pipeline - needs improvement
2.2.1.1.4. Have build custom prequalification process
2.2.1.1.5. Would like to be able to attach files in notices. Now attached link to go to Datto. Not desirable
2.2.1.1.6. We need to do a better job of tracking if a Bid is actually received from prospective Bidder
2.2.1.1.7. Likes being able to have multiple contacts and have one listed as primary contact
2.2.2. Thoughts on BC
2.2.2.1. Subs updating own info - Whoey (huey)
2.2.2.2. Combining databases would be less efficient
2.2.2.3. Okay to share if they are grouped
2.2.2.4. Bid Tabulation software might be helpful if we did hard bids
2.2.2.5. Concerned that subs have to create an account
2.2.3. Bidder qualification
2.2.3.1. Owner based
2.2.3.1.1. Open to public
2.2.3.1.2. Track per job
2.2.3.1.3. Have to keep up with Minority participation
2.2.3.1.4. HUB (HUD?)
2.2.4. RFI questions for bid
2.2.4.1. Currently keeping separate spreadsheet.
2.2.5. Other needs
2.2.5.1. Need to be able to tag subs by type of project, i.e. Multifamily Conc, Nultifamily wood, CMAR, Educational, Ecumenical, Do Not Use
2.2.5.2. Needs custom contact info, like who manages the subs prequalification submittals
2.2.5.3. Ok with changing software if it meets their needs
2.3. Evan
2.3.1. Applications
2.3.1.1. Pipeline
2.3.1.1.1. Bret was lead on Pipeline process
2.3.1.1.2. Very connected to softwre
2.3.1.1.3. User Friendly
2.3.1.1.4. Quick
2.3.1.1.5. Wants to be able to look when Mary is out and know status
2.3.1.1.6. Likes that we can see stats
2.3.1.2. Thoughts on Building Connected
2.3.1.2.1. Doesn't want subs to have to log in
2.3.1.2.2. Busy, want to make it easy
2.3.1.2.3. Subs don't update info
2.3.1.2.4. Enter
2.3.1.2.5. Definately wants to be able to maintain separate contact list for Raleigh office
2.3.1.2.6. Likes the idea of seeing stats, like how many bids has a sub responded to, how many have they submitted.
2.3.1.2.7. Like ability to pull subs from broad list, but still wants to have local list and control contact information
2.3.1.3. Prequal process
2.3.1.3.1. Database is good
2.3.1.3.2. Imported data is not really that good (pipeline)
2.3.1.3.3. Don't mind broadcasting like Brenda does (too many subs). Prefers to have large Bid list, then vet and work out problems, like expired certificate of insurance
2.3.1.3.4. Prequal process is different per job since it is mandaed by Owner
2.3.1.4. Bid tabulation
2.3.1.4.1. Uses custom spreadsheet
2.3.1.4.2. "All Ears" for bid tab in web app
2.3.1.4.3. No uniform bid form
2.3.1.4.4. Currently print hard copies for markup
2.3.1.4.5. key in amounts manually
2.3.1.4.6. most quotes couldn't be entered automatically
2.3.1.4.7. Not enough time to create bid forms
2.3.1.4.8. receives bids via email precon@Clancy or Estimating@clancy
2.4. Brett
2.4.1. Process general comments
2.4.1.1. Rough
2.4.1.2. Has allowed to carry on
2.4.1.3. Mary is new
2.4.1.4. Decision was made for Raleigh
2.4.1.5. Came from access database, horrible
2.4.1.6. Worked at MB CON, implemented Pipeline
2.4.1.7. Must speak to subs - sub bending conversation
2.4.1.8. Don't currently track the number of jobs a sub has been awarded
2.4.2. Pipeline
2.4.2.1. Zero learning curve
2.4.2.2. CMAR/Negotiated
2.4.2.3. Manages internal process
2.4.2.4. Was least expensive
2.4.2.5. Has been a good product
2.4.2.6. Weakness is management of the database
2.4.2.7. Ease of use
2.4.2.8. Fast to build
2.4.2.9. Easy access to sub / bid history
2.4.2.10. Can track subs to see when invitation received, opened, drawngs viewed
2.4.3. Building Connected Comments
2.4.3.1. Serious errors in database
2.4.3.2. master databases have them
2.4.3.2.1. Each market has its own contact person. This info not in master database
2.4.3.3. Toughest challenge is "who does what at what size" - related to fact that info is not granular enough to know where sub operates -
2.4.3.4. "white noise", our solicitation may not be seen or ignored
2.4.3.5. Requires account, not good
2.4.3.6. We want to be different that everybody else, not same as.
2.4.3.6.1. How can we make invitations look different from our competitors?
2.4.3.7. Subs shouldn't be allowed to manage thier own Company info, especially the type of work they do
2.4.3.8. Likes idea of analytics but would want it broken down by division
2.4.4. Other Perceptions
2.4.4.1. Raleigh does mostlky CMAR?negpotiated work while Virginina does a lot of Bid work - needs different platform
2.4.4.2. Thinks some platforms put the Bid Invite on a public calendar. Doesn't want this!
2.4.4.3. One of the biggest weaknesses of any latform is in the management of the database - how often is it maintained?
2.4.4.4. Prefers to print bids and view on notebook
2.4.4.5. faster to view plans in a set of drawngs than digitally
3. Newport News
3.1. Zach
3.1.1. iSQFT
3.1.1.1. Use lightly
3.1.1.2. 10% of time
3.1.2. Building Connected
3.1.2.1. Large jobs, sometimes use both BC and iSQFT
3.1.2.2. Use 90% of time
3.1.2.3. Some overlap with iSQFT,
3.1.2.4. BC is standard
3.1.2.5. Had trouble getting feed back from subs
3.1.2.6. Some subs said they never received the solicitaion
3.1.2.7. Better user interface - more intuitive
3.1.2.8. Need to put in time and effort to build database
3.1.2.9. Have received feedback that subs do not want to enter username or account info - should be taken into consideration
3.1.2.10. Subs ask to receive an email rather that create account
3.1.2.11. Not using PRO account. not sure what is missing
3.1.2.12. talked about bid leveling, has used it.
3.1.2.13. Subs sometimes enter $1.00
3.1.2.14. Challenge, 90% of subs email quotes
3.1.2.15. Believes that we should have a standard bid leveling format
3.1.2.16. BC tells you when an email is not valid
3.1.2.17. BC saves work - Hampton sub list allows us to "duplicate" a job
3.1.2.18. Can download a list of all minority sub info an breakdown. shows best effort
3.1.2.19. BC would be my pick
3.1.3. Timerline
3.1.3.1. Manual entry to Timberline
3.1.3.2. Not aware of any import to Timberline
3.1.4. CM / Hard Bid
3.1.4.1. Lots of
3.1.5. General
3.1.5.1. Lots of re-pricing efforts - resend announcement
3.2. Haley
3.2.1. Building Connected
3.2.1.1. Strong platfomr
3.2.1.2. Intuitive / Easy to use
3.2.1.3. Used Prime Bid at last job
3.2.1.4. in Browser, Crowd Sourced - Good
3.2.1.5. Easy / Cost effective
3.2.1.6. Has incorrect data, need to deal with this
3.2.1.7. Lack of bid response - Haley can tell if email opened
3.2.2. iSQFT
3.2.2.1. Pat cam on with this platform
3.2.2.2. Uses 80-90%
3.2.2.3. Does a good job But have to be more proactive
3.2.2.4. No division tabs
3.2.2.5. Picky
3.3. Patrick
3.3.1. General
3.3.1.1. Was a part of last conversation
3.3.1.2. Use both ISQFT and BC
3.3.2. Building Connected
3.3.2.1. Love BC
3.3.2.2. Allows to search for more trades
3.3.2.3. Easier and Faster
3.3.2.4. Email is a problem, 75% of subs don't respond
3.3.2.5. Subs don't use the button to let us know if they are bidding
3.3.3. iSQFT
3.3.3.1. More based on your own Sub data
3.3.3.2. Said that ISQFT is better for subs that we know
3.3.4. Tabulation
3.3.4.1. Use Excel
3.3.4.2. Template provided by company
3.3.4.3. Wasn't aware BC had bid tab
3.4. Michael
3.4.1. General
3.4.1.1. Flexible
3.4.1.2. Will use either
3.4.1.3. Unit cost - will grab a previous project
3.4.1.4. Use Expidition
3.4.1.5. Need to interview subs!
3.4.2. Building Connected
3.4.2.1. Has a good database
3.4.2.2. Do have issues where the sub contact changes
3.4.2.3. Difficulty with subs in different markets
3.4.3. Bid Leveling
3.4.3.1. Would consider using a standard bid leveling tool
4. Wilmington
4.1. Zach Cromer
5. Call notes (4/3/2020)
5.1. Email spoofing
5.2. Contact database
5.3. Prequal
5.4. Trades / Codes
5.5. Bib tabulation, not really supported - newer concept - John Homa
5.6. Research, confirm, largest database
5.7. Harry working on survey, Tyler can send
5.8. Phasing of multiple estimates
5.9. fix Breda's problems is key
5.10. Success
5.10.1. All on one platform
5.10.2. Baker wanted this done last year
5.10.3. Mid year, end of May, people should begin transistion
6. Subcontractor Interviews
7. Document creation
7.1. Summary of work we did
7.2. Main points
7.2.1. Fits better in our technology stack / philosophy
7.2.2. Key objections and arguments against them
7.3. Other statements
7.3.1. Subs cannot see each others bids
7.4. Work still to be done
7.4.1. Survey Subs
7.4.1.1. Do you have problems receiving bid solicitations from any of these three platforms / do you have a preference?
7.4.1.2. What percentage of invitations are received for bid platforms like BC, Pipeline, iSQFT
7.4.1.3. What percentage of bids do you submit online
7.4.1.4. Is it a deterant having to create an account for access online
7.4.1.4.1. If yes, do you create an account anyway. Will you still submit bid?
7.4.1.5. How many subs who respond to BC invitations use the BC sub software?
7.4.1.6. What percentage of projects are Hard Bid vs negotiated
7.4.2. References from large CMs
7.4.2.1. Develop areas of Interest
7.4.2.2. Develop Questions
7.4.2.2.1. Do large contractors find problem with having subs create an account
7.4.2.2.2. Database issue, is it a problem locating the right contact and keeping database accurage
7.4.2.2.3. What methods are used to go through various phases of CM project without creating new project
7.4.2.2.4. How do you deal with fact that subs are not completely honest with the work that they perform
7.4.2.2.5. Does the fact that the sub has to make his own changes to the database cause you a problem? if so Is the problem easily resolved?
7.4.2.2.6. Do you call your subs to get a higher bid response even though you are using an automation platform?
7.4.2.2.7. How do you deal with cover sheet summaries during precon. - and how do you do bid tabulation
7.4.2.2.8. How do you handle the bidder qualification process for CMAR work
7.4.2.2.9. Potential Question: Ho do you handle the RFI / Bid document clarification process in BC
7.4.2.2.10. Do you think BC better suited for CMAR or Hard Bidding, or does it perform eually well
7.4.3. Harry - Understand how BC handle the bidder qualification process for CMAR projects.
7.4.3.1. Understand how it is done in trate tapp
7.4.3.2. how it is handled in building connected
7.4.3.3. Ask another CMAR
7.4.4. Understand / Solve the RFI / Bid document clarification process.
7.4.4.1. Can this be handled in BC
7.4.4.2. Possibly develop question for other contractors
7.4.5. Get list of subs together, talk to each office - perhaps get list from accounting
7.4.6. Questions for BC
7.4.6.1. Question to BC about printing a list of subs filtered by custom tags (i.e. minority sub)
7.4.6.2. Ask question about Road map for Autodesk integration
7.4.6.3. Is there a way to export Bid Tabulation into timberline
7.4.6.4. What amount of internal customization in sub database
7.4.6.5. Can subs be grouped based on project type
7.4.6.6. Can contact be grouped / filtered by office or market. Some offices have specified that it may be a problem to group them.
7.4.7. Address concern of Group / sharing contacts by region - refer to Brenda comment and others
8. Charlotte
8.1. John Homa
8.1.1. Building Connected
8.1.1.1. Loves BC
8.1.1.2. Timeframe for estimation 2-4 weeks
8.1.1.3. No negative reaction from subs (solicitation) Not a deterrant
8.1.1.4. Is there an iPhone app?
8.1.1.5. Easier to upload contact list??
8.1.1.6. Data is good, less that 5% inaccurate email
8.1.1.7. Three things I don't like
8.1.1.7.1. Central database no control - accurate and complete. Our contact is not there
8.1.1.7.2. Sub gets to choose what areas that they bid on.
8.1.1.7.3. Solicitation comes from building connected.
8.1.2. iSQFT
8.1.2.1. Much less accurate data
8.1.3. On Screen Takeoff
8.1.4. Tabulation
8.1.4.1. Have color coded Excel sheet -Red no, green yes, yellow unsure
8.1.4.2. Everything in one place would be a good idea
8.2. Tom Plainshek
8.2.1. General
8.2.1.1. Used Smart Bid at Balfour
8.2.1.2. Generally like to have conversations with subs
8.2.1.3. Not a lowest bid shop
8.2.2. Building Connected
8.2.2.1. Works well
8.2.2.2. 10projects per year
8.2.2.3. BC is intuitive, would recommend
8.2.2.4. Lists for Faith Based, Higher Ed, etc are useful - extensive use of this feature
8.2.2.5. Not likely that we would use directory to bring on a sub we don't know.- this was a huge problem in Charlotte - this is a relationship business
8.2.2.6. If you get your subs from a list you shouldn't be in business
8.2.3. Bid Tab
8.2.3.1. If we are not after hard bid work, and can't input, we can't use it
8.2.3.2. CM owners expect us to analyze different components differently - use excel for this
8.2.4. Win/loss
8.2.4.1. tracked through SalesForce