Forums

In my opinion that is just a different method of writing an estimate used by contractors that don't use the same software we do.  It's like expressing the job in a "Time and Materials" basis rather than unit costs.  They are describing some of the stuff that goes into the sausage.

It is part of the bits and pieces that would include "mobilization" and some of the other odd things you see on contractor bids that are not typically part of the Xactimate, MSB, or other estimating software programs. I think the short answer is that the unit costs should include adequate compensation for supervision once O&P are also allowed.

If it's a large loss, and there is economy of scale in the quantity of repair, then the unit costs should work out OK. I have allowed trip charges for a variety of reasons that are not included in unit costs, but to pay someone to supervise the same tasks that you are paying for by unit costs + O&P smells like double dipping to me.

I would allow something for the steep decking, but I just looked at the Xactimate price list and you are right there is no specific item for steep decking.  There is for steep roof framing, so it stands to reason that the decking should be compensated as well - though the steep fee for roofing seems a bit too high to apply to the decking, just my opinion. 

Bob and Bryan,
Estimating programs have made, for the most part, our creating of an estimate in a uniform format much easier than hand writing an estimate on a three part tear off .....
However, remember we are adjusters......adjust the estimate to a fair price so that the loss can be adjusted (hopefully) to a conclusion within the parameters established by the policy .
If you need to add a charge that is NOT IN THE PROGRAM, do so with an explanation........because the line item is not in the software does not mean that the operation does not exist or is not a righteous charge.....

Case in point.....how about fuel charges........any takers??

Best regards,
Joe

I agree with that 100%, and with a unique property or circumstance I find myself doing that. "Temp brace roof structure as pull tree out of living room"

And the decking that is 2 story and steep.

But the last time I personally saw the "Project supervision" line item was on 2 contractor estimates in 1994 for the Northridge earthquake, and I have done lots of hard hit burns etc. since then without that line item being proposed by a contractor. Or on my sheets. So I would have to ask myself, is this something that is not being allowed for in the unit costs and O&P?

Oh I just remembered another one last year, a University was flooded when our backhoe operator hit a 12" water line and they couldn't find the shut off. Lots of water, lots of buildings, and the 18 wheeler crews came in from out of town to dry it out. They billed for "project supervision" but their entire invoice was T&E with a documented list of man hours, and equipment, not our estimating program unit costs.

I'm not saying I would never consider it in addition to our "unit cost" estimating database + O&P, but I haven't thus far. My first reaction would be "double dipping".

I could use some of that. Rather than increase in my mile fee, I am getting a lot more "flat rate" files with first 50 miles free.
On a repair estimate, I would never put it there first, but if a contractor was from out of town working something like the California fires and they put it in their estimate, I would consider it.

If we put our blind faith in the quarterly price updates, you would hope that the market research they do would account for the increased fuel costs - our gas has been sky high for about a year.

I think the spirit of your post, is when the database doesn't meet the real world, we need to look at these kind of issues.

Everything costs more, getting worse, and it seems to feed on itself.  I wish the pay schedule was keeping up with it.

OK, so you are not an adjuster?

Do you allow for temp toilets,temp fencing,temp power?

Gotcha, I lived in Houston for the first 24 years. Now I'm 51...

Some people have done claims for a lot longer than I have, but in my 16 years of property claims 99.99 percent of the General Contractors I deal with were OK on 10 & 10 on top of the unit costs.

John of Simsol made a recent comment that I find to be very true, when prices don't agree it is usually the scope of repair that is off (overlooked items). And I can see where the temp site provisions would be in that category - but for the claims that have lived on my desk, they got proper care and feeding without an additional supervision hours entry.

Again, I see "supervision" on Time and Material type quotes, government jobs, commercial projects that are bid on a spreadsheet with T&M. I would not view that as double dipping, as it is part of the sausage that is being described as Time and Materials.

People tell me if I am on a limb, but typically the insurance repair industry databases + a General Contractor's O&P will typically get the home put back in it's pre-loss condition on the open market.

I did read that, and I interpreted it a bit differently. It tells you that these items (including project management) are not included in Unit Costs. That is their main point, what is or isn't included in their pricing.

It has many items listed under various Overhead and Profit entries that are not part of the unit costs. It describes things that CAN be broken out as separate line items - and my point is that it is not common practice in the areas I have worked (California, Louisiana, Hawaii) to separate out the supervision as a separate line item, plus O&P.

It's a free country, and I certainly don't want to get into a dispute over this. But I did read that article when you posted it, and it does not make me want to start adding project supervision to all my estimates - and again I don't often see them coming my way with that line item added by the contractor.

Every file is unique and I don't mean to sound like everything has to fit in a neat little box. I have done claims for restaurant commercial damages where the contractor for that franchise has to travel in from out of town, they are the people that fix that specialty decor, and you basically have to use them. So you pay for mobilization and a variety of things you don't pay for with a home-owner's claim. And you may be focused on a hairy project which has it's own scene. But I would not rubber stamp that supervision thing on every project your firm does and expect the adjuster to sell it to his manager without some explanation.

Bryan,

From your posts it appears you are asking for information, then trying to tell someone they are wrong when they don't see it your way.

It appears you are in a specialized business of restoration and as people in business, they should know their costs. (Xactimate tries to put down what the normal costs are in a given area), they are not gospel. In speaking of gospel, the bible has a passage that states "is there not one among you that can judge between right & wrong".  The point I am trying to make here is, if you know your business and what you need to make a profit, then you put down your costs to make a profit. The project supervision cost would be a rareity, (hope I spelled that right), and I for one have never paid it. The reason I can justify that is the trade, being what ever it would be, is a professional price for a professional job. If you as a general getting 10 & 10 to oversee the job cannot pick a credible subcontractor then that is your problem, not the insurance company. If you have a bad employee, that is also your problem. It is not right that you try to add a "Project Supervision" charge also to a normal restoration project so that you can go out to supervise someone who is already getting a professional price to do the job, (Double Dipping).

I am an Insurance Adjuster of 19 yrs and I am not for the Insurance Company, just what I have to live with as being right.

I know there are consultants out there that teach how to maximize profits and include everything you can think of, and it seems the way of most industries, but know what your costs are and you can back that up easier than you can what a guideline estimating system says.

I for one will entertain the question of Project Supervision but I have never paid it yet on an Insurance claim.

Bob,

You stated "If I had 3 bids from competent contractors, and yours was the only one adding that additional supervision entry, then yours would not be the one I would choose to do the job."

I am assuming that you are referring work on your OWN property...Correct?

As adjusters we can not choose a Contractor for the insured, that the insured must use.......it is up to the insured to choose the Contractor and for us to get the AP with the insured or their representative, either a PA, Contractor, etc.......

The only time that competitive bids would be acceptable, especially on an HO repair, is if the contractor that the insured chose was way, way out there......then getting some competent contractor's bids would be done to prepare to either gently nudge the insured or their chosen contractor to become more "reasonable" or to prepare for mediation or appraisal........

Joe

Yeah, I was speaking figuratively of a free market system. Customers don't typically like to overpay. Of course you are right, we cannot demand that a particular contractor do the repairs on a house we do not own.  Kind of like "for sale by neighbor"

I got an assignment this week that came with the boilerplate text from the insurance company with their typical instructions.  I noticed "losses over $5,000 get 2 contractor bids" and it kind of rubbed me the wrong way - because I never do that.  I write my own estimates.  But that mentality is out there.  IMHO I suspect it comes from the gene pool of examiners who started out with fender benders and are doing the old "3 body shops and we pay the lowest" mentality - but that is what you might do if you had to fix an uninsured repair (if you trusted the shop).

Cities and other Governmental Entities always put projects out to bid.

At the end of the day, any competitive bidding on a structural claim may establish a value for the settlement (first or 3rd party) but ultimately the person who does the work will be the one selected by the owner of the property, and sometimes they decide to pay a little extra to have a special person do the work.  With a first party claim, they could try to submit for the actual cost incurred and have a good argument.

Wow. That is a very interesting example!  I would think that if a GC spent a full 40 hours a week supervising the project, he would not be simply sitting in a chair.  When I visit a project, I often see the head guy performing some of the tasks, ordering materials, and other things that are essentially compensated by the unit cost.  And of course they have to sequence the trades, which I view as part of the O&P.

In the spirit of this thread, I do try to remain alert for things that are not described on the estimate.  I remember a fire where the doors were all extra height in the house, and other things that constantly resulted in meetings with me, the GC, and the homeowner due to oddball custom items that needed research in addition to the repair. 

As Joe mentioned earlier, I described the line item to explain why.  "trip charge to resolve XYZ".  With a big fire some of this may get tasked to an Architect to call out the specs, and that isn't free either.