Estimating/material lists

[soccer06]

Does anyone know if the material lists that generate on our program are accurate? Is there a tutorial to watch or article that explains how to use the material list to print off and give to my salesman to speed up the quoting process.
Thank You.

[gteacher]

Does anyone know if the material lists that generate on our program are accurate? Is there a tutorial to watch or article that explains how to use the material list to print off and give to my salesman to speed up the quoting process.
Thank You.

There are so many divergent options on material lists here that I doubt if you get any productive consensus.

IMHO – I believe the material list is 99% accurate. The primary problems are due to the way that Chief handles data. It’s just too limited. For example, moldings are listed generically in size with the depth mostly listed as 1”. Many descriptions are misleading. Framing is totally accurate but Chief does not frame all items – such as soffits, polyline solids, etc. There are small discrepancies the some area cals and no real way to control this. You’ll see many practical problems in carrying through model #, etc.

In short, if you’re willing to go through the listing line by line and edit; it can be used. But consider that even a small structure may have 400-500- lines, it can be quite a task.

My opinion is that if you give a material list to a supplier that is mostly (99%) accurate you’re looking at a disaster. It seems to be more a marketing tool than for practical use.

BTW, I use it, but only as a starting point.

[perryh]

Also anything made from solids won't show up in the list

[lbuttery]

my guess from reading the forum is that 90% would be closer

chief has too many workarounds that interfere with the ML accuracy

even CA states that is only as good as the model is

the trick is getting the model accurate without using workarounds

Lew

[Canuck]

First two plans I did with CA also had materials lists. As a test, we placed both up against what the contractor came up with. In both cases our list came up short. As Perry stated, if you have something made up as a solid, you are out material you need. I still print a list but only as a means to get a rough estimate on costs for my own knowledge, not the client. I usually add 15%, which gets me closer to the end result. But as I said, this is for my use, not the client.

[ambrozac]

If you do not manually generate your moldings, such as base, then the Materials List is automatically inaccurate. Floor Default/Room Moldings do not deduct for openings such as doorways, and does not deduct where there are cabinets against a wall. Only manually generated moldings will be accurate.........My stance is not to send anything inaccurate to the Materials List, but I guess others look at it as, it's better to send something, rather than nothing at all. I lose once again......

[Steve C.]

my guess from reading the forum is that 90% would be closer

chief has too many workarounds that interfere with the ML accuracy

even CA states that is only as good as the model is

the trick is getting the model accurate without using workarounds

Lew

It would be faster to do a material take off "the old fashioned way" lol

[ambrozac]

I don't believe the program has a roofing layer that allows for underlayment.

There is no true Lft (linear/lineal) material definition, where the distance is all that is necessary to calculate the material. In this program, the height is also required, which makes it nearly impossible to calculate correctly, using unit conversions, when you have different height walls involved. Some examples would be calculating brick ledge flashing, mortar net, some nails, caulk, etc.

Another limitation is there are only 10 layers allowed for walls. If you want all the materials that go into a wall, then 10 layers is probably about 1/2 to 2/3 enough for an exterior brick wall.

The program should be excellent for ordering cabinets, windows, door units, framing package (except bracing, collar ties, and soffit blocks), roofing (not underlayment), etc. Just be aware of the limitations, which are quite a few, but there are improvements each version.

[Bradley Boltz]

When I was in-house with a custom builder, I used the materials list to check the Roofer's Quote (how many squares he was basing his estimate on) or determining how much roof sheathing to order. It was always accurate enough for those purposes. Other than select bits and pieces, I wouldn't trust it's accuracy too much unless you build your model perfectly (a physical impossibility without workarounds).-BB

[cache]

The inaccuracies in the ML have just a s much to do with the builder/designer as they do with the software. I'm the designer/drafter and builder of about 1/4 of the homes I do. The rest I work with other builders as a consultant. There are certain things that are very accurate in the lists. Things like door and window schedules which are discrete items are easy to count and size correctly. Other things you just have to know how to do a plan take off. When you drop off a plan to a supply house, they don't just scan it into a computer that kicks out all the correct numbers. They typically do it the old fashioned way, using measuring pens and such. They ALWAYS use a scrap estimate.

For example, the roofing material area calc is pretty spot on. But depending on the roofer and the type of roof, there might be 2-7% waste that must be accounted for. I know my preferred roofer typically has about 3% waste on a 30-year architectural shingle. Then I don't rely on CA to give me an accurate count for the ice/water shield that local codes require. But CA does a very good job counting the lineal feet of drip edge at both the eaves and gables. So I can use those line items along with the valley count it gives to determine how much I&W shield I need, rounded up to the next full roll. Then I count on the roofer not to be throwing 10' chunks of material on the ground, since they know that I care about wasting stuff like that. It isn't CA's fault that it doesn't do the underlayment correctly, because they have no way currently of determining what type of underlayment is used, and how much the roofer like to overlap. Whomever does the takeoff simply needs to use the roofing material area, and then figure out the overlap and approximate waste of the material that will be used.

Re: framing materials. CA actually does an excellent job there. In fact they are too precise. I don't want to know all the 12.5" pieces I need. It would be more helpful if I could specify what size/length lumber I'm going to order and then have it tell me about how many full lengths will be needed. When a supply shop does the lumber takeoff, many times they are just estimating per sq ft. The good ones will do an estimation per lineal ft of wall, and then include a door opening count. CA actually provides numbers for both if you use them correctly. If you want incredibly accurate lumber estimates, then you have to spend a lot of time on your framing to get it just right. But no other software or lumber yard is going to do better. Then when it get to the build, it is up to the framer to determine how much they like to waste. Could be as little as 5% or as much as 15%, depending on the framer.

Certain things are also style dependent. A large but simple rectangular gable roof or shed roof has a very little waste on the sheathing. But a large, cut up hip roof has much higher waste. Even if CA provided a cutlist and layout optimization like cabinet software does, you'd have a bugger of a time getting the framer to follow it. They are going to load a bunch of sheets up to the roof. They are gonna use full sheets across an entire plane, and then snap a chalk and cut off all the corners at the hips. If they are in a hurry, they just toss the off cuts to the ground and use full sheet on the next plane too. If they run out of full sheets, they'll go down looking for large enough off cuts to finish things off. But if you provide enough full sheets, they will use the full sheets. It would be very difficult for CA to anticipate this. Relatively simple to add a waste factor to the roofing area calc provided.

Drywall and carpet need to estimated the way the installer does it. Specific sheets assigned to each wall. Carpet is measured by the lineal foot, not sq ft and each room much be laid out based on the pattern and width of the carpet roll. CA has no way of knowing how the installer will do this.

In the end, when I do my own takeoff using the CA material lists, I can get within about 1% of the cost to build. If I just hand the plan to the suppliers and installers and ask for a takeoff, it is usually off by about 10%. Basically, what you put in determines what you get back out. But the nice thing is that I can sell this as an extra service. My material lists are accurate and my cost estimations are within 1%. I sit down with the client and discuss EVERY detail while designing/drafting. I'm to the point now where the build always comes in on budget, which is a HUGE deal when it comes to building custom homes, because "everyone knows you're gonna go over budget". If you can actually come in slightly under budget, you get a ton of positive advertising.

[ambrozac]

.......It isn't CA's fault that it doesn't do the underlayment correctly, because they have no way currently of determining what type of underlayment is used, and how much the roofer like to overlap. Whomever does the takeoff simply needs to use the roofing material area, and then figure out the overlap and approximate waste of the material that will be used......

CA doesn't calculate any type of roofing underlayment, that I'm aware of. This should be a roofing layer, same as sheathing and roofing. Floor underlayment layer is available, so roofing underlayment should be as well. You should be able to set your own default, as to what type underlayment you use. Not that it's hard to get that information from the roofing quantity, it's just that it should be there, in the Materials List. Same as Lft. There is no Lft defined material, based on the length only. To get Lft, you deal with height and distance.

I don't use "ft", when dealing with building materials. It's either Lft, sq ft, or bd ft. To me, "ft" is reserved for dimensions. You can change the Unit, but there should be a default setting, if you prefer to use Lft.

Order 10 ft of countertop material......Would that be sq ft, or Lft?
Order 120 ft 1x8 105 Siding................ Is that Bd Ft, or Lft? Do you need enough to cover 120 sq. ft, or do you need 120 Lft?

We know the above is Lft, but the Vendors don't, unless they ask, or we change the Unit of Measure.

[cache]

CA doesn't calculate any type of roofing underlayment, that I'm aware of. This should be a roofing layer, same as sheathing and roofing. Floor underlayment layer is available, so roofing underlayment should be as well. You should be able to set your own default, as to what type underlayment you use. Not that it's hard to get that information from the roofing quantity, it's just that it should be there, in the Materials List. Same as Lft. There is no Lft defined material, based on the length only. To get Lft, you deal with height and distance.

I don't use "ft", when dealing with building materials. It's either Lft, sq ft, or bd ft. To me, "ft" is reserved for dimensions. You can change the Unit, but there should be a default setting, if you prefer to use Lft.

Order 10 ft of countertop material......Would that be sq ft, or Lft?
Order 120 ft 1x8 105 Siding................ Is that Bd Ft, or Lft? Do you need enough to cover 120 sq. ft, or do you need 120 Lft?

We know the above is Lft, but the Vendors don't, unless they ask, or we change the Unit of Measure.

I guess the things you mentioned have never bothered me. I don't use a direct print of the material list to send to clients. I import the data into a spreadsheet that is formatted the way I want and the cells in the spreadsheet have macros that find the correct lines from the ML. So the roofing underlayment line in the spreadsheet finds the surface material line from the ML and uses the area from that to determine the quantity of the underlayment.

I also never really cared about the Lft detail. CA does distinguish between Lft and sqft, the difference is just that they use ft instead of Lft. Again, this is changed in my spreadsheet. But I agree that an auto Lft designation would be nice. I guess the real point is that if CA wants the material list to be usable for takeoffs, they really need to talk to some builders and realize how we would need them.

[Glenn Woodward]

It is possible to use Lft (or any other designation) in the materials list from the drop down list box in the Unit column.
Create a new Unit called Lft in Unit Conversions.
But in the ML, it needs to be selected and changed on a line by line basis.
I don't believe there is a way to make it the default though.

[cache]

Good points Glenn. It should probably be pointed out that the material lists have quite a bit of functionality if you are willing to put in the time to setting up the master lists and such.

[ambrozac]

Thanks Glenn. I should have explained the following comment a little better, "You can change the Unit, but there should be a default setting, if you prefer to use Lft." I do the same as you mentioned. I've never seen any complaints on this forum before, for Lft vs. ft., so I guess most user's don't mind changing the Unit of Measure, don't use the Materials List, or the Supplier has a good enough relationship with the builder, to know how ft. is being used.

Another situation, is when there is no Unit of Measure listed at all. It's per each. I have a Unit Conversion set up for ea, as well as pr (pair), etc., same as I do for Lft. In certain situations, there are products that are sold by the pair, rather than by each. It can get confusing for the Supplier, if the Unit of Measure is left blank. This is not a big problem, as most of these type items are Library Objects and once copied to the User's Library, then the Components can be altered.......but, there still needs to be some type of default set here.

Where my frustration lies, (even though it's not difficult to manually change to Lft, ea, pr., etc.), is when you think you have the Materials List correct, change all your Units of Measure (directly in the Materials List), then find out you need to generate another one, all changes are wiped out.

My definition of a Materials List, is a list of all components necessary to construct a home, ability to automatically calculate all these components, down to the last drop of paint, caulk, and nail. The User can then decide what portions he wants to use, or not use, and it should be listed in a manner, where the Supplier can interpret, without further questions.

Another area. Example: The program calculates Brick, for an exterior wall. Along with the brick, you need mortar, possibly dye, brick wall ties, tie nails, sand, etc. The program can calculate this fairly well, sq ft coverage, provided you have enough wall layers. Then you may possibly need mortar netting, weep hole netting and brick ledge flashing. The problem with the netting/flashing, is that it needs to be calculated by Lft. We don't have a true Lft material definition.

Next you have drywall mud, drywall screws, tape, plate nails, stud nails, and the list goes on. You're out of wall layers. We are limited to 10. You can add Accessories, but there is no automatic calculation........I'm aware of exporting the Materials List, etc. which is great, but I think you need to get a basic, useable, Materials List directly from the program first.

Final comment: I would like to see the program get away from using wall layers. Build a wall, where you can manipulate/set the starting/stopping point for wall materials, horizontal and vertical, and have the materials cross layers (as in real world construction). Not a huge problem, but it prevents the model from being correct. As an example, the interior drywall (walls) should not touch the floor, or go to the bottom of the ceiling joist. It should go to the bottom of the ceiling drywall. Not a huge problem, for me, but the model is not correct and I believe it's something worth striving for.