To Jdelhaye: You are trying hard to tie me to that Staricco guy...but you should stick to CSI episodes...I do not know that guy. Somehow the thought is that if you knew my name you would say "oh...that guy!" But you wouldn't. And it wouldn't change the facts either. I came and went from the location of the railcar I was working on and nobody gave a whit about who I was or what I was doing.

I am really more concerned about how we prevent these sad stories from happening.

Concerning the Mexican workers: they are what they are. And until I got there I do not think anybody else in the building spoke Spanish and they spoke no English. Which goes back to my previous point about off-site management. How can you direct the efforts of somebody with no language skills? They were unskilled and un-directable (but nice guys). ?Que bien?

I like the point that trolleyira made just prior to my post. These railcar projects are just way too big and too complicated to bid. What was the term he used? Cost+contract? I use the term cost+labor and it has served me well. I also think it would be wise for non-railroad familar people to budget in a consultant. Thoughts? Has anybody ever worked as a consultant on a restoration project?

(I am no longer opening PM's...too many to handle.)

Way back in the 1980's I worked in the capacity of shop foreman for a tourist railroad. Since then I worked in the power plant industry and then became a teacher. I have managed many contractors, mostly in the power plant/industrial boiler business. In the business just like restoration work you never know what you are going to find once you start working. If you've ever done plumbing work on an old house you will also be able to relate.

There are always extras. If you use a mix of contractors with your own knowledgeable staff you can keep costs down and get something done in an efficient manner. You can bid very specific things with a lot of good results. For example fabrication of replacement parts by a welding or machine shop or a simple paint job that is completely prepped. If you hire someone to fix all of the rusted metal and paint a car that's been on the back lot for 30 years you might be in for a real mess. Seeking and making such bids would be a big mistake in my opinion. Working in industry with experienced contractors they would often only offer a T&M bid (time and material). This is often the best way to go as long as someone was keeping the contractor honest on the time. This is where the onsite manager comes into play.

Working in the classroom for the last 9 years has gotten me away from this type of stuff but the stories I can tell from the 15 years prior would fill a book.

Those are good points too...nothing like real-life experience to make a difference.

I see the classic case of hearing that Mr. X has bought the XYZ and he is going to restore it to A) run on Amtrak or B) start a tourist railroad. From that point on everything is just downhill.

I would advocate a slow and measured process where (like you said) the expenses are handled time + materials. A scope needs to be written that is within reason. I think the project I was referring to started with a terrible scope that was later brought into the realm of "realistic". When I try to frame the scope...I just cannot think of a single person on this earth who is going to be able to write a scope without dwelling on thier own biases and falling to their lack of experience.

Maybe a standard outline...where you look at the priorities and list worst case scenarios as you go along. Start with "roof"...and how will that be dealt with? Wood, mechanically fastened sheets, welded seems? Stick with original or...move to a replacement? It becomes complicated fast.

Very interesting observations...very good input.

Until you take a car or locomotive apart, you don't really know how much needs to be done. Lots of unpleasant surprises often await.

Bidders usually are not allowed to dismantle a car before bidding. You're talking about a lot of labor in most cases just to look inside. Removing one panel usually doesn't take much work but it may miss a lot of rot inside an adjacent panel.

If the bidder wants to remain in business, all he can do is add a large pad to the figure to handle unexpected work. The only thing that makes business sense for bidders is a cost plus contract. That creates lots of problems for the person or group having the work done. How can you budget for an unknown figure?

I'm afraid there's no good answer to this dilemma.

fk

I have done the budgets for the SPCRR restrorations... (materials and services only, not labor as we are a volunteer group.) So far I have been able to hold to within 10%, but the budgets are detailed, Including costs for potencial issues which may arise on dissasembly, and include contingencies... I specify those items which I am not addressing (for example on our wooden cars I don't address the air brakes beyond reinstallation since we don't use them. If I assume the trucks are in a decent state of repair I say so. On the other hand I havent been able to budget volunteer labor hours well. My experiance seems to be shared with several others who I have discussed this with although I know of at least one person who has been able to quote paid labor well...

In all cases the secret is to budget for the work described in the contract. Include langrage in the contract about what work is being quoted and what isn't.

I think we collectivly hide behind problems which can not be seen until the object is dissasembled and evaluated. Alternatly, you can at least quote for the known work (assuming you explain the known work, and include a statement that this is all that is included)

If quoting steam engine work, it would be reasonable to quote removing appliances and the jacket, aspestose work if needed, removal of tubes, testing for sheet thickness, and form 4.

You could also predict in advance costs for replacing the tubes, replacing the jackets and appliences (with quotes for each appliance rebuilt) and repainting the loco.

Of course a simple walk about could also show other needed work which can be both described and quoted...

A contract could include langrage about quoting other boiler work as found as a seperatly... then it is not the contractor's fault if addtional work (firebox sheets, flue sheets, thin boiler courses) Examples of possible costs could be included to prevent surprises later, but these would be examples, not contractual costs.

Collectivly we fall into the trap of dreaming that this will be easy, and don't plan for alternate senarios... A owner who accepts a bad contract shares some of the blame... either for optimistic thinking, or out of ignorance.

Randy Hees

I'm convinced that the majority of people working in this field have not entered into it with any but the best intentions. I've also seen some very good people get caught up in unrealistic dreams, expectations, varying evolving agendas, political battling, or simply get burned out and rushing a job complete to be done with it at last and move on with other things. I've also had the misfortune of watching some very good people exceed their abilities, and in trying to stretch beyond their means botch some jobs badly - partly due to lack of resources, partly due to unwillingness to ask others for good advice. Well meaning wannabees is another story....... there's a reason education is expensive.

Having "experts" brought in to critique others work can be done - providing the critic is a legitimate expert, and is completely aware of ALL the conditions and other information relating to the situation relating to the job being critiqued. Needless to suggest, any outside expert ought not have any agendas apart from an honest, disinterested third party perspective of a narrowly and specifically defined situation. Fishing expeditions don't result in much useful information, but lots of static.

The onus of good specifications ought to fall on the writer of the RFP. Many of these individuals lack the knowledge and experience , or even language, to adequately explain their expectations. Frequently, their expectations bear little relationship to the real world. Still, if they don't specify exactly what the result desired should be, they can't fault any contractor who has no psychic ability to provide it. Bad specs and ignorant clients are probably responsible for the majority of dissatisfaction in any complex project - not only applied to our industry, for which there are no national codes or "standards" for static museum displays. I've had disagreements with contractors over whether "feet" represented board feet or linear feet when it wasn't specified, in a time and materials contract. We both honestly miscommunicated - and shared the responsibility accordingly.

Best advice for customers: if you don't know what you want or how to say it, and lack the expertise to spec out the work, don't try to do it. Pay a consultant to translate, and oversee the job. If you can't afford to do that, accept the consequences of ignorance without complaint.

Best advice for contractors: get into another field. Failing that, insist on highly specific, well written contracts for fixed costs, with weasel clauses for unanticipated conditions. Preferably, time and expense agreements with a general desired result and standards and practices referenced. NEVER get caught up in dreams, desires, others agendas or political battles - you may prosper slightly in the short term, but it will rebound badly and karmically in much greater terms in the future. Maintain communications with customers, and make them responsible players in the decision making process as much as you can - see my article on steam locomotive surveys for one way to do so. Blame is easier shared. Distrust subcontractors and suppliers, and anybody you must count on to get your job successfully completed - probably the only time paranoia is healthy.

Good luck to all - we're all in this together.

dave

I feel there has been a lot of this around here lately.

A well written RFP is only half of the problem. The ability to write realistic proposals is a very valuable skill. A good proposal must accurately describe what is, and is not included. The contractor must ensure that the owner understands what work is excluded by the proposal and the mechanisms by which additional and unforeseen work can be added to the contract by mutual agreement.

Submitting a bid for a "complete restoration," or some other such vague description of scope would be a foolish mistake.