A practical guide / Construction estimating
Construction estimating software or AI: what helps a small firm?
Estimating software holds your rates and measurements; AI helps with the reading and writing around a price, such as comparing quotes and listing queries. Yes. Use AI to compare subcontractor returns line by line, sort take-off queries and draft query lists. Start with one work package, a defined drawing issue and the quotes received for that scope.
The steps below turn those files into a quote sheet you can reuse. The worked example shows how to handle quotes that cover different work. Keep your normal estimating workbook as the place for quantities, calculations and the agreed tender price.
Use the quote promptCompare the scope before comparing the totals.
Set one basis for the package review
List the drawings, specification sections, issue dates and package boundaries sent to bidders. Add the agreed measurement basis. Use that list as the cover sheet for the review so later replies can refer to the same scope.
More on this step
RICS’s New Rules of Measurement set out rules for measuring work and managing costs. NRM 2 covers detailed measurement for building works. If your package uses that basis, keep its item names and units in the review. Ask for gaps between each return and your scope, with a quote page beside each point.
Read the source: RICS: New Rules of Measurement
Check price and scope on separate lines
Use columns for item, scope, quantity, unit, work included, exclusions, allowances and open queries. Keep a blank price separate from an item marked included elsewhere. Ask AI to copy each bidder’s words before drafting a question.
More on this step
For take-off checks, use figures the cost lead has already measured. Ask AI to flag repeat item IDs, mixed units or rows lacking a drawing revision. Keep those flags beside the take-off. Put each price change in its own column with its reason. The review should still show what each bidder offered.
Issue a short, numbered query list
Group the questions by bidder and keep each one tied to an item ID. Ask what is included, which quantity applies and whether the answer changes the price. Record the reply date and the person who accepted the answer.
More on this step
RICS’s cost prediction standard links good cost work with clear scope, sound data and skilled staff. Add a scope note to the review. Include open allowances, exclusions and assumptions used to compare returns. End with the choices the cost lead needs to settle before choosing a bidder.
Read the source: RICS: cost prediction professional standard
Worked example
Two drylining returns with different inclusions
Example with made-up details: a drylining package covers 120 square metres. Return A includes boards and a skim coat but excludes insulation. Return B includes insulation but lists the skim coat as an allowance. Both use the same drawing revision.
The first row shows insulation as excluded in A and included in B. The next keeps B’s skim coat allowance. Ask A to price the insulation in the spec. Ask B to confirm what the skim coat allowance covers. Keep the quoted totals visible while answers are pending. The cost lead can then enter agreed changes in the workbook.
Illustrative example.
Package issue
Fix the drawing and scope references.
Quote schedule
Expose inclusions and allowances.
Clarifications
Record replies and price effects.
Try a practical task
Compare your next subcontractor returns
Paste an approved package scope and two sample returns after this prompt.
Try this in your AI app
ChatGPT
Claude
Gemini
CodexUsing Gemini? The button copies the prompt. Paste it into the new chat.
Compare the given drylining quotes against the issued package scope. Use the scope’s item references as the row order. For each bidder, extract inclusions, exclusions, allowances, quantity, unit and drawing revision, with the quote page or line.
Create a separate list of take-off review points from the given take-off sheet. Flag duplicate references and inconsistent units. Leave the given values intact.
Then draft numbered query emails for each bidder. Ask precise questions about unresolved scope and request any price effect separately. Finish with a cost lead’s decision list. Use the supplied rates, quantities and totals unchanged.
A public result about preparation work
The Remote Humans proposal-writing story covers client proposals and reports drawn from several business systems. Time spent on proposals each week fell from 10 hours to 45 minutes, alongside automated reporting.
For an estimating team, the useful link is bringing quote details together for the cost lead’s review.
Read the source: Public result: weekly proposal preparation
Protect commercial and technical judgement
RICS’s AI standard covers uses that have a material effect on surveying services. It addresses data controls, reliable outputs and professional oversight. Apply it where the work falls within its scope. Agree which tender documents may enter your approved tool and who may access the resulting review.
Leave measurements, arithmetic, current rates and the final price judgement with the cost lead. Verify extracted quote lines and drawing revisions before using the schedule. Ask the right specialist to check whether products meet the same spec. Resolve technical scope gaps before the cost lead agrees a price.
Read the source: RICS: responsible use of AI in surveying practice
Questions about this task
What is the best first output?
Prepare a scope review and a numbered query list for one package. Resolve the major differences before asking for a recommendation between bidders.
Can we use this on take-off work?
Start with a take-off sheet and request checks for duplicate references or mixed units. Keep measurement and approval of quantities in the cost lead’s normal process.