Nick Angeloff

## Key Points - Background in QA/QC for electrical design, now working on the owner side at Waterloo - As owner, does not have estimators in-house — pays consultants to build estimates from drawings - Consultants argue cost vs subcontractors; maybe 10% variance - Biggest headache on the owner side: consultant designs are poor quality, level of service is brutal, contractors take advantage - Contractors have a mechanism to recoup cost through change orders; now designers are doing the same with ASRs (Architectural Supplemental Requests) - With AI, engineers will go from 5 projects to 20 — volume will increase but quality risk remains ## Pain Points Mentioned - Design quality: "Designs suck. Level of service is brutal." Contractors take advantage of poor designs - On the design side: biggest time value is creating a clash-free model to limit difficulties during construction - Fee structure is broken — argued to increase construction admin allocation from 25% to 40% but couldn't control fee allocation - Contractors are good at documentation/paperwork and setting narrative around RFIs to get paid for changes - Fixed fee projects eat into margin when RFI volume exceeds estimates ## Product Feedback - QA/QC process: ~2h sessions per system (lighting, power, data, fire) before each major milestone - BIM manager spends ~4h per milestone on visual QA (not technical, just presentation/layout) - Technical QA: code compliance, math verification, high-level design review by practice lead - After job is awarded, contractors bid on 2D drawings then request Revit model for clash detection - Quality of design has declined industry-wide — "rarely do things get cleaned up in the field, more contractual, more RFIs" ## Next Steps - Explore whether automated QA/QC checking could help owners verify consultant deliverables