DBA 8090 Module 4 Final Project: Consultant's Report for a Family Marine Contractor Example

Closing the Gap Between the Bid and the Barge: A Consultant's Report to Cedar Run Marine Construction

Student Name

Doctor of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University

DBA-8090: Organizational Consulting: Process Consultation, Avocation, and Business Sustainability

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Closing the Gap Between the Bid and the Barge: A Consultant's Report to Cedar Run Marine Construction

Executive Summary

Cedar Run Marine Construction asked why its public and marina work loses money. A ten-week engagement rebuilt estimated and actual costs for 20 recent jobs and interviewed both estimators and all four superintendents. About $640,000 of overrun was found, and roughly 80 percent of it comes from three sources: pile driving that met refusal or debris above design depth, labor lost to short tide windows, and owner-requested changes performed but never billed. Both estimators' jobs show the same patterns, so the cause lies in how estimates move to the field, not in one person's pricing. The report recommends a signed estimate-to-field hand-off, tide-adjusted labor planning, a same-day change order rule, an allowance strategy for pile risk on public bids and a monthly margin review. If carried out, these steps should return public and marina margin to at least 7 percent within twelve months, worth about $360,000 a year.

Background and the Engagement

Cedar Run is a composite third-generation family firm of about 70 employees that builds bulkheads, docks and marina piers for homeowners, marinas and municipalities. Revenue reached about $18 million in 2024 while operating margin dropped to roughly 3 percent from about 11, and nine of 22 recent public and marina jobs finished over budget. The owner, Frank, first asked for help finding which estimator was pricing too low. His daughter Lauren manages finance and his son Danny manages field operations; both are expected to lead the company within five years.

I took a collaborative role with one expert task, the reconstruction of job costs, because Block (2011) argues that shared diagnosis builds the client's ownership of results. The client types described by Schein (1997) showed that the estimators and superintendents were unwitting clients who would be judged by the findings, so the contract required that the whole group see the findings before any personnel decision was made.

Objectives and Measures

The proposal set three objectives, each with an agreed measure, using the structure Weiss (2011) recommends of objectives, measures and value.

Methods

The diagnosis combined local data, staff judgment and research, the mix Rousseau (2006) describes as evidence-based management. Lauren and I rebuilt each job by line item from bid sheets, job-cost reports, daily reports and payroll. Six structured interviews used the same eight questions. At Frank's request the analysis left out the two township jobs now in claims, and seven files lacked complete daily reports, so labor by task on those jobs is estimated from payroll. These limits reduce precision on labor but do not change the pattern, which holds in the 13 complete files on their own.

Findings

Finding 1: Pile Risk Is Priced at Design Depth

Eleven of 20 jobs met refusal, old timber piles or buried debris. Estimates priced piles at the design depth shown in the bid documents, with no allowance for obstruction, because subsurface information on public bids is often thin. Pile work accounts for about 35 percent of the overrun.

Finding 2: Labor Plans Ignore the Tide

Crews were booked for eight-hour days where tide and weather left four to five productive hours, a pattern visible on most of the bayside jobs. Superintendents knew the windows but received only the estimate total, not the labor assumptions, so they could not warn the office before hours were spent. This accounts for about 25 percent.

Finding 3: Changes Are Agreed on Site and Lost

Superintendents agreed to owner or engineer changes on site to keep good relations and reported them only at closeout, when many could no longer be billed. Unbilled changes account for about 20 percent.

Finding 4: The Hand-Off Is the Common Cause

All three sources share one cause: the estimate's assumptions do not travel with the job. The senior estimator stopped writing pile assumptions on estimates because, as he said, no one in the field read them. Flyvbjerg et al. (2002) found that early cost estimates on public works are persistently optimistic; Cedar Run's version of that problem is not deliberate underpricing but assumptions that nobody checks until the money is gone.

What Staff Said About the Findings

The feedback meeting changed two findings in useful ways. The superintendents corrected my reading of the tide data: on two bayside sites, wind rather than tide had cut the working window, so the labor rates must reflect both. The junior estimator pointed out that several municipal bid packages did allow questions about subsurface conditions, and the firm had simply never asked. Frank said little during the first hour. Near the end he told the group that he had expected to leave the meeting with a name and was relieved not to. That remark did more for staff confidence in the process than anything I presented, and it should be repeated when the new routines start.

Options Considered and Rejected

Three other responses were discussed and set aside. Replacing an estimator was rejected because the data showed the same patterns on both estimators' jobs. Raising every bid by a flat percentage was rejected because it would lose competitive work on simple residential jobs that already earn their margin, while still underpricing risky public jobs. Buying estimating software was deferred: the firm's template already captures line items, and software would not carry assumptions to the field any better than a signed page. These choices matter because each was the first idea someone in the room proposed. Recording why they were set aside keeps them from returning when the first difficult month arrives.

Recommendations

1. A Signed Estimate-to-Field Hand-Off

Before mobilization on every job above $250,000, the estimator and superintendent meet for 30 minutes with a one-page sheet listing pile assumptions, expected tide windows, crew size, equipment and known risks. Both sign it. Any assumption the superintendent doubts is resolved or priced before work starts. Owner: Danny. This addresses Finding 4 directly and supports the other three.

2. Tide-Adjusted Labor Planning

Estimates for waterfront work will use productive hours per tide window, drawn from the firm's own daily reports, instead of eight-hour days. Owner: both estimators, with Lauren supplying the historical rates.

3. A Same-Day Change Order Rule

Any change agreed on site is photographed, written on a short form and sent to the office the same day; work beyond a small threshold waits for written approval unless safety requires it. Superintendents get a scripted way to say "I'll get you a price today," which removes the awkwardness they described. Owner: Lauren.

4. Allowances for Pile Risk on Public Bids

Where bid documents allow, Cedar Run will submit questions about subsurface conditions during the bid period and price pile obstruction as a stated allowance or unit price. Where documents do not allow it, the estimator will record the risk on the hand-off sheet and Frank will decide whether to bid. Owner: senior estimator, with Frank.

5. A Monthly Margin Review

Lauren, Danny and both estimators review estimated against actual cost on every active public and marina job monthly, using the same line items as this diagnosis. Owner: Lauren.

Implementation Schedule and Measures

Armenakis et al. (1993) found that readiness for change depends on people seeing both the gap and their own ability to close it. Each step above was drafted with the staff who will run it in the feedback meeting and the two workshops that followed, which should make the steps theirs rather than mine.

Cost of Carrying Out the Plan

The plan is inexpensive in cash and demanding in attention. The hand-off meeting costs about an hour of two people's time per qualifying job, roughly 40 jobs a year. Building tide-adjusted labor rates takes Lauren and one estimator about three days. The change order form costs nothing, but superintendents will need a short practice session so the new script feels natural with a township engineer standing on the dock. The monthly review takes about two hours. Against the expected recovery of about $360,000 a year, these costs are small. The larger cost is discipline: every step depends on people continuing to do it when the schedule is tight, which is why each one has a named owner. If the spring bid season arrives before the routines feel normal, the family should protect the hand-off meeting first, since it supports every other step.

Risks

Three risks could undercut the plan. First, the hand-off could become paperwork signed without discussion; the monthly review will check whether hand-off assumptions were tested. Second, superintendents may slip back into informal changes under pressure from owners on site; Lauren will report change order billing monthly so drift shows quickly. Third, allowances may make some public bids less competitive. Ford et al. (2008) note that resistance often carries useful information, so if the estimators argue that an allowance will lose a bid, the family should hear the argument before overriding it. Losing some low-margin bids may be acceptable; the aim is profitable work, not volume.

Consultant's Reflection: Developing as a Consultant

Module 4 asks the consultant to look at his or her own development. Three lessons stand out. First, I nearly accepted the owner's framing. My project controls background made the expert role comfortable, and Schein (2016) is right that the urge to diagnose quickly can crowd out the inquiry that reveals the real problem. Mapping the client system in the first week prevented that error. Second, I learned to treat resistance as data. The senior estimator's defensiveness, which I first found tiring, produced the single most useful fact in the engagement once I named it without blame, as Block (2011) recommends. Third, fixed fees changed my behavior. Because I was not paid by the hour, I had no reason to extend interviews or produce a longer report, and the report is shorter as a result. For my next engagement I will build the client map into the first meeting and ask for one complete job file before the proposal, so the contract rests on data from the start.

Next Steps for the Family

Three actions should happen in the next 30 days. Frank should tell all staff, in person, that the cause lies in how the company hands work from office to field rather than in any person, using his own words from the feedback meeting. Danny should run the first three hand-off meetings himself so superintendents see that the field manager treats them as real. Lauren should publish the first monthly margin report even if it contains only the three pilot jobs, because a report that starts small and arrives on time builds the habit. Le Breton-Miller et al. (2004) link effective succession to the next generation taking visible responsibility before the handover; these three actions give Lauren and Danny that responsibility now.

Conclusion

Cedar Run's margin problem did not belong to an estimator. It belonged to the space between the estimate and the work on the water, where assumptions about piles, tides and changes were lost. The recommendations put those assumptions on one signed page, price the risks the firm cannot see before bidding and give the family a monthly view of margin. The same routines prepare Lauren and Danny to run the company together.

References

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601

Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (3rd ed.). Pfeiffer.

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. S., & Buhl, S. (2002). Underestimating costs in public works projects: Error or lie? Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(3), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360208976273

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235

Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., & Steier, L. P. (2004). Toward an integrative model of effective FOB succession. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 305-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00047.x

Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208679

Schein, E. H. (1997). The concept of "client" from a process consultation perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(3), 202-216. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819710171077

Schein, E. H. (2016). Humble consulting: How to provide real help faster. Berrett-Koehler.

Weiss, A. (2011). Million dollar consulting proposals: How to write a proposal that's accepted every time. Wiley.