Where Precon Actually Loses Time (and How to Get It Back)

Precon teams aren't slow because they lack talent. They're slow because the workflow is fragmented.

A typical project starts with a plan set: a mountain of PDFs, addenda, specs, and schedules. From there, teams do the same thing over and over:

The problem isn't effort. The problem is rework and manual translation between steps.

Let's break down the end-to-end workflow and show where the hours actually go.

The Seven-Step Grind

Step 1: Receiving the Plan Set

The bid invite lands. You download drawings, specs, addenda, geotech reports, alternates, allowances. Then the internal scramble begins: create folder structure, rename files, confirm latest version, identify missing sheets, build a "what we have vs what we need" checklist.

This is the first leak. Version confusion when addenda arrives and half the team is still measuring old sheets. Missing scope info when spec sections don't align to drawings yet. No single source of truth for "current" scope. If document control is messy, everything downstream becomes rework.

Step 2: Scope Mapping

Someone builds a scope map: CSI divisions, trade packages, alternates, unit prices, allowances, bid forms, clarifications for RFIs.

Manual interpretation across drawings and specs. Overlaps everywhere. Who owns firestopping? Sleeves? Demo? Scope gaps that show up later during leveling when it's too late. This is where teams win or lose the bid before a single quote comes in.

Step 3: Takeoffs

Estimators measure. Count fixtures. Measure linear footage. Measure square footage. Quantify tons, yards, devices, diffusers. Reconcile with schedules and notes. Redo when addenda drops.

The real killer? Takeoff outputs aren't directly connected to RFQs, so teams still rebuild scope later.

Step 4: Scope Writing

Now you translate the takeoff into scopes for trades: inclusions, exclusions, qualifications, alternates, phasing, access, working hours, long-lead constraints, submittals, closeout, warranties.

Scope sheets are written from scratch or from inconsistent templates. Critical notes live in email threads, not tied to the package. Different estimators write scopes differently, so comparisons get messy later.

Step 5: RFQ Distribution

Identify bidders. Send ITBs. Answer questions. Track who opened, who declined, who is bidding. Issue addenda. Chase responses.

Constant follow-ups. No clean visibility of coverage. Vendor responses arrive in different formats: PDFs, emails, screenshots, random spreadsheets. This is where time turns into chaos.

Step 6: Bid Leveling

Manually extract line items from each quote. Normalize scope: add missing items, subtract exclusions. Create plug numbers to level bids. Rebuild comparisons whenever a revision comes in.

Step 7: Award to Buyout

After award, you still have to convert the leveled bid into actual buyout documents. Generate PO and subcontract language. Verify scope alignment one last time. Route approvals. Close the loop with vendors who didn't win. Track lead times and delivery constraints.

Re-keying scope and values into separate systems. Lost context from the leveling stage. Procurement schedule not connected to scope and vendor commitments. This is where the "we already leveled it" lie gets exposed. The job isn't leveled until buyout is clean.

The Real Issue: Disconnected Workflow

When each step is a separate tool, file, or spreadsheet:

That disconnection is exactly what drives wasted hours.

Research from Autodesk and FMI consistently shows large amounts of time lost to non-productive tasks and data hunting. The "disconnect tax" is real.

What the Connected Workflow Looks Like

A connected system fixes the handoffs:

How Mercury Removes the Friction

Mercury is designed to eliminate the handoff gaps that eat hours:

Automated takeoffs. Instead of paying highly skilled estimators for endless clicking, Mercury automates takeoffs and keeps them tied to the scope structure.

Automated RFQ/RFP workflows. Mercury turns scope into bid packages, tracks coverage, and streamlines addenda and communications so you're not living inside email threads.

Apples-to-apples bid leveling. Mercury normalizes bids into consistent fields so your team stops manually rebuilding comparisons.

Award to PO/contract generation. Award decisions become buyout documents without re-entry, so you stop doing the same work twice.

Vendor performance and analytics. Build a real feedback loop: who performed, who changed orders, who hit schedule, who burned you. That becomes leverage and intelligence for the next project.

Leadership-ready project performance view. Instead of leadership asking "where are we on buyout" and getting five different answers, Mercury provides a single view tied to scope, vendors, and budget.

The Bottom Line

Precon teams don't need more hustle. They need fewer handoffs.

If you connect plan intake, takeoff, RFQ, leveling, and buyout into one workflow, you get: