Case Study — Residential — Samar, PH
Estimating a hazard-driven two-storey residence, from tender set to sealed BOQ.
A complete quantity takeoff, structural/plumbing technical review, and cost estimate for a coastal, seismic-zone residential build — delivered as a permit-ready package in 48 hours.
AUD/USD figures are approximate, based on August 2026 exchange rates, and are provided for project-scale reference only — they do not reflect AU/US market pricing or how the estimate was priced.
Project Background
A private homeowner, a hazard-heavy site, and two linked scopes.
The client engaged me for a sign-and-sealed structural and plumbing review for building-permit acquisition, plus a complete quantity takeoff and cost estimate — a two-storey reinforced-concrete residence with an attached in-ground swimming pool, built on a coastal poblacion on the Pacific-facing side of Samar Island.
The site sits in the highest wind-speed corridor in the Philippines, within Seismic Zone 4, on low-lying coastal terrain exposed to flooding and storm surge. Every major decision — the elevated +1.8m ground floor, the mat foundation, the roof anchorage detailing — traces back to that hazard profile, not just the building's occupancy.
Where This Translates
Same workflow, any code jurisdiction.
This project was reviewed against NSCP 2015 and priced against DPWH standards — but the underlying workflow doesn't change by country: scope review, drawing interpretation, quantity takeoff, BOQ preparation, pricing, quality control, documentation, and revision management are the same disciplines an AU or US estimating team runs, whether the reference is NSCP, AS 1170, or the IBC.
My Responsibilities
The work, not just the tools used to do it faster.
As the sole estimator and technical reviewer on this engagement, I owned the full path from drawing set to sealed package.
Reviewing architectural, structural, and plumbing drawings for completeness and consistency
Reviewing structural & geotechnical adequacy against NSCP 2015 and the site's hazard profile
Developing and logging RFIs against missing or conflicting information
Performing quantity takeoffs using Bluebeam and Excel, cross-checked line by line
Preparing the Bill of Quantities and DUPA (Detailed Unit Price Analysis)
Preparing the detailed cost estimate, backed by historical pricing and DPWH references
Exercising engineering judgment where field data (soil investigation, supplier quotes) was unavailable
Full technical reporting and documentation for permitting and construction
Software & Tools
What ran the measurements — and what checked my thinking.
Bluebeam Revu
Measurement, markup, drawing review, and revision tracking — area, count, and length tools with colour-coded layers for full traceability.
Microsoft Excel
Detailed quantity takeoff, BOQ, DUPA in DPWH format, cost estimate, and the material rate/rental reference database built from past projects.
AutoCAD
Cross-reference for drawing review where vector detail was needed beyond what PDF markup allowed.
Claude
Structural and geotechnical cross-checking against NSCP 2015, since no structural analysis had originally been provided — used to pressure-test my own judgment against code, not to replace it.
ChatGPT
Workflow organisation and documentation structuring.
On AI-assisted work
Every engineering decision, revision, and final number in this package is mine. AI tools verified against code and sped up documentation — the sign-off, and the responsibility, is mine.
Estimating Workflow
Eleven steps, in the order they actually happened.
Click a step to see what it involved on this project. This is the repeatable process behind every number in the final package.
Full drawing set delivered — cover sheet and general notes, complete architectural, structural, plumbing, and electrical sheets.
Project scope broken down by division to set clear estimating boundaries — including the design-review scope, which isn't usually part of a standard estimating engagement.
Drawings grouped by discipline and cross-indexed against the set's own table of contents. Checked occupancy classification, foundation type against the assumed soil bearing pressure, and dimensional consistency between architectural and structural sheets.
Flagged sheets referencing details not actually included in the set — including a "Swimming Pool Design & Specifications" document referenced repeatedly in the plumbing set but not supplied, which had to be tracked down separately.
10 RFIs logged and tracked — lighting fixture schedule, pool equipment electrical layout, an unlocated window (W5), and a missing stair/balcony railing detail among them.
Area, Count, and Length tools applied across all disciplines, with every markup tagged to a colour-coded, discipline-specific layer for traceability.
Measurements transferred from Bluebeam into Excel and verified against dimensioned callouts on the structural sheets — not scaled measurements alone.
Quantities organised into a 7-division Bill of Quantities (Parts A–G), with each figure traceable back to its source Bluebeam measurement.
Priced against historical project data and DPWH RCMP, with a full DUPA (Detailed Unit Price Analysis) behind every BOQ line item.
Bluebeam measurements cross-checked against Excel computations line by line; every AI-assisted takeoff item (electrical scope) individually re-verified by hand.
Delivered as a complete, permit-ready package — technical review report, RFI log, BOQ, DUPA, and detailed cost estimate — within 48 hours of engagement.
Process — Drawing Review
Reading the set before measuring anything.
Objective: confirm the drawing set was internally consistent and code-compliant before a single quantity was taken off.
Process & methodology
The full set was reviewed before measurement began — cover sheet and general notes, the complete architectural, structural, plumbing, and electrical sets. Drawings were grouped by discipline and cross-indexed against the sheet's own table of contents; any sheet referencing a detail not actually included in the set was flagged immediately.
Engineering observations
Checks covered occupancy classification and load assumptions, foundation type against the assumed soil bearing pressure, dimensional consistency between architectural and structural sheets, and completeness of door/window and reinforcement schedules. This pass is what surfaced the foundation-system mismatch addressed below.
Process — Bluebeam Markups
One markup file, four disciplines, full traceability.
Every markup is tagged to a discipline layer — Plumbing, Architectural, Structural, To Revise — with colour coding, so any reviewer can retrace exactly where a number came from.
| Tool | Used for |
|---|---|
| Area | Slab, wall, and finish quantities — e.g. mat foundation footprint measured at 95.29 sqm |
| Count | Fixtures, doors/windows, lighting points |
| Length | CHB wall runs, piping runs, beam runs |
| Notes & Layers | Every markup tagged to a discipline layer with colour coding for traceability |
Technical Engineering Review & RFIs
The part most estimating portfolios skip.
No structural analysis had been performed before this project reached me. Reviewing structural adequacy, geotechnical assumptions, constructability, and code compliance against NSCP 2015 was as much a part of the scope as the takeoff itself.
Corrected occupancy classification
Reused-template drawings carried an Occupancy Category I ("essential facility") classification — corrected to Category IV for this residence.
Flagged the design wind speed
An undocumented 340 kph design wind speed was reconciled against the true NSCP 2015 figure for the region (≈250 kph).
Resolved the foundation mismatch
The owner wanted a mat foundation; the drawings still showed isolated footings with grade beams. Resolved in favour of the mat, matching the coastal/flood-prone soil profile.
Upsized the roof anchorage
Original truss anchorage (10mmØ bolts, 300mm embedment) was flagged as light for this wind corridor and upsized to 16mmØ at 400mm embedment.
RFI Log — Selected Items
5 of 10 logged items shown below. Full log available on request.
| # | Item | Reason | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 'SOLAR' lighting labels (17 pts, ground floor) — fixture type undefined | No fixture type/spec given anywhere in the electrical set | Open |
| 5 | Lighting fixture schedule not provided | Required for accurate pricing (type, wattage, mounting height) | Open |
| 8 | No electrical drawing for pool equipment (pump/filter/chlorinator) | Equipment shown on plumbing layout has no electrical counterpart | Open |
| 9 | Window W5 listed in schedule/estimate but not located on any plan | Cannot verify quantity or lintel requirement without a drawn opening | See Addendum |
| 10 | No railing detail for the stair or second-floor balcony | Life-safety item; confirm if a detail exists or needs design | See Addendum |
Process — Quantity Takeoff
One quantity, traced end to end.
Mat foundation concrete volume — from a Bluebeam measurement to a BOQ line item.
| Step | Detail |
|---|---|
| 1 | Measured in Bluebeam — mat foundation footprint, Area tool → 95.29 sqm |
| 2 | Transferred to Excel — area carried into the final backup (rect) sheet |
| 3 | Verified — cross-checked footprint against the structural mat foundation plan |
| 4 | Design thickness applied — 0.4m, governed by punching shear check |
| 5 | Result — 95.25 sqm × 0.4m = 38.116 m³ concrete → carried to BOQ |
Cross-checked Bluebeam-measured areas/lengths against the Excel takeoff sheet, line by line
Manual spot-checks against dimensioned callouts on structural sheets — not scaled measurements alone
Engineering judgment documented as an assumption wherever a drawing was ambiguous — never silently guessed
Every AI-assisted takeoff item (electrical scope) individually re-checked by hand before entering the BOQ
Bill of Quantities
Seven divisions, one traceable total.
Structural and Architectural works together make up roughly 85% of total project cost — consistent with a hazard-driven design where foundation, frame, and envelope carry most of the budget.
| Part | Division | Total (₱) |
|---|---|---|
| A | General Requirements | 67,255.00 |
| B | Site Clearing, Demolition & Disposal | 21,671.44 |
| C | Earthworks & Site Preparation | 478,342.03 |
| D | Structural Works | 3,471,961.27 |
| E | Architectural Works | 2,920,475.70 |
| F | Plumbing Works | 423,462.76 |
| G | Electrical Works | 203,063.32 |
| TOTAL PROJECT COST | 7,586,231.52 | |
Detailed Cost Estimate
From material cost to VAT-inclusive total.
Pricing basis: historical prices from past projects, DPWH RCMP (Regional Consolidated Market Prices), DPWH DUPA format for unit price analysis, and engineering judgment where current supplier data wasn't yet available.
| Component | Amount (₱) |
|---|---|
| Materials | 4,654,690.86 |
| Labor | 865,399.28 |
| Equipment | 585,104.92 |
| Total Direct Cost | 6,105,195.05 |
| OCM (Overhead, Contingency & Misc.) | 905,823.01 |
| Contractor's Profit | 483,985.60 |
| TOTAL PROJECT COST (VAT-inclusive) | 7,586,231.52 |
Quality Control Process
Every figure traces back to a measurement or a calculation.
All quantities were cross-checked between Bluebeam measurements and Excel computations before finalising the estimate. Engineering observations and drawing inconsistencies were documented for review, not silently corrected.
No soil investigation performed
All bearing-capacity values in the structural notes are assumed, not tested — logged as a risk, not glossed over.
Drawing inconsistencies across revisions
Required active version tracking in Bluebeam to avoid pricing an outdated detail.
Supplier validation — planned next step
Current pricing is reference-based (DPWH RCMP). A three-supplier comparison structure is already built into the workbook for the next revision.
Challenges & Solutions
Where the estimate got hard, and how it was handled.
No structural analysis had been performed — member sizes came from initial dimensioning, not calculation. A soil investigation and full structural analysis were offered and declined by the client.
Continued under engineering judgment rather than walking away from work already performed, using code cross-checks to verify every revised member size before sign-off.
A genuinely hazardous site — earthquake-prone, in a heavy typhoon corridor, and coastal — made an isolated-footing foundation the wrong call.
Agreed with the owner's mat-foundation instinct and redesigned the surrounding structural members around that decision, checking the reasoning against NSCP 2015.
The +1.8m flood elevation needed more than a taller foundation — it needed an engineered fill methodology and a retaining structure to hold the elevated soil.
Worked out the correct detailing for a slab-on-grade cast over engineered backfill, including the isolation joint between slab and frame — the detail most often missed on this construction type.
A drawing set with recurring errors meant revisions repeatedly delayed the quantity takeoff and scope assessment.
Logged every note and revision in Bluebeam so changes were clearly spotted and identified, keeping Bluebeam measurements and Excel calculations consistent throughout.
Key Results
What the process actually caught.
Deliverables Produced
The full package, end to end.
Drawing Review
Technical (Structural/Geotechnical) Review
Bluebeam Markups
Quantity Takeoff
Bill of Quantities (BOQ)
Detailed Cost Estimate
DUPA (Detailed Unit Price Analysis)
RFI Log
Drawing Revisions
Final Estimate Package
Lessons Learned
What this project changed about how I work.
- 01A structured workflow reduces estimating errors more reliably than experience alone.
- 02Clear client communication and boundary-setting — including a proper contract agreement — protects both sides of an engagement.
- 03Quantity verification is just as important as the measurement itself.
- 04Reliable pricing should be backed by current supplier quotations whenever possible.
- 05Before accepting a project, review the tendered documents first — completeness, complexity, and design risk all belong in the rate, not just the hours.
Supporting Documentation
Everything above, plus the complete backup.
What's shown on this page is a curated set of highlights. The complete drawing set, Bluebeam markup file, and estimating workbook are available below.
View Complete Working Files
Full drawing set (16+ sheets), complete Bluebeam markup file, and the master Excel estimating workbook — SOW, full BOQ, full DUPA, POW, material rates, manpower & equipment.
Open Google Drive folder ↗Download Full Case Study (PDF)
The complete narrative case study plus the selected-documentation appendix, in one file — for offline review or forwarding to a hiring team.
Download PDF ↓- 01 — Full Architectural, Structural, Electrical & Plumbing Drawing Set16+ sheets
- 02 — Bluebeam Markup Summaryfixtures, quantities, QC notes by layer
- 03 — Master Estimating WorkbookSOW, BOQ, DUPA, ABC/cost summary, POW
- 04 — Design & Estimate QC AddendumW5 window & railings review
Contact
Have a drawing set that needs a takeoff?
Remote construction estimating, quantity takeoff, and technical review support — residential and light-commercial, any code jurisdiction.
mjdollado.ph@gmail.com · WhatsApp +63 975 713 2737