Sometimes a Bridesmaid

Contractors recall the ones that got away

You can’t win all the time.

It’s an absolute truth in the construction industry, and it’s one that every contractor eventually learns. Sometimes your bid puts you in second place, your interview misses the mark ever so slightly, or the project owner simply decides to go with someone else.

Sometimes, in other words, you get stuck playing the role of bridesmaid, wondering what could have been if only the object of your affection hadn’t slipped away.

Missing out on that true connection is the most natural part of working in construction. If you think of all the contractors bidding or interviewing for all the jobs around Wisconsin, you’ve got to figure that the odds of a broken heart far outweigh those of hearing an owner say, “I do.”

And what do contractors do when they get spurned? They shake it off and move on to the next opportunity because they know, as one industry executive so aptly put it, “there’s no crying in construction.”

Contractors might not cry, but they rarely forget the one that got away. In the following pages, some of those builders recall their moments in the shadow of the bride.

Miron experiences
technical difficulties

The one that got away Project Name: South Milwaukee High Schooladdition and remodel Project Date:2002 Construction Cost: Funded with a$41.98 million referendum Bridesmaid: Miron Construction Co. Inc., Neenah Hiring Process: The School District of South Milwaukee made its hire based on interviews rather than hard bids.

Miron Construction Co. Inc. was like a lot of firms: It wanted the South Milwaukee High School job.

The $41.98 million referendum was one of the largest in the state at the time, and the job attracted a lot of interest. Craig Uhlenbrauck, Miron’s vice president of marketing, said the contractor was excited to discover it made it to the short list of finalists.

“Because of the size of the project, we had put quite a bit of time in,” he said. “We had a lot of information and a nice presentation.”

Miron was scheduled to do the first interview on the big day, and the presentation team went to South Milwaukee the night before and arrived for its interview an hour early. The presentation was heavy on technology, Uhlenbrauck said, with a PowerPoint presentation and videos.

As the team set up for the interview, the PowerPoint projector wasn’t aimed high enough for the screen, so it was propped up with books and portfolios, Uhlenbrauck said.

“Everything was in place,” he said. “All systems go.”

And then, just as one of Miron’s owners was beginning the presentation, it happened.

“Almost as he started to turn [toward the screen], the whole projector shut down,” Uhlenbrauck said. “We had everything down to a science. It was timed, in sync and ready to go, and the projector shuts down.”

The projector’s fan was on the bottom of the machine, and the air flow was blocked when the projector was propped up. It overheated, and the timing couldn’t have been worse.

Once it cooled off, it started up again, but Miron had lost time and momentum.

“We ended up doing OK,” Uhlenbrauck said. “We walked out and couldn’t believe all the time and energy that went into that. It threw off the whole process. I can’t say [we didn’t get the job] because of the projector, but it definitely wasn’t our best interview.”

The one that got away Project Name: Findorff wouldn’t disclose the project name or owner, but the job was for an industrial client on the east side of Madison. Project Date: 2006 Construction Cost: $8 million Bridesmaid: J.H. Findorff & Son Inc., Madison

Findorff takes one for the team

Last year, J.H. Findorff & Son Inc. was one of two firms short-listed for an addition to an industrial building on the east side of Madison.

The addition would require extensive work to the existing plumbing and HVAC, said Jeff Tubbs, Findorff’s director of business development. As Findorff prepared to interview for the job, the contractor called on a local subcontractor for help in putting together the project proposal.

Once at the interview everything seemed to be going well, Tubbs said, until the very end. The project owner asked if Findorff would be willing to work with other subcontractors that the owner had used in the past.

“We said, ‘No, we feel an obligation to this one,’” Tubbs said. “We got a phone call a couple days later saying, ‘We liked your team, but because you’re not flexible enough, we’re going with this other firm.’

“We felt it was a good interview, that we had a strong team. And then they called and said we answered one question wrong. Bummer.”

Findorff does, however, still work with the subcontractor that helped prepare the original project proposal, Tubbs said.

McGann is stung by technology bug

McGann Construction already had a relationship with the YMCA when the Beaver Dam facility project came up, so creating a proposal for the job seemed like a logical step.

The contractor signed on with design firm Potter Lawson Inc., Madison, and the two companies were one of two teams chosen for final interviews, said Randy Handel, McGann’s vice president.

“We really were pretty confident that of the two general contractors, we were the low bidder,” he said. “We were under the impression that we were low by a pretty wide margin.”

Since the YMCA is a nonprofit agency, Handel said McGann figured its low bid would give it a significant edge over the competition. But in this case, it just wasn’t enough.

McGann’s competitor put together a 3-D computer model of the new YMCA and took the selection team on a virtual tour of the proposed structure. Technology won the other team the job, Handel said.

“They saw that as a significant add-on for marketing,” he said. “That was the reason they gave us. Either company would have been a good company.”

After the project was awarded, Handel said, he called up his competitor and asked about the computer presentation.

“I asked if it was standard practice, and they said no,” he said. “I don’t know the final number, but it was a big investment to go that route. They definitely went above and beyond with their own investment.”

Handel said technology is playing a larger role in selection processes, and McGann often keeps that in mind when putting together proposals.

“We’ve always tried to remain out there and looking,” he said. “We’ve got an open mind and interest in [technology]. We just thought it was not worth the cost and investment.

“We made an error in judgment in that particular case.”

Engineered gets beat by the Golden Hammer

The one that got away Project Name: New Fountains, an apartment complex in Madison Project Date: 1999 Construction Cost: $1.1 million Bridesmaid: Engineered Construction Inc., Verona

In 1999, Engineered Construction was vying for the biggest job in the company’s history.

It was a remodel of a 50-unit apartment building damaged in a fire, and Engineered’s specialization in insurance remodels led the adjuster on the project to recommend the contractor to the management company.

“We were familiar with insurance work, and we had a pretty good feeling about it,” said William Jackson, Engineered’s vice president of business development and marketing.

An investment group out of New Jersey owned the complex, and the elderly gentleman in charge of it came out for the contractor selection process with his son and a business associate, who, Jackson said, was really a golfing buddy from Florida.

Engineered presented its proposal to the 95-year-old owner in a group interview process with two other contractors. Everything went well, Jackson said, and they talked about how Engineered is a progressive company and has a Web site so clients can track a project’s progress.

All the contractors were then sent out to wait for individual interviews. While in the hallway, Jackson said, his team talked with a competitor from a larger firm. It sounded like the two companies might work together in the future, and Jackson was feeling pretty good about the whole day.

Eventually, Engineered was called in to interview. About 30 minutes later, the door opened.

“There’s this guy there with a golden hammer on a chain around his neck,” Jackson said. “He looked like he was right out of ‘The Sopranos.’

“We figure that [competitor] walked out, said, ‘They’re hungry,’ and called up the Golden Hammer.”

The Golden Hammer guy called the owner by name, scared the business associate half to death, Jackson said, and completely took over the interview. The owner eventually remembered the guy from a job more than a decade earlier, and the job went to that other company.

A while later, Jackson was out for dinner and saw that competitor.

“I went up to him and said, ‘I’ve never seen that before,’” Jackson said. “He acted like he didn’t know what I was talking about.”

Now, it’s a company joke.

“We learned to laugh about it,” he said. “We call our job supervisors the Silver Hammer.”

The Golden Hammer? That’s taken.

The one that got away Project Name: The Wisconsin Club in Milwaukee Project Date: 2007 Construction Cost: $1 million to $1.5 million Bridesmaid: Hunzinger Construction Co., Brookfield

Mansion experience tips the scales

Hunzinger Construction Co. has been a member of the Wisconsin Club since the 1960s.

So when the contractor heard the club was looking for a company to manage work on the structure’s entry, porch and parking lot, Kevin O’Toole, Hunzinger’s executive vice president, said he figured Hunzinger’s history with the club and good relationships with area landscaping firms could add value to the project.

And for O’Toole, the job was personal. He had his wedding reception there in 1975 and returned for a 25th anniversary party in 2000.

“As I was preparing for the interview, I was going to bring my wedding album,” he said. “Our head table was set up on the porch. This is the very spot they were talking about remodeling.”

In the end, he left the photos at home, but was optimistic about Hunzinger’s chances. The team’s project manager is an architect, O’Toole said, who recently worked on exterior remodels. The estimator did work on that very project. And O’Toole had his own personal connection.

O’Toole said the interview went well. But then Hunzinger got the rejection.

“Their in-passing reason for selecting someone over us is we didn’t have as much ‘mansion experience,’” O’Toole said. “That was the reason. They felt someone with mansion experience was better suited to the job.”

O’Toole admitted he doesn’t quite know what was meant by mansion experience.

“We renovated the Basilica of St. Josaphat, we did the Pabst Theater,” he said.

“Admittedly there was not a lot of exterior work. You would think renovating a facility such as the Basilica is mansionesque.”

Creative Constructors falls short on time

The one that got away Project Name: Creative Constructors wouldn’t disclose the project name or owner, but the job was the construction of a furniture store in Kenosha. Project Date: 2006 Construction Cost: About $4.2 million, with Creative Constructors’ bid coming in at $4,199,900, $15,000 less than the winning company’s bid. Bridesmaid: Creative Constructors LLC, Menomonee Falls

Creative Constructors wanted the furniture store construction job.

So the contractor’s team put together the low bid on the project and turned in a 12-hour day to make the presentation for the job.

The three team members met at 7:30 a.m. the day of the presentation for the four-hour drive to the interview. They piled in the car, made the drive and had enough time to stop for lunch before the 1 p.m. appointment.

But time, as it turned out, was working against the company.

“We had everything,” said Tony LaShay, Creative Constructors’ director of business development. “We even had the what-ifs with different construction schedules.”

To get to that point, the company had to first make it through the hard-bid process, LaShay said, and the firm’s numbers were about $15,000 lower than the nearest competitor.

“We felt the meeting went very well,” LaShay said. “The construction time schedule we gave was one we felt comfortable with. We could tell they were looking for the shortest time possible.”

Creative trimmed a significant amount off its initial time estimate, he said, and handed in a seven-and-a-half-month schedule for the project.

After the interview, the team got back in the car and drove home, getting in about 7 p.m. Then, it was time to wait.

Ultimately, the what-ifs fell short. The competition, while offering a higher dollar amount, had a shorter schedule at six months, a full six weeks shorter than Creative Constructors’ estimate. And the competition got the job.

“I think moving forward with retail buildings, time schedules are very important,” LaShay said. “It’s not necessarily the low price, unless you’re low and have a good schedule. Time is money, and if they’re not open, it’s a lot of money [lost].”