----- Original Message -----From: Mike CrawfordSent: Monday, September 28, 2009 3:36 PMSubject: [harryproa] Re: Yet another small cruiser layout from GardnerGardner,
Two topics: boat and contracts:
BOAT
I'd go for the biggest boat you can fit into the container. The additional length on your hulls, and any accompanying width, will represent a negligible cost increase if you're building with panels. You'll always be happy to have more flotation and a longer hull (especially if you then pack light and don't actually use the extra flotation).
CONTRACTS
As a consultant, I sometimes run into the problem you're having with quotes, but from the other end.
The problem is that someone always seems to lose with a fixed quote. Assuming the quote isn't 100% accurate, the time either goes under, so the builder wins, or over, so the customer wins.
Straight time-and-materials isn't much better because it's essentially an open check. This can work for a software development project, where you can prioritize features and get all the important ones in, plus a few others, without worrying about the budget, and then squeeze as many optional features that remain into the budget that is left. But that won't work for a boat.
The solution I've proposed at times is a hybrid. I estimate the job costs $X, essentially Y hours at $Z per hour at my normal rates. After that, I'll charge 25% less for additional hours up to one point, 50% less for hours up to another point, and 75% less for hours beyond that. Those points are obviously up for negotiation. This also requires a fixed feature set -- anything not included in the spec is always billed at the full $Z per hour.
This accomplishes the following goals:
- Provides a financial incentive for the contractor not to underbid.
- Assures the client that the contractor will be serious about the bid amount (see above), and that the contractor will pay an increasingly higher penalty for overages.
- Assures the contractor that, in the event that things are harder than anticipated, additional work will not be for free.
- Provides the likelihood of the contractor finishing the job (see above). I've seen plenty of projects when the contractors walked when they got to the point that no additional money would come in.
- Ensures that the contractor won't be paying for changes and additions.
Basically, there's no blank check on the customer's end in terms of an open-ended project, there's no blank check on the contractor's end in terms of a fixed cost, and both these benefits provide the possibility of a quote that is reasonable -- high enough not to be a lowball estimate, but low enough to be feasible without building in lots of padding for the contractor.
I can't say if this will work for you, but it's worth pondering.
- Mike
gardner@networknow.org wrote:Hi,
A new job and a continuing desire to test out my feelings towards a harryproa have prompted me to try again with a layout for a harry just big enough for me to do extended cruising, with enough bunk space for my wife to accompany me if she likes. There are a couple different ideas in this design that I wanted to pass by the group:
1) The galley is laid out perpendicular to the ww hull. There is basically just a 2'x2' area to stand on. The double bunk is behind you and the galley is in front, and is the same width as the double bunk (4.5').
2) I moved the head out of the ww hull to the cockpit. Before the outrage starts, let me just say that with a hardtop, I felt like it would be feasable to drop a privacy curtain down around the head when it is in use, and it avoid putting a potentially "aromatic" head right under either the galley or bunk in a boat this small.
3) There is a removeable 7'5 wide hard deck which doubles as a dinghy ramp. Having a good dinghy with a powerful (15+hp) engine greatly expands your range when cruising. The proa has no engine; I figure I can either tow it from the dinghy, or perhaps lower the dinghy ramp and just use the engine if I need it. I would like feedback on this idea.
4) No piece is wider than 7.5' when dismounted, as I am still on my "fit it in a shipping container" kick.
5) I have drawn the hulls the minimum length I think they can be. Since the actual hulls have no walking space in them, it would be trivial to just extend them. My back of the envelope calculations imply that it would add about 10 sq ft of panelling to extend the lw hull by 1 foot, and about 15 sq ft to extend the ww hull by 1 ft. So, to extend the lw hull to 38' and ww to 24' would add less than 500 sq ft.
6) My very rough preliminary calcs show about 1100 sq ft of panel as drawn. I am guessing about about 1 lb/sq ft, plus beams and rig, to come in about 1600 lbs. Sailing weight probably about 2000 lbs with a displacement about 3500 lbs for a 1' draft on each hull.
I would like feedback. I have a potential lead on a relatively local builder who might be interested in working with me, so once I have panel drawings done I was going to approach him to see what sort of pricing we can work out.
I am interested on innovative ideas on how to do a build contract on something like this. A builder won't give me a reasonable fixed price, despite the simplicity of because it is so new to them and they can't risk the loss if things don't work out. I don't want to just pay by the hour to have them play around and figure it out. Anybody have any ideas on a compromise? I have been leaning towards trying to get a fixed price on just the lw hull, since it has the fewest pieces and use that as a basis for estimating the rest of the boat.
Thanks all,
- Gardner
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.113/2400 - Release Date: 09/28/09 05:51:00
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe