Project report

How Roger Accelerated Buyout on a $100M+ Multifamily Project

Tower cranes above a multifamily building under construction.

Summary

Multifamily · Negotiated GMP, $100M+ · 15 days from kickoff to handoff

Roger deployed on a $100M+ multifamily project just after buyout began. Working from the drawings and specs, Roger drafted 61 detailed contract exhibits in 15 days. With those exhibits in hand, the GC’s team issued contracts for 72% of the project within three weeks. Within a few months, the job was more than 95% bought out by dollar value, against the six months or more buyout usually takes. This report covers what happened, what we’re fixing, and what comes next.

Get the full report as a PDF

Volume of work

Kickoff to handoff
15 days
Unique items
About 11,800
Scope packages
61
Clauses written
1,995
Drawing pages reviewed
1,123
Items flagged for the GC to decide
186
Items pulled from the drawings
More than 62,000
RFIs drafted for the GC
90

What we did

Kickoff. Roger set up the trade packages with the GC’s team. Roger joined after buyout had started, with a handful of scopes already out the door.

Drawing breakdown. Roger’s project managers used its AI tools to pull every item from the drawings, condense them into about 11,800 unique items, and assign each one to a trade.

Scope coordination (three meetings, the week before handoff). With a tight timeline at a busy time, Roger brought more of its team onto the project. Josh Whisenant, Roger’s CEO, led the sessions himself, walking the GC’s team through every item that didn’t clearly belong to one trade, and the two teams decided together where each one went. Luke Peterson, a Roger principal, and the rest of the team captured each decision, clarification, and RFI. The GC’s senior project manager says the sessions “filed away in the right scope of work… a lot of little tidbits that may have been lost and would have been difficult issues during the process of construction.”

Contract language. Roger drafted scope language for 61 scopes and drafted 90 RFIs for the GC. Each item links back to the drawing sheet it comes from.

Before handoff, Roger added the GC’s project-specific template language (general project requirements, safety exhibits, and required documents).

Examples from the scope meetings

Roger caught each of these in the drawings and brought them to the scope meetings.

TopicDiscussionOutcome
Roof ladder A roof ladder appeared only on the exterior building maintenance (EBM) drawings, where it’s easy to miss. Assigned to Miscellaneous Metals, with RFIs to the architect and EBM consultant on who designs the ladder and whether the roof needs guardrail.
Grease interceptor The civil plans showed a grease interceptor next to a building that isn’t part of this project. An RFI to remove it from the civil drawings, plus a global exclusion so no sub would price it.
Hardrock Hardrock had been removed in a previous drawing iteration but was still shown on several sheets, where a sub could have priced it in. An RFI to remove it from the drawings.
Trash room waterproofing Roger noticed the drawings called for fluid-applied waterproofing up the full height of the trash room walls. The GC questioned whether that was intended. Assigned to the waterproofer, with an RFI to confirm how far the waterproofing extends.
Roof duct supports A detail showed the roof duct supports painted, which raised how they should be configured and finished. Galvanized supports in the HVAC scope, with an RFI on the detail so they’d be galvanized instead of painted.
Louvers Whether each louver was sheet metal or mechanical, depending on location and use. A clear line between the sheet metal and mechanical scopes.

What it produced

Buyout pace. About 72% of contracts were signed within three weeks. Within a few months, the job was more than 95% bought out by dollar value, with only a handful of contracts left, most of them small or years from starting. The senior project manager puts the pace at “half or better” the normal timeline.

Detail. Roger called out every item by location and linked it to its drawing sheet, where scopes normally use general language. The senior project manager estimates writing scopes at this level of detail in-house would have taken months.

Fewer disputes with subs. When subs red-lined their exhibits, Roger’s portal let the senior project manager pull up the item and its drawing sheet. “It’s so easy to find,” he says. With the drywall subcontractor, that settled a select few items up front.

Time back for the field. Without Roger, the senior project manager says, he’d be “bogged down for six to nine months doing contracts.” Instead, his team can “actually manage the project,” getting out in the field and “resolving problems ahead of time.”

TYPICAL JOBThis Project
Time to buy out Six months or more 72% of contracts in three weeks; 95%+ by dollar value within a few months
Who writes the scopes PMs and APMs, from plans and past templates Roger drafts item-level scopes; the GC’s team finalizes and issues them
Scope detail General language Every item called out by location, linked to its drawing sheet
“There’s no way we could have been this fast and been this thorough.”
— senior project manager, general contractor

What we’re fixing

The scope editor. Roger switched to a new scope editor partway through the project, and it had several bugs. The GC’s team spent time working around them while finalizing scopes. Roger has since resolved all of them.

Folding in existing scopes. Roger came on after buyout had begun, so some scopes had to be reconciled with the GC’s previous drafts. This was Roger’s first project reconciling scopes this way, and Roger has since built a process for folding a customer’s existing scopes into its own.

Splitting one trade between two subs. Some trades needed to go to two subs, such as flooring in the units vs. common areas. Roger offered to split them, but the GC’s team had already done it by hand. Roger has put this fix on its roadmap for future projects.

Finding a sub’s markups. When a sub marked up a scope PDF and sent it back, the GC found it hard to locate the matching paragraph in Roger’s editor. Roger has since aligned the portal’s numbering with the GC’s templates, so markups now map straight across.

One item in the wrong scope. Plaster grounds went into the plaster scope instead of framing, after framing had already been bought. The plaster sub flagged it as an extra. The GC’s fix: read every scope and move items to the right trade before the first contract goes out.

What the numbers don’t show yet

The buyout isn’t finished. The final timeline won’t be known until the last few contracts are signed.

Roger wasn’t the only factor. A contractual deadline made buyout the team’s top priority from the start.

The real test is still ahead. Construction is still in concrete and masonry. The senior project manager expects the detail to matter most in the finish trades, where small callouts usually get missed. Change orders so far have come from engineers’ bulletins, not scope gaps.

Next project

Start earlier. On the next project, Roger gets the drawings and holds scope coordination before buyout begins.

Contract schedules through Roger. Every contract schedule can now go through Roger, so one communication goes from the project team to the sub and back, and contract admin can send the contract with one click.

Ship trade splitting. It’s the one open fix from this project.

Find what else Roger can take on. A senior executive at the GC is brainstorming with his team on “what else can we have Roger do?”

A good fit. The senior project manager calls Roger a “good fit for the division as a whole.” Because the project started late, his team didn’t get to use everything Roger offers, and he says, “I look forward to the next project where I’m able to do that.”

About this report. This report draws on an interview with the general contractor’s senior project manager, written feedback from a senior executive, recordings of Roger’s buyout meetings, an interview with a Roger principal, and Roger’s project records. Figures from the general contractor are the project team’s estimates. Percent bought out is measured by dollar value.