Start with the work you need help doing
An estimating workflow contains several different jobs: understanding project documents, defining scope, measuring quantities, assigning costs and reviewing the bid. An AI tool may help with one job while the rest stays in your existing software.
That distinction matters when comparing products. A tool that measures an area has answered a different question from a tool that helps find the specification governing that area. Neither task, by itself, establishes a final installed price.
Start with the part of your workflow that needs help. Then ask what information the tool produces and how your estimator will use it.
Document review: what does the project require?
Before a quantity becomes useful, the team needs to understand what it refers to. Plans, schedules, specifications and issued changes may contain related information that must be reconciled.
Consider an illustrative example: a floor plan identifies a room, a finish schedule identifies a material, and a specification describes a requirement for that material. This example is not a Setmark product result. Its purpose is to show why reading one label and measuring one room can leave unanswered scope questions.
A useful review record keeps the relevant source, the interpretation, and unresolved questions visible. If documents disagree, the estimating team needs to decide what governs or seek clarification. Hiding that disagreement inside a polished output makes it harder to review.
Worked example: one room, two finish codes
The following is an invented teaching example. It is not a customer project, an estimating instruction, or a Setmark software result.
Suppose a package contains these three snippets:
Reference in this fictional example / Literal information
- Finish plan, FP-1, Room 101: Finish tag: F-2
- Finish schedule, FS-1, Room 101: Floor finish: F-3
- Finish legend, FS-1: F-2: resilient flooring. F-3: carpet tile.
A neat spreadsheet could silently turn either code into a material line. That would hide the question the estimator actually needs answered: which finish applies to Room 101?
Here is a more useful review record:
- Observed: FP-1 identifies F-2; the room's schedule row identifies F-3; the legend defines different materials for those codes.
- Interpretation: the supplied snippets disagree on the room's floor finish. We have not established which source governs.
- Next decision: check the issued revisions and applicable project requirements, then seek clarification if the discrepancy remains. Keep the material selection unresolved until that review is complete.
- Handoff: pass along the room identifier, both source references, and the open question. Do not turn an unresolved selection into a silently accepted material line.
An AI system could help locate and organize the references, but the demonstration must show whether it actually found this disagreement and how the estimator can inspect it. A highlighted code alone would not demonstrate that entire workflow.
This is the type of example to bring to a vendor trial. Use a permitted representative input and write down the expected source observations before running the software. Compare the output with those observations, including what was missed or needed correction.
Takeoff: how much is there?
Takeoff tools help derive quantities from drawings. Their capabilities vary by document and task. Evaluate the measurements your own work needs and how a reviewer corrects them.
Use a representative set in a trial. Check drawing scale, what was included, what was excluded, and whether the result remains understandable when passed to another estimator. The vendor's demonstration is a starting point for evaluation, not a substitute for your own review.
Kreo's AI takeoff explanation is one example of a vendor describing this stage. Verify current capabilities directly before choosing a tool.
Handoff: how does information reach the estimate?
“Works with your estimating workflow” needs a concrete explanation. A native connection, an exported file and a manual transfer involve different steps.
Ask the vendor to show the handoff with an actual output. Which descriptions, units, quantities and source references survive? What must the estimator add? What happens when the source documents change?
Togal publishes instructions for exporting quantities and takeoffs. That is an example of the detail a workflow evaluation needs. It does not establish which formats or integrations any other product supports.
Pricing and approval: who owns the decision?
The estimating team still needs a clear process for applying its pricing assumptions and approving the bid. Identify the person responsible for accepting the reviewed information and recording outstanding questions.
A useful demonstration ends with the next estimator action. Show the output, the review, and the handoff, not just the moment the software finishes processing.
Compare tools by the step they support
Your question / What to ask the vendor to demonstrate
- Can this help us understand the documents? A finding traced to its source, including an unresolved example.
- Can this help us measure? A quantity the estimator can inspect and correct.
- Will it fit the system we already use? The actual connection, export or manual handoff and what information it preserves.
- Can we review it before using it? The approval responsibility, changes and remaining questions.
Setmark's place in this discussion
Setmark's focus is construction document and workflow intelligence, including work that feeds estimating. The useful question is where it can fit into the team's existing process.
For a fit discussion, describe the documents you work from, the information you need next, and the tools you already use. A meaningful demonstration should show the supported input, actual output, review steps and handoff, with any limitations made clear.