GMP Post-Mortem Template

Navigation: phase-workflows | index

The post-mortem is the most neglected step in estimating. It’s the mechanism that turns project experience into institutional knowledge — feeding actual costs back into the parametric models and judgment calls that drive future estimates. Without it, every estimate starts from scratch and the same mistakes recur.

When to complete: Within 30 days of substantial completion. Delay erodes accuracy; team members move to other projects; records become harder to reconstruct.

Who completes it: Lead estimator + project manager. Both perspectives are required — estimating accuracy AND project execution accuracy.

Instructions

Use this template for every completed manufacturing plant project. Fill in every section; if data isn’t available for a field, note why and what would be needed to capture it next time. File the completed post-mortem in the project archive and add the key $/SF and $/unit actuals to the company’s historical cost database.

Section 1: Project Identification

Field	Value
Project name
Project type	(F&B greenfield / F&B brownfield / CPG packaging / pharma / automotive / other)
Sector
Location (city, state)
Labor market	(union / open-shop / prevailing wage)
Project size	(SF of new construction)
GC/EPC firm
GMP estimate completed by
Post-mortem completed by
Date of post-mortem
Date of substantial completion

Section 2: GMP vs. Final Cost Summary

The top-line comparison. Fill in after final cost reconciliation.

Account	GMP Amount	Final Cost	Variance ($)	Variance (%)	Root Cause Category
Cost of work — direct
General conditions
Design / engineering fees
Contractor fee
Contingency (budget)
Contingency (used)
Total GMP
Final cost

Summary: Was the final cost within the GMP? ☐ Yes ☐ No — over by $_____ (____%)

Section 3: Variance Analysis by CSI Division

Fill in for all divisions with >$25K variance. Skip divisions where variance was <2% and <$10K.

CSI Division	Division Name	Estimated	Actual	Variance ($)	Variance (%)	Root Cause	Notes
01	General Conditions
02/31	Site Work
03	Concrete
05	Structural Steel
06/07	Envelope (walls/roof)
08	Doors / hardware
09	Finishes (floors/walls)
22	Plumbing / process drains
23	HVAC
26	Electrical
40	Process interconnections
41	Material handling / install
43	Process utilities (steam/CAS/CW)
44	Pollution control
46	Water/wastewater treatment
Equipment	Process equipment (FOB total)
Equipment	Equipment installation

Top 3 variances:

Division ___ — $_____ over/under — because:
Division ___ — $_____ over/under — because:
Division ___ — $_____ over/under — because:

Section 4: Contingency Utilization

Understanding how contingency was consumed is as important as knowing the final cost.

Risk Category	Contingency Allocated	Amount Drawn	% Used	What Triggered the Draw
Design development
Scope gaps
Execution / productivity
Site / unforeseen conditions
Market / escalation
Owner-directed changes
Total

Was contingency adequate? ☐ Yes — surplus returned ☐ Barely adequate ☐ No — over GMP

Key lesson: What contingency line item would have needed to be larger?

Key lesson: What contingency was unnecessary (over-allocated to a risk that didn’t materialize)?

Section 5: Subcontractor Performance

For each major sub, note whether their bid was accurate, their performance was satisfactory, and whether you would use them again.

Trade	Subcontractor	Bid Amount	Final Sub Cost	Variance	Rebid?	Notes
Civil / site					☐ Yes ☐ No
Concrete					☐ Yes ☐ No
Structural steel					☐ Yes ☐ No
Mechanical — HVAC					☐ Yes ☐ No
Mechanical — process piping					☐ Yes ☐ No
Electrical					☐ Yes ☐ No
Industrial refrigeration					☐ Yes ☐ No
Specialty flooring					☐ Yes ☐ No
Controls integration					☐ Yes ☐ No
Other: ________					☐ Yes ☐ No

Bid leveling accuracy: Were the leveled bids a fair prediction of final sub cost? ☐ Yes ☐ No — what was missed in leveling?

Section 6: Key Actual Cost Data — Historical Cost Library Entry

This section feeds the company’s parametric database. Fill this in carefully — it is the most valuable part of the post-mortem for future estimates.

Project-Level Metrics

Metric	Value
Total SF (new construction)
Final TIC (excluding OPC)
Final TIC / SF	$_____/SF
Final TIC (including OPC)
All-in TIC / SF (including OPC)	$_____/SF
Construction midpoint (month/year)
Location / CCI at midpoint
CCI-adjusted TIC/SF (to national average)	$_____/SF

Component-Level Metrics

Fill in for major systems. These become the unit rates for future estimates.

System	Final Cost	Per-Unit Metric	Unit
Building structure (steel + envelope)			$/SF of building
Concrete SOG			$/SF of slab
Sanitary finishes (FRP + epoxy/urethane)			$/SF of finished area
Process drain system			$/SF of wet area
HVAC — production areas			$/SF of conditioned area
Electrical (building only; not process)			$/SF of building
Process utilities (steam + CAS + CW)			$/SF of production area
CIP system			$/CIP circuit
Process equipment (FOB)			$/installed production unit (e.g., $/BPM, $/ton/day)
Equipment installation (labor only)			% of FOB
General conditions			% of direct cost

Brownfield-Specific (if applicable)

Metric	Value
Tie-in work cost
Tie-in as % of MEP/process scope
Night/weekend premium paid
Hazmat abatement (if applicable)
Phasing premium (temporary barriers, access)

Section 7: Schedule vs. Estimate Assumptions

Assumption	Estimated	Actual	Variance	Impact on Cost
Duration of construction (months)
Duration of general conditions (matches construction?)
Number of tie-in shutdowns (brownfield)
Shutdown windows (days per shutdown)
Long-lead equipment delivery (critical path item)
Substantial completion date

Was general conditions duration accurate? ☐ Yes ☐ No — over/under by _____ months — impact: $_____

Did any long-lead items delay the schedule? ☐ Yes → item: _____, delay: _____ weeks, cost: $

Section 8: Estimating Method Accuracy

Assess which estimating methods were accurate and which weren’t.

Method Used	Applied To	Accuracy
$/SF parametric (Class 5)	Building scope	☐ Good ☐ High ☐ Low
Lang/Hand factor	Equipment TIC	☐ Good ☐ High ☐ Low
RSMeans unit rates	Division: _____	☐ Good ☐ High ☐ Low
Sub quote (bid leveled)	Division: _____	☐ Good ☐ High ☐ Low
In-house unit rates	Division: _____	☐ Good ☐ High ☐ Low
Allowance (stated amount)	Item: _____	☐ Good ☐ High ☐ Low

Most accurate method on this project:

Least accurate method on this project:

Recommended method change for next similar project:

Section 9: Scope Misses and Gaps

Items that were missed in the estimate and required change orders or contingency draws.

Item	Amount	Why It Was Missed	Checklist Update Needed?
			☐ Yes ☐ No
			☐ Yes ☐ No
			☐ Yes ☐ No
			☐ Yes ☐ No

If any scope miss triggers a checklist update, add it to Scope Misses Checklist immediately.

Section 10: What to Do Differently

One thing we should always do on this project type that we did not do:

One thing we did that wasted time or money and should stop:

One assumption that was wrong that we should change for next time:

If we estimated this project again today, what would the estimate be?

GMP: $_____ vs. actual: $_____ — Difference: $_____ (____%) — Explained by: ________________

Section 11: Recommended Updates to Company Standards

Check all that apply and add a note:

Update parametric benchmarks — actual $/SF was $_____ vs. library value of $_____; update for [project type / region / sector]
Update scope misses checklist — new item: ___________
Update contingency guidelines — [risk category] should be [higher/lower] for [project conditions]
Update sub bidder list — add: ___________; remove: ___________
Update RSMeans adjustment — [Division] rates were [high/low] by ____% in [market]
Update lead time table — [equipment type] took _____ weeks actual vs. _____ weeks estimated (2025–2026)
Add to bid leveling checklist — scope item consistently missing from [trade] bids: ___________

Filing

After completion:

Save to project archive: [Project Name] — GMP Post-Mortem — [YYYY-MM].pdf
Enter $/SF actuals into the company historical cost database
Update Scope Misses Checklist if Section 9 flagged new items
Update Parametric Estimating Models if Section 11 recommends benchmark revision
Update Equipment Procurement and Lead Times if Section 7 flagged lead time surprises
Brief the estimating team on top 3 lessons in the next team meeting

Closeout and Lessons Learned — project closeout process that precedes the post-mortem
Earned Value and Cost Control — EVM tracking during construction that generates the data used here
Scope Misses Checklist — updated based on Section 9 findings
Parametric Estimating Models — updated based on Section 6 actuals