Training exercise · Fictitious project · Built in Procore's test environment
Palmetto Commons: APM Workflows in Procore
I set up a mock commercial project in Procore to practice APM documentation workflows. An AI coach role-played the architect, owner, and subcontractors, providing information for me to review, track, and process.
B · Project at a glance
Project at a glance
26-014 Palmetto Commons · 3-story mixed-use, ~34,000 SF · AIA A102/A201 · GMP $9,620,000 · Seminole Heights, Tampa
| Record | The issue | What I did | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFI #023 | 4" waste stack ran through a poured transfer beam at C/4 | Recommended offsetting beside the beam instead of coring it; routed the offset in concealed chases | Closed 10/22; offset approved; coordination drawing tracked as Submittal 22-001 |
| Submittal 08 41 13-001 | Storefront package arrived incomplete; sub asked to forward it same day | Checked it against the spec (4 items missing, 1 partial); sent the sub a list with a due date; took the partial-send request to the PM; flagged the 98-day lead time against 12/11 dry-in | Rev 0 Revise & Resubmit → Rev 1 Approved as Noted; released for fabrication 10/22 |
| Change Event 001 | Owner requested 4 Level 2 EV chargers | Returned the $35,000 quote for missing trenching (conduit had to go in before paving); corrected the sub CO from owner price to cost | GMP $9,620,000 → $9,663,560; subcontract $1,085,000 → $1,124,600 |
| Daily logs 10/22–10/23 | Framing sub short-crewed: 6 of 10, then 5 of 10 | Logged planned vs. actual, the pattern, and the foreman's commitment; linked the plumbing hold to RFI #023 | Documented; verification set for Mon 10/26 |
| OAC meeting #14 | Six open issues across schedule, RFIs, submittals, COs, site, and owner items | Wrote minutes with status, action, assignee, due date, and priority | 6 action items, each with an owner and date |
Full records and PDFs below ↓
Full project details
- Location
- 4810 N. Florida Ave., Seminole Heights, Tampa, FL
- Type
- 3-story mixed-use · ~34,000 SF · 3 retail bays + leasing office · 20 apartments
- Construction
- CMU/concrete ground floor with podium slab, wood framing above, TPO roof
- Contract
- AIA A102/A201 · GMP $9,620,000
- Key dates
- NTP 03/02/2026 · Podium slab poured 07/17/2026 · Dry-in target 12/11/2026 · Substantial completion 05/14/2027
- Team (fictitious)
- Owner — Hillsborough Heights Development LLC (Dana Whitfield, owner's rep) · Architect — Corvid Design Studio (Marcus Lee) · Structural — Rowan Structural · MEP — Keel Engineering · GC — Bayline Builders (Rick Soto, PM; Tony Alvarez, Superintendent; Guy Palmer, APM)
C · Setup
Project setup
What I did
- Set up the project record, dates, and stage; built the directory for the owner, architect, GC, and 4 subcontractors with legal names and contacts.
- Assigned internal vs. external permission templates. When the owner's rep couldn't be added to an RFI, traced it to her template (RFIs set to None) and changed her access to Read Only.
- Built a location list around how work moves through the building (Level 1 retail bays and leasing office; Levels 2–3 East/West; Roof; Site — Surface Lot, Transformer Pad).
Artifacts
D · RFI
RFI #023 — Waste stack vs. transfer beam at grid C/4
What came in
- The superintendent reported that 4" cast iron waste stack P-3 (plumbing sheet P-201) lands inside transfer beam TB-2 (structural sheet S-201). The beam was already poured and carries the Level 2 and 3 bearing walls. No penetration detail existed.
What I checked
- Options: core the beam (needs structural engineer review of an existing transfer beam) vs. offset the stack beside it.
- Where the offset would show: it had to stay concealed, so it was routed in a furred chase at the base of the Level 2 wet wall and a chase in the retail bay below.
What I did
- Wrote the RFI with drawing references, an attached sketch, a recommended option (offset), and a response date tied to Level 2 plumbing rough-in.
- Logged the architect's conditional response (offset accepted in principle, pending MEP engineer review and a coordination drawing) and added a reservation of cost and schedule rights.
- Logged the final response (two 45° fittings, cleanout accessed from the Unit 204 kitchen base cabinet, no vent revision), closed the RFI, and opened Submittal 22-001 for the required coordination drawing.
Outcome
Question answered without cutting a structural member; follow-up work tracked as its own submittal.
Artifacts
RFI #023
Full RFI record: question, attachment, both architect responses, reservation of rights.
2 pagesView PDF (opens in new tab) ↗
E · Submittal
Storefront submittal 08 41 13-001
What came in
- The glazing sub (ClearView Glass) sent its storefront package and asked to forward it to the architect the same day; structural calcs were "to follow."
What I checked
- Compared the package against the spec's submittal requirements (Articles 1.4 and 1.5) in a checklist. Four required items were missing and one was partial, including sealed structural calculations.
- Lead-time math: a 98-day lead time from a late approval puts storefront delivery about three months after the 12/11 dry-in target — flagged to the PM.
What I did
- Sent the sub a specific list of missing items with a due date rather than forwarding an incomplete package; took her request to send it partial to the PM.
- Per PM direction, routed it for preliminary review marked incomplete. Logged PM “Approved as Noted,” then architect “Revise and Resubmit” (corner wind-load zone not met).
- Closed and distributed Rev 0, set up Rev 1, checked the resubmittal against the architect's comments, and routed it. Rev 1 returned Approved as Noted and released for fabrication.
Outcome
Storefront released for fabrication 10/22/2026; dry-in risk raised early and carried into the OAC meeting.
Artifacts
Submittal 08 41 13-001, Rev 1
Final revision: workflow, approvals, distribution.
4 pagesView PDF (opens in new tab) ↗
Spec Section 08 41 13 (excerpt)
Mock specification prepared for the exercise.
3 pagesView PDF (opens in new tab) ↗
F · Featured · Change order cycle
Change Event 001 — EV chargers
- 1 · Change eventChange Event 0014 Level 2 EV chargers, surface lot
- 2 · RFQRFQ to Brightline ElectricalCost $39,600
- 3 · To ownerPrime PCO #001$43,560 incl. 10% fee
-
4a · Owner contractPrime CO #001GMP $9,620,000 →
$9,663,5604b · SubcontractCommitment CO #001$1,085,000 →
$1,124,600
What came in
- The owner's rep requested four Level 2 (240-volt) EV charging stations in the surface lot.
What I checked
- Scope: not in the electrical subcontract or drawings, so out of scope and owner-funded.
- The sub's first quote ($35,000) covered equipment, wire, conduit, and labor but not trenching and backfill to the surface lot. The lot wasn't paved yet, so conduit had to go in before paving.
- The sub change order initially pulled the owner price ($43,560); the sub's cost is $39,600.
What I did
- Logged the change event with the owner's request attached; entered the electrical subcontract and prime contract in Procore so the change could flow.
- Sent an RFQ, returned the quote for trenching; revised quote $39,600.
- Applied the 10% fee, issued Prime PCO #001 at $43,560, and after owner approval executed Prime CO #001 and Commitment CO #001 (corrected to $39,600). Closed the change event.
Outcome
Owner's contract and sub's contract both updated before work started. Bayline fee: $3,960.
Artifacts
Change Event 001
Full change event record with line items and over/under.
1 pageView PDF (opens in new tab) ↗
G · Daily logs
Daily logs — subcontractor manpower
What came in
- Superintendent's field notes: framing sub (Tri-County) below planned crew; plumbing hold at C/4; truss delivery; owner site visit; toolbox talk.
What I checked
- What a reader would need months later: planned vs. actual crew, the pattern, the sub's explanation and commitment.
What I did
- Recorded weather, manpower by company and location, the delivery (inspected, no damage), visitor, and a fall-protection toolbox talk.
- Tri-County: 6 of 10 carpenters on 10/22 (4th short day that week), 5 of 10 on 10/23 (5th). Logged the foreman's commitment to a full crew Monday and flagged it as an issue.
- Linked the plumbing hold to RFI #023.
- Did not send an early written notice: the OAC minutes committed to verifying Monday first, so I kept that agreement with the paper trail ready.
Artifacts
Daily log, 10/22/2026
Weather, manpower by company and location, delivery, visitor, toolbox talk, issues.
2 pagesView PDF (opens in new tab) ↗
Daily log, 10/23/2026
Second day of the manpower record, with the foreman's commitment logged.
1 pageView PDF (opens in new tab) ↗
H · Meeting minutes
OAC meeting #14 minutes
What I did
- Organized minutes by category (Schedule, RFIs, Submittals, Change Orders, Site/Utilities, Owner Items), each item with status, discussion, action, assignee, due date, and priority.
- Six items: framing manpower; RFI #023 coordination drawing; storefront dry-in risk and temporary enclosure pricing; EV charger conduit before paving; TECO transformer pad relocation (8 ft); August rain-day time extension (NOAA data requested).
Artifacts
I · How it connects
One issue, four records
- RFIsRFI #023Stack vs. transfer beam answered
- Daily logStack on holdPlumbing hold at C/4 linked to the RFI
- SubmittalsSubmittal 22-001Coordination drawing required by the RFI
- OAC minutesAction itemAssigned with a due date
Every item ended with an owner and a date.
J · Field time
Field time — Habitat for Humanity
Volunteer residential build work. October 2026 build day: finish work — cut vanities to fit around roughed-in plumbing, installed vanities, a pantry cabinet, kitchen countertops and hardware; tore out and reinstalled baseboards a previous crew had mismeasured.
