Civil, structural and MEP firms run on billable hours and licensed judgment. The engineering itself is well supported by Civil 3D, OpenRoads, Revit and analysis software. What drains margin is everything around it: qualifications packages for municipal and CDOT pursuits, QA/QC records kept in spreadsheets, project status reports assembled by hand, and new EITs who take months to learn where anything lives.
InTheory serves as your fractional AI and technology lead. We choose one costly recurring workflow, measure it, and lead a scoped improvement, usually with tools you already license. Engineers of record keep every technical decision and every seal. We take on the evaluation, the build and the adoption work that a busy principal never has time for.
Public clients select on qualifications, so every RFQ needs tailored project experience, resumes, an approach narrative and often an SF330. Principals and PMs pull this together between deadlines. Go/no-go decisions happen late or not at all, and the firm spends unbillable hours on pursuits it was never well placed to win.
Most firms have a QA/QC procedure, but evidence of reviews lives in redlined PDFs, email threads and individual checklists. When a client, auditor or insurer asks how a set was checked before sealing, assembling proof takes days. Inconsistent records also make it hard to spot recurring errors across teams.
Experienced PEs and strong EITs are hard to find, and recruiting is often run by a principal alongside billable work. Once hired, new engineers spend weeks learning CAD standards, design criteria and where past calculations are stored, during which their utilization is low and senior staff are interrupted.
Hours live in Vantagepoint, Ajera or Unanet, drawings in Civil 3D or Revit, files on SharePoint or a local server, and pursuits in a CRM or spreadsheet. Project managers rebuild status reports and forecasts by hand, and leadership sees backlog and profitability weeks after the numbers would have been useful.
We fix one at a time, starting with the one that costs you most. Each page shows the steps, the tools, what stays human and what we would measure.
Assemble qualifications packages and fee proposals from a maintained library of project sheets, resumes and approach language, with a structured go/no-go step so engineers spend pursuit time where the firm can win.
See the workflow →Extract requirements from RFPs, geotechnical reports, survey data summaries and agency review comments into structured logs, so engineers stop retyping details and missing items buried deep in long PDFs.
See the workflow →Help engineers find design criteria, firm standards, past calculation approaches and agency requirements in your own documents, with every answer linked to its source for checking.
See the workflow →Draft regular client and agency status reports from your schedule, hours and action logs, so PMs review and send accurate updates instead of writing each one from scratch.
See the workflow →Keep QA/QC review records, license renewals, continuing education hours and client-required certifications current and easy to produce when a client, auditor or insurer asks.
See the workflow →Connect project accounting, CRM, document storage and scheduling so a project is set up once and hours, budgets and status stay consistent across every system the team uses.
See the workflow →See utilization, backlog, earned value and profitability by project and discipline in one regular view, instead of PMs and accounting assembling spreadsheets every month.
See the workflow →Run a consistent hiring process for EITs, PEs and CAD technicians, and onboard new engineers to your standards and systems with less principal time and fewer missed steps.
See the workflow →How we deliver this: AI automation for small business or fractional CTO leadership, scoped in writing and run over 90 days. See pricing or the sample scope.
Need someone to own systems, vendors and data policy too? See fractional CIO.
We start with what you already pay for. New tools have to earn their place.
Engineering firms handle survey data, utility locations, critical infrastructure details and sometimes security-sensitive facility information. Public agencies and federal clients may impose their own handling rules, and defense-related work can involve controlled unclassified information or export controls. Engineers of record are responsible for sealed work under state licensing rules, including Colorado's. AI tools must not train on client files, and any AI-assisted calculation or text needs checking by a qualified engineer. This is general guidance, not legal advice.
General information, not legal advice.
Defaults are illustrative for engineering firms (new projects won per month). Change them to your numbers.
a month in staff time, before any lost sales
Illustration only, not a forecast or guarantee. Recovered staff time becomes a cash saving only if spending actually declines or the time goes into paid work. Tool costs are an assumption; we replace every number here with yours before recommending a scope.
We would not use it that way. Calculations, design decisions and sealed documents stay with licensed engineers using validated software. The useful work sits around the engineering: assembling qualifications, extracting requirements from long documents, documenting QA/QC and keeping projects set up consistently. Those areas carry less technical risk and still save meaningful senior time.
Yes. Public pursuits are qualifications-based, so a well-maintained library of project experience and resumes pays back quickly. Public clients also have records, invoicing and sometimes DBE reporting requirements. We would design improvements to fit those requirements and check any agency-specific data rules before choosing tools.
Rarely. Most improvements use the data already in your project accounting system: hours, phases, budgets and invoices. A common first step is tidying how projects and tasks are set up so reports are reliable. Replacing an ERP is costly and disruptive, so we would only recommend it with a strong, specific case.
We would classify what data a workflow needs and keep sensitive project files out of it where possible. Many improvements, such as pursuit libraries or invoicing, need no drawings at all. Where documents are processed, we would use approved tools within your environment, with access limited to the right people.
Plans are $2,500, $5,000 or $7,000 per month for an initial 90-day engagement, with a written scope before kickoff. Software and major custom builds are budgeted separately. Most engineering firms would start with Lead + delivery at $5,000 per month, focused on one workflow such as qualifications packages or QA/QC records.
In 30 minutes we look at one recurring workflow, what it costs you today and whether there is a credible case to improve it. If there is not, we will say so.
30 minutes with Phil or Martin. No technical brief, no pitch deck. Phil or Martin replies personally, usually within one business day.