Project Delivery

 View Only

  • 1.  Construction Documents by Architects

    Posted 04-07-2011 05:39 AM
    This message has been cross posted to the following Discussion Forums: Practice Management Member Conversations and Project Delivery .
    -------------------------------------------

    Errors, omissions and coordination problems usually occur during preparation of construction documents and drive up the cost of professional liability insurance, a major business expense. No set of construction documents is perfect. The cost of correction is usually determined by the point in time at which the error is found.
     
    Is it fair to ask, if architects should be preparing construction documents at all?

     

    Construction documents prepared by a contractor

    • are not as voluminous as those prepared by an architect, because he is not covering himself contractually
    • are more in touch with current technologies
    • are more considerate of construction processes
    • are coordinated with and by the general contractor
    • are produced more quickly than by an architect

    and thus result in overall cost savings; and, unless the profession thinks of something else, less compensation for the architect.

     

    If the architect determines the shape and appearance of the detail and leaves its execution and integrity to the contractor, would the project and client be better served?

     

    This seems to be a major quandary that the profession is in. Are multi-party agreements and integrated design the answer? Any thoughts on this?



    -------------------------------------------
    Karl Hartnack AIA
    Component Past President
    Hartnack Architecture
    Düsseldorf
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:Construction Documents by Architects

    Posted 04-07-2011 09:16 PM
    Mr. Hartnack:

    I've worked on a number of projects that had a Guaranteed Max Price (GMP) contract between contractor and owner.  Many times the projects were large and rushed, and the initial GMP was taken from drawings that were at a DD level of completion.

    At that time, the contractor would swear up and down that he was very familiar with what needed to be done, had done it many, many times before, they were experts, and would include everything that was needed in their GMP number.

    Of course, as the drawings were completed we would hear - more than once - "we never included that!", and "that wasn't shown on the drawings".  It was amazing how often the experts had been blindsided.

    I think we should still do CD's, and there are a number of good reasons for it:

        1.  The architects CD's are the only documents that really show the interfacing of various asseblies.
        2.  Even if the contractor uses different systems, the architects CD's provided a baseline for estimates
        3.  The architects CD's address overall project issues such as ADA, and building code compliance.
        4.  Remember the Kansas City Hyatt disaster - the GC misinterpreted an engineers detail.

    The contractors drawings are done faster because THEY ARE USING THE DRAWINGS WE MADE!  Heck, if someone handed me 80% of my work on a platter I'd be done faster too.

    We do need to improve our project management processes.  Start with a better breakdown of the scope of work, and examine each job to see where the problems have been - you'll find that in the bulletin log and RFI log.

    -------------------------------------------
    Klaus Steinke AIA
    Las Vegas NV
    -------------------------------------------








  • 3.  RE:Construction Documents by Architects

    Posted 04-08-2011 07:55 AM

    Mr. Steinke,

    isn't it all a question of contracts and management? If errors occur because incomplete CD's are rushed into construction, then one must ask, who is in control of the project and who assumes the liability for resulting errors?

    My concern is the reduction of errors and omissions and the costs associated with these, from cost of insurance premiums to those of making the corrections.

    A great part of traditional CD's concerns itself with legalities and contractual issues to define and limit risk. What would happen if after a certain point of DD, the completion is left to the contractor at his liability?  Depth of information provided in DD would have to be adjusted and so would the knowledge on a contractor's staff, essentially an architect employed by the contractor. Wouldn't this lead to a much more compact set of CD's, produced more quickly with an opportunity of fast tracking?

    Would integrating the contractor into the CD preparation not simplify these while reducing the architect's exposure to liability issues?    


    -------------------------------------------
    Karl Hartnack AIA
    Component Past President
    Hartnack Architecture
    Duesseldorf
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message


  • 4.  RE:Construction Documents by Architects

    Posted 04-09-2011 09:25 PM
    Mr. Hartnack~

    Here in Las Vegas we have a firm that offers design, construction, development, leasing - the whole gamut of what it takes to get a building up and operational.  The design and construction wings have built several of the large casinos in town, so you know that they know large scale construction inside and out.

    I've had to deal with their contracting wing a couple of times when we were the architect of record and they were limited to being the GC.  It wasn't very pleasant, as every problem on the design end was met with a howl and comments to the effect that this problem wouldn't have happened had their own architects done the design work.

    And yet, when I recently worked with the design wing for a project that was a sort of joint venture with our own I was struck by their lack of performance, and inaccurate and incomplete work.  Whatever failures their design wing had was covered up by their construction wing.

    The problem with this is that site problems cost more to fix than paper problems, so their client would get billed for corrective work that cost more than if it had been fixed in the documentation phase.  (I'm sure they didn't bill clients for their own mistakes, but there were plenty of owner initiated changes to hide things in).

    The other trend to keep in mind is the increasing demand for documentation that the building departments are requiring.    You can no longer just note a wall as "2 hr rated", you need to indentify an UL assembly number, and increasingly, revise the number should the GC purchase gyp bd made by a mfr that is not listed in the UL number.  We have as a standard a number of drawing sheets that basically restate the entire ANSI accessibility standards, just to satisfy the AHJ.  In one case they even got as detailed as the hardware sets for various doors, just to make sure they complied.

    In Florida you need to submit fully engineered sprinkler drawings.  Here in Clark County you need to include drawings that show thickness or rating of fire proofing for all steel framing members.  A schedule is not sufficient.  Should the Green Code ever be adopted, I shudder to think of the documentation horrors that will require of us.

    What you are suggesting pushes much of this to later stages of the work, when changes have larger impacts and deadlines are more critical.  I think we would all be better off if we pushed any and all design decisions to the beginning of the process as much as we can, and prepared a set of drawings that were constructable.  I prefer working with a GC in the design phase to help address those issues.  That way we avoid spec'ing roofing systems that the sub's are not familiar with, using construction tolerances that are not realistic, and - in the perfect world, do the value engineering BEFORE the drawings get past the DD phase.

    -------------------------------------------
    Klaus Steinke AIA
    Las Vegas NV
    -------------------------------------------






    Original Message