Construction Contract Administration

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

------------------------------
Janene Christopher AIA
Steinberg Hart
San Diego CA
------------------------------

I would consider this an "open item" and have it listed at the front of any field report until it has been resolved.  Or, in the same vein, consider this an "open item" in your regular AOC meeting for the project team.  On a large project, you may have a few open items that continue on for some time, and they need to be kept visible as the project proceeds. 

------------------------------
Anne Whitacre FCSI
Senior Specification Writer, Principal
HOK
San Francisco CA
------------------------------

Very good question. Maintaining and open items list is important until such items are rectified. Although I am "old school," I am certain my process can be converted into higher tech methods. I maintain an "Outstanding Issues" list within my Observation Reports. Any deficiency is noted with the flag "CORRECTION REQUIRED", followed by noting the issue and a reference to the location in the Contract Documents where the relevant information can be found.

The item is then cut and pasted into the "Outstanding Issues" section of the report and it stays there until a future observation confirms that the item has been rectified. For that report, I will line out the item and then delete it in the subsequent report. By lining it out, there is record that it was intentionally closed prior to just disappearing from the report.

------------------------------
Mark I. Baum, AIA
Mark I. Baum Architect LLC
New Orleans, LA
------------------------------

We've recently added a section to our standard field observation report for previously identified open items, italicized within the report for emphasis. Ostensibly this allows our team to easily track items during later site visits and serves as a running punch list. Cynically, the hope is if an item remains on the list too long, or if the list grows too long, the Contractors may be shamed into finally addressing them.

I do like the idea stated earlier of striking items as they are closed for documenting purposes before removing from future reports. 

------------------------------
Thomas Stablein AIA
The Collaborative Inc.
Toledo OH
------------------------------

Bring issue at next project meeting, and keep it on agenda until resolved. Reference to RFI in meeting minutes if that was satisfactory resolution. 

------------------------------
Ellis Whitby AIA Member Emeritus
Ellis C. Whitby Person
Alexandria VA
------------------------------

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 6/27/2024 5:26:00 PM
From: Michael D. Miller AIA
Subject: RE: Field Observation Reports

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA
------------------------------

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:29 PM
From: Ellis C. Whitby AIA Member Emeritus
Subject: Field Observation Reports

I am old school, but I never trusted software which is owned or run by either the GC, PM, or Owner.  To many times RFIs and shop received,  reviewed and returned dates are not reflective of when the files/Documents were received and returned by the AE. Sometimes dates are when the Contractor issues, but are not indicated as recipe eduntil Contractor has reviewed and accepted the AE action. Obviously not a good situation.

Original Message:
Sent: 6/27/2024 5:26:00 PM
From: Michael D. Miller AIA
Subject: RE: Field Observation Reports

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA
------------------------------

Agree with you both. sort of. 

1. Procore's project database and thus, its records and reports, aren't owned by the GC. They can't manipulate your entries. Else they'd never have come this far. 

2. Trust.. but verify. Beware the project database thats hosted by any one party to the project. My arch/cm firm represented HKS on a verrrry large project, with a large and famous GC a bit ago. Said GC had their own homebrew version of a project database. We never trusted it, so saved PDFs of all RFIs etc. Mid-project, we found out they had access to, could, and had gone into and changed an architect's RFI answer on another project. The CA rep caught it and the stuff hit the fan. We immediately moved our project to Procore. 

------------------------------
Bruce Bradsby
bdb/a
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:52 PM
From: Michael Miller
Subject: Field Observation Reports

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:29 PM
From: Ellis C. Whitby AIA Member Emeritus
Subject: Field Observation Reports

I am old school, but I never trusted software which is owned or run by either the GC, PM, or Owner.  To many times RFIs and shop received,  reviewed and returned dates are not reflective of when the files/Documents were received and returned by the AE. Sometimes dates are when the Contractor issues, but are not indicated as recipe eduntil Contractor has reviewed and accepted the AE action. Obviously not a good situation.

Original Message:
Sent: 6/27/2024 5:26:00 PM
From: Michael D. Miller AIA
Subject: RE: Field Observation Reports

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA

So Bruce to your point, we do save a pdf of every RFI response as well as submittals to our own "database" as well as our company server. Same with field reports, extract a pdf from Procore and that gets distributed.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 02:13 PM
From: Bruce D. Bradsby
Subject: Field Observation Reports

Agree with you both. sort of. 

1. Procore's project database and thus, its records and reports, aren't owned by the GC. They can't manipulate your entries. Else they'd never have come this far. 

2. Trust.. but verify. Beware the project database thats hosted by any one party to the project. My arch/cm firm represented HKS on a verrrry large project, with a large and famous GC a bit ago. Said GC had their own homebrew version of a project database. We never trusted it, so saved PDFs of all RFIs etc. Mid-project, we found out they had access to, could, and had gone into and changed an architect's RFI answer on another project. The CA rep caught it and the stuff hit the fan. We immediately moved our project to Procore. 

------------------------------
Bruce Bradsby
bdb/a
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:52 PM
From: Michael Miller
Subject: Field Observation Reports

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA


Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:29 PM
From: Ellis C. Whitby AIA Member Emeritus
Subject: Field Observation Reports

I am old school, but I never trusted software which is owned or run by either the GC, PM, or Owner.  To many times RFIs and shop received,  reviewed and returned dates are not reflective of when the files/Documents were received and returned by the AE. Sometimes dates are when the Contractor issues, but are not indicated as recipe eduntil Contractor has reviewed and accepted the AE action. Obviously not a good situation.

Original Message:
Sent: 6/27/2024 5:26:00 PM
From: Michael D. Miller AIA
Subject: RE: Field Observation Reports

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA

In this day/age, its not about a GC changing your answer or submittal markings. IMHO its just so easy to save out a pdf of docs and logs since the states we work in have 10-year statutes of repose and too many lawyers per capita.. and corporate ransom data hacks too common. Im a fan, but Procore is now a very large, lucrative  target and, again, PDFs are too easy to save out for the archives. 

------------------------------
Bruce Bradsby
bdb/a
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 06:00 PM
From: Michael Miller
Subject: Field Observation Reports

So Bruce to your point, we do save a pdf of every RFI response as well as submittals to our own "database" as well as our company server. Same with field reports, extract a pdf from Procore and that gets distributed.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 02:13 PM
From: Bruce D. Bradsby
Subject: Field Observation Reports

Agree with you both. sort of. 

1. Procore's project database and thus, its records and reports, aren't owned by the GC. They can't manipulate your entries. Else they'd never have come this far. 

2. Trust.. but verify. Beware the project database thats hosted by any one party to the project. My arch/cm firm represented HKS on a verrrry large project, with a large and famous GC a bit ago. Said GC had their own homebrew version of a project database. We never trusted it, so saved PDFs of all RFIs etc. Mid-project, we found out they had access to, could, and had gone into and changed an architect's RFI answer on another project. The CA rep caught it and the stuff hit the fan. We immediately moved our project to Procore. 

------------------------------
Bruce Bradsby
bdb/a


Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:52 PM
From: Michael Miller
Subject: Field Observation Reports

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA


Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:29 PM
From: Ellis C. Whitby AIA Member Emeritus
Subject: Field Observation Reports

I am old school, but I never trusted software which is owned or run by either the GC, PM, or Owner.  To many times RFIs and shop received,  reviewed and returned dates are not reflective of when the files/Documents were received and returned by the AE. Sometimes dates are when the Contractor issues, but are not indicated as recipe eduntil Contractor has reviewed and accepted the AE action. Obviously not a good situation.

Original Message:
Sent: 6/27/2024 5:26:00 PM
From: Michael D. Miller AIA
Subject: RE: Field Observation Reports

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA

Original Message:
Sent: 6/30/2024 9:33:00 PM
From: Bruce D. Bradsby
Subject: RE: Field Observation Reports

In this day/age, its not about a GC changing your answer or submittal markings. IMHO its just so easy to save out a pdf of docs and logs since the states we work in have 10-year statutes of repose and too many lawyers per capita.. and corporate ransom data hacks too common. Im a fan, but Procore is now a very large, lucrative  target and, again, PDFs are too easy to save out for the archives. 

------------------------------
Bruce Bradsby
bdb/a
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 06:00 PM
From: Michael Miller
Subject: Field Observation Reports

So Bruce to your point, we do save a pdf of every RFI response as well as submittals to our own "database" as well as our company server. Same with field reports, extract a pdf from Procore and that gets distributed.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 02:13 PM
From: Bruce D. Bradsby
Subject: Field Observation Reports

Agree with you both. sort of. 

1. Procore's project database and thus, its records and reports, aren't owned by the GC. They can't manipulate your entries. Else they'd never have come this far. 

2. Trust.. but verify. Beware the project database thats hosted by any one party to the project. My arch/cm firm represented HKS on a verrrry large project, with a large and famous GC a bit ago. Said GC had their own homebrew version of a project database. We never trusted it, so saved PDFs of all RFIs etc. Mid-project, we found out they had access to, could, and had gone into and changed an architect's RFI answer on another project. The CA rep caught it and the stuff hit the fan. We immediately moved our project to Procore. 

------------------------------
Bruce Bradsby
bdb/a


Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:52 PM
From: Michael Miller
Subject: Field Observation Reports

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA


Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:29 PM
From: Ellis C. Whitby AIA Member Emeritus
Subject: Field Observation Reports

I am old school, but I never trusted software which is owned or run by either the GC, PM, or Owner.  To many times RFIs and shop received,  reviewed and returned dates are not reflective of when the files/Documents were received and returned by the AE. Sometimes dates are when the Contractor issues, but are not indicated as recipe eduntil Contractor has reviewed and accepted the AE action. Obviously not a good situation.

Also on the point about changing data entries in Procore -  

The Procore database can be altered or changed after initial input. However, it's important to note that Procore is designed with robust auditing and change-tracking features to maintain data integrity and transparency. Here are some key points about modifying data in Procore:

1. User permissions: Users with appropriate permissions can typically only make changes. Administrators can control who can edit different types of data.
2. Change logs: Procore maintains detailed logs of changes made to the database. This includes information on what was changed, when, and who made the change.
3. Version history: Procore keeps version histories for many documents and records, allowing users to view previous versions and track changes over time.
4. Audit trails: Procore provides audit trails for critical actions, which can be reviewed by project managers or administrators.
5. Locked records: Some records can be "locked" after a certain point, preventing further changes without special authorization.
6. Integration safeguards: When Procore is integrated with other systems, there are often safeguards in place to prevent unauthorized changes from external sources.
7. Data backups: Regular backups are typically maintained, which could potentially be used to restore data in case of unauthorized changes.
8. Electronic signatures: For certain documents, electronic signatures may be used, which are designed to be tamper-evident.

While it is possible to alter data in Procore after initial input, the system is designed to make such changes traceable and transparent. Any significant or suspicious changes would likely be detectable through the various tracking and auditing features built into the system.

However, it's worth noting that no system is completely foolproof. In cases where data integrity is crucial, it's always a good practice to implement additional checks and balances and to regularly review audit logs and change histories.

------------------------------
Jack Hillbrand Architect
Santa Monica, CA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-30-2024 11:35 PM
From: Jack Hillbrand
Subject: Field Observation Reports

I realize the point was made - that RFIs have contractual and legal implications, so maintaining accurate records is crucial.

While having the contractor's Procore maintain RFI records may be efficient, the architect has the prime duty to remain actively involved in the process to fulfill their professional responsibilities and protect the owner's interests. As was mentioned, establishing clear protocols and maintaining open communication throughout the CA phase is the key. 

Studio1323

Jack Hillbrand, President 

AIA  |  NCARB  |  SME  | LEED 

Sent from my iPhone

Original Message:
Sent: 6/30/2024 9:33:00 PM
From: Bruce D. Bradsby
Subject: RE: Field Observation Reports

In this day/age, its not about a GC changing your answer or submittal markings. IMHO its just so easy to save out a pdf of docs and logs since the states we work in have 10-year statutes of repose and too many lawyers per capita.. and corporate ransom data hacks too common. Im a fan, but Procore is now a very large, lucrative  target and, again, PDFs are too easy to save out for the archives. 

------------------------------
Bruce Bradsby
bdb/a
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 06:00 PM
From: Michael Miller
Subject: Field Observation Reports

So Bruce to your point, we do save a pdf of every RFI response as well as submittals to our own "database" as well as our company server. Same with field reports, extract a pdf from Procore and that gets distributed.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA


Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 02:13 PM
From: Bruce D. Bradsby
Subject: Field Observation Reports

Agree with you both. sort of. 

1. Procore's project database and thus, its records and reports, aren't owned by the GC. They can't manipulate your entries. Else they'd never have come this far. 

2. Trust.. but verify. Beware the project database thats hosted by any one party to the project. My arch/cm firm represented HKS on a verrrry large project, with a large and famous GC a bit ago. Said GC had their own homebrew version of a project database. We never trusted it, so saved PDFs of all RFIs etc. Mid-project, we found out they had access to, could, and had gone into and changed an architect's RFI answer on another project. The CA rep caught it and the stuff hit the fan. We immediately moved our project to Procore. 

------------------------------
Bruce Bradsby
bdb/a


Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:52 PM
From: Michael Miller
Subject: Field Observation Reports

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA


Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 06:29 PM
From: Ellis C. Whitby AIA Member Emeritus
Subject: Field Observation Reports

I am old school, but I never trusted software which is owned or run by either the GC, PM, or Owner.  To many times RFIs and shop received,  reviewed and returned dates are not reflective of when the files/Documents were received and returned by the AE. Sometimes dates are when the Contractor issues, but are not indicated as recipe eduntil Contractor has reviewed and accepted the AE action. Obviously not a good situation.

Original Message:
Sent: 6/27/2024 5:26:00 PM
From: Michael D. Miller AIA
Subject: RE: Field Observation Reports

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

------------------------------
Michael Miller AIA
HKS, Inc.
Richmond VA

Janene, specifically to answer your great question, these are NCRs. We log these so they arent dropped. It's unlikely that the GC hasnt contracted with the Owner to use Procore or eq. industry standard as the official project document control system to which the A/Es are required to participate in. This is the standard for a non-single-family resi projects. In the unlikely absence of such, the best practice is for your firm to use a cloud-based database tool and tablet for your field reports, and tag these items via an NCR field or checkbox for identifying these non-conforming conditions. 

If your firm doesn't use a database as your single source of truth, introduce one or you'll be doomed to re-type data entry again and again across the various document and comms venues, and have some issues dropped. Mantra: enter information only one time, in one place. If you're relying on Word, Excel, and email, its time to join the 21st Century now that we're a quarter-century into it  ;]

In the field, before you go NCR-crazy, be sure to have read your dwgs/specs, referenced Standards [!], A-201 Gen Conditions, be familiar with approved submittals incl samples & mock-ups relevant to each Walk in order to calibrate your expectations of the contractor's performance with the agreed, contracted levels. 

This is not a given. Its sadly common for architects and ID firms to throw uninitiated staff into the fray at large project walks or punchlist to meet schedule. These enthusiastic employees then cover compliant work with real or virtual blue tape out of inexperience, job unfamiliarity, and fear of underperforming. Day One of their walks or punch is always fun in this scenario, so should start with calibration of expectations. Your observations should be pre-calibrated so you know what Good looks like.

On process.. for commercial construction contracts, the architect does not own Document Control, they become a participant in it. If its Procore,its safer than your company's data files, but yes, keep your own save-outs. Since its in a database (i.e., "Observations" in Procore), you ID NCRs as such in your Field Report, and everyone subsequently can then pull a specific NCR report since they're all using the same database. Cover open issues at the weekly OACs or dedicated NCR meetings if there are many issues. And follow-up NCRs on field walks - the last thing you want is for these conditions to be covered up by other Work. Open NCRs can run into the hundreds at any given time on large projects. Databases keep the history fully auditable. Its a sure bet that Boeing will find the dropped ball on their counterfeit titanium fastener debacle.

At the time of punchlist request by the GC, you drag the Log out and say, yep. or nope, youre not ready for punch due to these non-conforming Work items, or add them to the punch if minor.  This ensures NCRs are never dropped off the radar. If you have fairly calibrated your NCR benchmarking, a good GC field engineer will appreciate your effort and process as helpful to their efforts at QA/QC.

Let's be safe out there!

------------------------------
Bruce Bradsby
bdb/a
------------------------------

I agree with the others about keeping a running log of non-conforming work. As they are corrected, they get closed out. Keep in mind, that sometimes the work will be corrected and covered before the next site visit, and you will not be able to see the corrected work. If the GC cannot provide photographic evidence, you have the right to rely on the GC's representations that the work was corrected as required by the contract documents. The burden lies on the GC to construct the building in accordance with the contract documents, not for you to verify each and every correction.

------------------------------
Robin Bellerby AIA
Humphreys & Partners Architects, LP
Dallas TX
------------------------------

However, if work is covered contrary to a request by the Architect to review the work (or requirements in the Contract Documents require the review), then the work must be uncovered at the contractor's expense. 

Also, if a portion of the Work has been covered but the Architect considers it necessary even though it was not specifically requested to be examined before being covered, then the Architect may ask to see the Work and the Contractor shall uncover it. Yet in this case, if the Work is per the Contract Documents, then the Contractor shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment to the Contract Sum and Contract Time as appropriate. If the Work is not per the Contract Documents, the costs of uncovering the Work, and the cost of correction, shall be at the Contractor's expense.

Then too, if the Owner prefers to accept Work that is not per the requirements of the Contract Documents, the Owner may do so instead of requiring its removal and correction, in which case the Contract Sum will be reduced as appropriate and equitable. 

------------------------------
Jack Hillbrand Architect
Santa Monica, CA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-02-2024 05:35 PM
From: Robin Bellerby
Subject: Field Observation Reports

I agree with the others about keeping a running log of non-conforming work. As they are corrected, they get closed out. Keep in mind, that sometimes the work will be corrected and covered before the next site visit, and you will not be able to see the corrected work. If the GC cannot provide photographic evidence, you have the right to rely on the GC's representations that the work was corrected as required by the contract documents. The burden lies on the GC to construct the building in accordance with the contract documents, not for you to verify each and every correction.

------------------------------
Robin Bellerby AIA
Humphreys & Partners Architects, LP
Dallas TX
------------------------------

Yes, I agree with that as well.

------------------------------
Robin Bellerby AIA
Humphreys & Partners Architects, LP
Dallas TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-02-2024 09:42 PM
From: Jack Hillbrand AIA
Subject: Field Observation Reports

However, if work is covered contrary to a request by the Architect to review the work (or requirements in the Contract Documents require the review), then the work must be uncovered at the contractor's expense. 

Also, if a portion of the Work has been covered but the Architect considers it necessary even though it was not specifically requested to be examined before being covered, then the Architect may ask to see the Work and the Contractor shall uncover it. Yet in this case, if the Work is per the Contract Documents, then the Contractor shall be entitled to an equitable adjustment to the Contract Sum and Contract Time as appropriate. If the Work is not per the Contract Documents, the costs of uncovering the Work, and the cost of correction, shall be at the Contractor's expense.

Then too, if the Owner prefers to accept Work that is not per the requirements of the Contract Documents, the Owner may do so instead of requiring its removal and correction, in which case the Contract Sum will be reduced as appropriate and equitable. 

------------------------------
Jack Hillbrand Architect
Santa Monica, CA
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 07-02-2024 05:35 PM
From: Robin Bellerby
Subject: Field Observation Reports

I agree with the others about keeping a running log of non-conforming work. As they are corrected, they get closed out. Keep in mind, that sometimes the work will be corrected and covered before the next site visit, and you will not be able to see the corrected work. If the GC cannot provide photographic evidence, you have the right to rely on the GC's representations that the work was corrected as required by the contract documents. The burden lies on the GC to construct the building in accordance with the contract documents, not for you to verify each and every correction.

------------------------------
Robin Bellerby AIA
Humphreys & Partners Architects, LP
Dallas TX

Great question for discussion, Janene. Here are some thoughts we have talked about in our office.

 

1. The report should reflect what the observations were the day of the site visit. If you looked at a previous deficiency and saw that it was still open you can note it as such. That being said, I like what others have noted about having an "open items" list in their report. We have not had a consistent method for this but it is a good consideration.

2. Deficiency items should be discussed in OAC meetings. Some GCs/CMs have a section of the meeting minutes where all can discuss these type of items and there is a log. This way it can also include any design team consultant report items (or anything the owner or contractor bring up also). If the GC/CM does not have this, the Architect can request this be added to the meeting and minutes. I have yet to have a project where the GC/CM has refused to do this. This has been more successful at keeping items on everyone's radar.

3. How does an item get closed? I think an open item should be closed out by the entity who created the open item, after receiving photos or other documentation from the GC/CM that it has been corrected and is ready for review.

 

We have been trying out different methods of generating the report to find the right fit for efficiency and output, whether Word or a program like some others have mentioned. Regardless of the platform, the genesis of Janene's original question highlights some good things to think about.

------------------------------
Sharon Day AIA
GWWO Architects
Baltimore MD
------------------------------