Construction Contract Administration

Sean Catherall has responded accurately to Ms. Day's post and others that purport to require their firm's CA administrators essentially perform "inspections" rather than observations in accordance with the requirements of the AIA A201. I would, however, extend Mr. Catherall's statements to advise that if a firm has such a document in its office procedures manual detailing this level of "inspection" that they are vastly extending their risk as such procedures are discoverable in litigation. If an administrator fails to identify a defect that should have been identified pursuant to its procedures manual, then it may not be able to rely on being shielded by the established Standard of Care. Further, PL insurance may deny coverage.

Procedures for performing CA observations should closely follow the Architect's contractual obligations set forth in the A201 and rely on experience to generally identify nonconformity.

Thank you Sharon and others for sharing thoughts on what to look for while on site, very helpful. There seems to be some push back about what is an "inspection" vs "observation" and how that opens up an architect to liability...which is a shame because it seemingly relegates an architect to being a warm body on site just so they can check a box saying, "yep I was on site as required by my agreement" while providibg minimal value to the client out of fear of getting sued for "looking too closely at something". Most industries try to expand their knowledge base and value added to clients with stuff like these lists to help fill in gaps in knowledge...not sure why the pushback by some folks. 

Keep on sharing the info Sharon!

Sean Catherall has responded accurately to Ms. Day's post and others that purport to require their firm's CA administrators essentially perform "inspections" rather than observations in accordance with the requirements of the AIA A201. I would, however, extend Mr. Catherall's statements to advise that if a firm has such a document in its office procedures manual detailing this level of "inspection" that they are vastly extending their risk as such procedures are discoverable in litigation. If an administrator fails to identify a defect that should have been identified pursuant to its procedures manual, then it may not be able to rely on being shielded by the established Standard of Care. Further, PL insurance may deny coverage.

Procedures for performing CA observations should closely follow the Architect's contractual obligations set forth in the A201 and rely on experience to generally identify nonconformity.

Chris,

Not true at all. The Architect's role is crucial, but it's the Contractor's duty to build the Project in accordance with the Contract Documents. The Architect is not on site every day and sometimes not even every week and, therefore, cannot perform as an inspector. When on site, the Architect should very diligently observe the Work in progress and report its observations. It should also identify any required correction of Work it observes to not be in conformance.

The point is, unless retained for full time on site services, the Architect (and its Consultants) cannot see everything. Therefore, its duties cannot rise to the level of assuring that Project is being constructed EXACTLY per the Documents.  My point and, I believe, Mr. Catherall's point was that such checklists may inadvertently raise that standard and, therefore, the Architectural firm should be careful not to promise in any way that it will endeavor to identify any and all defects during the course of construction. (Also, the Owner may retain inspection agencies if inspections of every element of the construction is desired.) Any firm procedures for such observations should be carefully constructed to not limit the Architect's careful observation but also not REQUIRE checking ("inspection") of every element.

Personally, I take my CA obligations on site very seriously and perform vigorous and thorough observations and still cannot confirm that every bolt and screw or other elements are correctly in place. I carefully observe the progress and details, and endeavor to assure that the Work, when completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents.

The key is experience. CA personnel should best be highly experienced, and young architects should intern under the tutelage of such veterans for many years until they fully understand their role and responsibility, and, most importantly, understand the construction.

Thank you Sharon and others for sharing thoughts on what to look for while on site, very helpful. There seems to be some push back about what is an "inspection" vs "observation" and how that opens up an architect to liability...which is a shame because it seemingly relegates an architect to being a warm body on site just so they can check a box saying, "yep I was on site as required by my agreement" while providibg minimal value to the client out of fear of getting sued for "looking too closely at something". Most industries try to expand their knowledge base and value added to clients with stuff like these lists to help fill in gaps in knowledge...not sure why the pushback by some folks. 

Keep on sharing the info Sharon!

Sean Catherall has responded accurately to Ms. Day's post and others that purport to require their firm's CA administrators essentially perform "inspections" rather than observations in accordance with the requirements of the AIA A201. I would, however, extend Mr. Catherall's statements to advise that if a firm has such a document in its office procedures manual detailing this level of "inspection" that they are vastly extending their risk as such procedures are discoverable in litigation. If an administrator fails to identify a defect that should have been identified pursuant to its procedures manual, then it may not be able to rely on being shielded by the established Standard of Care. Further, PL insurance may deny coverage.

Procedures for performing CA observations should closely follow the Architect's contractual obligations set forth in the A201 and rely on experience to generally identify nonconformity.

Chris,

Not true at all. The Architect's role is crucial, but it's the Contractor's duty to build the Project in accordance with the Contract Documents. The Architect is not on site every day and sometimes not even every week and, therefore, cannot perform as an inspector. When on site, the Architect should very diligently observe the Work in progress and report its observations. It should also identify any required correction of Work it observes to not be in conformance.

The point is, unless retained for full time on site services, the Architect (and its Consultants) cannot see everything. Therefore, its duties cannot rise to the level of assuring that Project is being constructed EXACTLY per the Documents.  My point and, I believe, Mr. Catherall's point was that such checklists may inadvertently raise that standard and, therefore, the Architectural firm should be careful not to promise in any way that it will endeavor to identify any and all defects during the course of construction. (Also, the Owner may retain inspection agencies if inspections of every element of the construction is desired.) Any firm procedures for such observations should be carefully constructed to not limit the Architect's careful observation but also not REQUIRE checking ("inspection") of every element.

Personally, I take my CA obligations on site very seriously and perform vigorous and thorough observations and still cannot confirm that every bolt and screw or other elements are correctly in place. I carefully observe the progress and details, and endeavor to assure that the Work, when completed, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents.

The key is experience. CA personnel should best be highly experienced, and young architects should intern under the tutelage of such veterans for many years until they fully understand their role and responsibility, and, most importantly, understand the construction.

Thank you Sharon and others for sharing thoughts on what to look for while on site, very helpful. There seems to be some push back about what is an "inspection" vs "observation" and how that opens up an architect to liability...which is a shame because it seemingly relegates an architect to being a warm body on site just so they can check a box saying, "yep I was on site as required by my agreement" while providibg minimal value to the client out of fear of getting sued for "looking too closely at something". Most industries try to expand their knowledge base and value added to clients with stuff like these lists to help fill in gaps in knowledge...not sure why the pushback by some folks. 

Keep on sharing the info Sharon!

Sean Catherall has responded accurately to Ms. Day's post and others that purport to require their firm's CA administrators essentially perform "inspections" rather than observations in accordance with the requirements of the AIA A201. I would, however, extend Mr. Catherall's statements to advise that if a firm has such a document in its office procedures manual detailing this level of "inspection" that they are vastly extending their risk as such procedures are discoverable in litigation. If an administrator fails to identify a defect that should have been identified pursuant to its procedures manual, then it may not be able to rely on being shielded by the established Standard of Care. Further, PL insurance may deny coverage.

Procedures for performing CA observations should closely follow the Architect's contractual obligations set forth in the A201 and rely on experience to generally identify nonconformity.