I am firmly convinced that contractors play games in low bid public projects in order to get more money from the job. Don’t get me wrong, sometimes they are owed additional money but most of the time they are just “trying to get blood from a turnip”.
Are there any books that would explain their tactics? I would especially like to learn how to short cut their strategy and put an end to the game playing.
Do a search on “Contractors Guide to Change Orders”
Take a look at “Construction Nightmares -Jobs from Hell and How to Avoid Them” by Arthur F O’Leary & James Acret, published by BNI, 2nd edition
Civitello’s book 'Contractor’s Guide to Change Orders" is indeed a good resource - and eye opener. I have also found that diligence and commitment to preparing a well coordinated set of documents, and having an experienced person doing the construction contract administration, is another good way of minimizing the number of “weapons” the architect contributes to the contractor’s arsenal.
Unfortunately, they don’t publish a book “How to Negotiate Higher Fees So The Architect Can Spend The Necessary Time To Avoid These Types of Problems in The First Place.” It’d probably be a best seller.
In contractors’ defense, public sector bidding, which is driven entirely by low bid, interferes with normal relationships between contractors and subcontractors. When a using a negotiated contract, as we do with most of our private sector work, there is more give-and-take and collaborative problem solving, as the entities involved have ongoing relationships they want to maintain.
As far as higher fees go, architects suffer as a result of the “architect good guy, contractor bad guy” perception. Contractors are seen as hard-core, profit-driven people, and their lack of social skills is accepted because “that’s the way they are.” Architects, in contrast, are seen as service providers, dignified people who are expected to do whatever is necessary to make the owner happy without stooping to the level of common businesses that expect to get paid for what they do.
There is no difference between a contractor asking for more money to do something that was not in the contract, and an architect asking to be paid for additional services. The owner architect agreement provides for this possibility, yet it appears few architects want to annoy the owner by asking for more money.
Many years ago I went to a seminar on ‘Contractor’s Guide to Change Orders’. I still see it being offered from time to time. I was a field engineer for a contractor at the time. Working for a GC of the the best experiences I could have done as a young architect. I really had new insight into RFIs, Change Orders, and getting paid for work done.
I totally agree with Sheldon. Architects have contributed as much to the system as contractors. The best reaction I get in the office is when I tell young architects ‘If we want the design be executed well… we have to take responsibility for the detailing.’ They often gasp like responsibility is death. In the second breath I tell them ‘It is okay. We are smart and we can figure it out. Don’t freak out over taking responsibility…in the end you will be glad you did.’
Architect have certain lack of social skills that are also accepted. It is like the Emperor’s New Clothes model. We think we are dignified people, but when you get to the end you are naked and it is the contractor saying - Hey buddy you have no clothes on!
Ok so why doesn’t some one write a book on “Games Contractors Play” or “Architects versus Contractors - Let the Games Begin” or “Everything you wanted to know about Construction without really crying” - I’ll be at the SCIP and CSI conferences in NV let’s get the ball rolling…actually that was a typo, should bhave been “trying”.
By the way, whoever writes this book, please note it can not be 600 pages long…seriously we don’t have time to read it - how about a nice 100 page book with specific solutions to Contractyor Nightmares - I’m placing my preorder now!!!
How about a 44 slide PowerPoint presentation I have ready for a trial over change orders?
Just a comment–
I agree with the general direction of this thread, but we do need to remember some thingsand then move on or from them.
First, construction is an imperfect science, performed by humans who are open to error, miscalculations, and inaccuracies.
But in the very same direction, construction is in exactly the same boat perfumed by humans [who can erroneously input CAD equipment]; open to errors of various kinds, along with miscalculations and inaccuracies.
Without a contractual provision requiring a perfect project [either in documentation or construction we legally need not be perfect!
So OK, now, we all make mistakes. The problem is that the contractors often find the mistakes more quickly than the professionals, and have no reluctance to seek added compensation for added work. Thats the American way!
Now, the temptation to pad the cost of added work is irresistible, and so common it is almost impossible to find unless the cost submitted is so egregious that it jumps off the page. The upper hand lies, there, with the contractor, who finds the error, and submits a cost knowing full well the added work is required and will more than likely, be done at the cost he/she submits.
Is this a game? Yes, I guess you can say that, but at the same time it is also, 1]long established SOP, 2] commonly performed, 3] virtually impossible to stop, and 4] serves to further reduce the fee profit garnered by the design professional [since they find it hard to prove their worth to the owner so they can also request added fading.
The need, perhaps, is better education of our clients, and fully disclosure of the reality of construction, particularly in the realm of "perfection as an unachievable desire-- and how this must be understood and dealt with.
We need to continue to do our best, improve our skills, ensure we have ample time[and fee] to perform an objective document review prior to bidding, and strength to continue to stand firm in the processing and changes.
The CSI Construction Administration Academy is a good forum for this, and offers the opportunity to have real live contractors to interrogate discuss this with. Last year there was only one sole brave contractor to play with (and let’s be honest, he had too darn much trustworthiness and integrity to really be valuable).
The session from the Clients perspective with J. Stuart Eckblad was really really good on this topic. He was the PM for Kaiser (major healthcare provide) and was responsible for getting wayward projects (many of them public bid), back on track. He had some terrific suggestions and really great ways to implement corrective action to bring jobs back from the brink.
Ralph, if that PPT is under 11mb, I would love an emailed copy of it. nwoods@mve-architects.com
Jerome - I like the ‘crying’ title. I will be at the CSI conference and I am interested in thinking about a book or something on the subject.
Anyone else?
OK, you guys had to drag it out of me!
I am not sure that it covers the full breadth of this topic, and I am sure that another 100 pages is not unreasonable for a new effort, but you might care to check Chapter 10, and other references in my book, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, out of Prentice-Hall.
Try to make this effort a look at CCA fromthe architect/engineer view point, per publisher’s idea. Again may not be a full and complete as you wish, but might e a place to start.
[It goes cheap [when used] on amazon.com]
I think as architects, we also have to take responsibility for good communication, which can lessen the contractor risk, and the price. Too often I see older specs in our office that say “match the Architect’s sample” with no hint of what that might be; we have been mercurial in accepting things on one job and not on another – entirely dependent on the project manager – we hastily detail something and expect it to be filled in with what we want instead of what is typical; and I’ve heard people say “if it can be conceived, it can be built”. (yes, but at what price). I saw a set of documents with the comment after an in-house review that the project “was only whimsically connected to the budget”.
back to David’s comment: contractors are businessmen and I don’t think the play games that much, but they definitely don’t do any work for free – and some designers get offended by that aspect. the younger people in our firms often have very little clue that the first thing we have to do is make enough money to be in business tomorrow. design comes after that.
I would like the powerpoint, too, please.
Please e-mail me (stalanian@metropolitandoor.com) a copy of that power point presentation too. My company is often in the middle between the contractor and the architect. The architect says (or specs) one thing then the contractor “tells” us another so they can save $…but when the !@#$ hits the fan the contractor wipes there hands of it and does NOT want to take ANY responsibilty…and they try to fall back on the specs!
Thanks Ralph.. I would also appreciate a copy of the Power Point - jroot@gonzalezgoodale.com
Anne - Totally agree. On the comment about younger people having a clue…we just had a younger designer make a big fuss over not going to a competition site in Warsaw, Poland in an effort to do the competition ‘right’ and he named of Starchitects who send whole teams for competitions. This guy is smart (Harvard Grad), but has no clue how business works.
Steve - I am amazed how the specs are the fall back. I am working on a presentation for my firm for late spring entitled - Specifications: What you DO NOT know WILL hurt DESIGN.
I am forever greatful to a third year professor that made us write several specification sections in school.
Anne,
I don’t have a problem with contractors making money. I also don’t have a problem when contractors get extra money when there is a conflict in the documents.
I have a problem when the contractor does not read the specs and bids whatever he did on the previous job. Then sends his incomplete submittals after the materials are ordered and on the job site and while installation is taking place. Then gets furious when we reject his submittal and he tells the owner that it will cost more to provide what we specified and it will disrupt the schedule.
Some how the contractor’s problem has become the architect’s problem. We are made to look like the bad guy when we did nothing wrong and are just doing our job to look our for the owner’s best interest.
That’s what I have a problem with!
David, we need to talk longer and better to our client and in a context other than programming the project. They need to know what will go on, and what MIGHT go on. Remember, we are there BEFORE the contractor, so it is in our own best interest to stake our “claim” [strike that!!!] position early-on and firmly. We are hired by the client, BUT WE must get the client on our side!!! If we are agent to the client, isn’t it a good idea to have the client support us?
Hey, ain’t that a “heady” idea???
[I’ll do 200 pages on that one!]
The following are my suggestions based on my experience on all three sides of the design and construction process (arhitect, owner, and contractor).
I would suggest that before you bid the next public bid project, that you meet with the public owner and discuss the problems you have had on past projects and the resulting negative reprocussions. Then propose the measures you would like to try to avoid them on this project - get owner buy in - get the owner’s committment to back you up in the enforcement of the contractural requirements that have been ignored in the past.
Have a serious discussion about these types of problems with the sucessful contractor during the preconstruction meeting. Publish the subject(s) on an agenda ahead of time so that the contractor is prepared to dicuss them. Point out specific contractural requirements that will be enforced and that excuses will not be excepted - this will be most effective when stated with the owner present and in agreement. At the same time ask the contractor to come to the meeting with a list of his concerns and things that the architect and owner could do to help make a sucessful project. Try to get the discussion to the point of discussing the critical issues for this particular project from all three points of view. Find out what are the most important issues each party is concerned about on the project and what the other parties can do to help facilitate sucessful solutions.
In my experiece a project will never be sucessfully produced by people who make a game of fighting over contracts - sucessful projects only result from architect/engineers, owners, and contractors/subcontractors who are willing to work together. It is easier to work together under some project delivery methods in comparison to others (public bid lump sum contracts is not one of the easier ones), but no matter what the method or type of contract, you can also make a fight out of it. The goal is to try to get everyone working to acheive a sucessful project, feel good about it, and still make some money along the way.
I would suggest that going off to your own corner and coming up with a “fighting plan” is not going to solve the problem - it the end it will only heighten the conflict. It is better to talk with the “enemy” and see what you can do to resolve issues and help each other.
Some other ways to attack this is to invite a contractor to come to your office and discuss their problems - expose the staff to the contactor’s problems from the contractor’s point of view - educate the staff who have not had experience out on the construction site - what are typical deficiences in contract documents and what in the construction contract administration process cause them problems. Another great place to do this is at a CSI chapter meeting with a panel representing the different roles. Once you get the communication going it is no longer a one-way street and each of the parties has an opportunity to express their issues and listen to the issues of others - it can become an ongoing dialogue.
If we are going to do a book it should be titled “Games that Contractors, Architect/Engineers, and Owners Play.” It’s a three way street and all three parties have been know to play games!
In our part of the country, we are seeing more and more projects run with relatively inexperienced engineers and superintendents (sorta mirrors practice). Many times our response is (or should be) look at the Drawings / Specifications; however, we will be a little more helpful in some cases in the interest of moving the project along. I have also observed on more than one occasion that I felt that the Contractor was trying to make his problem our problem. When we pair inexperienced design staff with inexperienced building staff, the project is difficult to keep on track.