Games that Contractors Play

Specification & Product Discussions Construction Contract Administration Discussions
21

Again, late to the party on this one, but here goes.

I had attended a meeting several years ago. I dont even remember what the meeting was about. I do remember that one of the presenters talked about how his design firm included specification language that required (not recommended) pre-bid meeting attendance or the bidder was disqualified from bidding the project.

It was further specified that at this meeting the bidders were required to either bring up discrepancies that they found in the documents or forever hold their piece. This particular firms stance was that there would be no change orders on their projects (and it might have been only for one of this firms specific clients) and if the discrepancy wasnt presented at the pre-bid meeting, then too bad. No extra money for the contractor.

It seemed like this process worked rather well for this design firm. There would, however, have to be ways to deal with exceptions to this practice, but this is the just of that meeting. Do any of you practice this way?

22

Dean-
some years ago I did a couple of FHA (Federal Housing Authority) projects and they did run their projects that way. the Project Manager for the FHA told me to make sure my fee was about 50% more than usual, because they simply did not permit any change orders on their projects once the bids were taken, and he wanted to pay for a set of coordinated documents. I was sceptical, but they were the only housing builder in town at that time and they wanted a good product.

I’ve never seen that happen in private work, or for that matter on any other public work. I thought it was smart though – to pay us for the proper job at a time when it would actually make a difference in the documents.

23

Frankly Dean, I’d call that “games architects play.” In 35 years of practice I have yet to see a perfectly-coordinated set of documents, and we all know that the standard practice of care by which design professionals are judged does not require perfectly-coordinated documents.

That said, it is unrealistic to expect bidders, with just a couple of weeks to review a set of documents before a pre-bid meeting, to find all discrepancies, and then to penalize them for not doing so. I think that stance would just exacerbate an adversarial architect-contractor relationship.

And while requiring attendance at a pre-bid meeting is a good idea, on some public work such attendance cannot be required.

24

I agree with Dave. Every single ambiguity cannot be ferreted out by bidders during the bid process. If they could do that, surely the architect who prepared the documents over months could have found every one too–and of course they do not. Thus, when an amibuity–or some gaping hole, perhaps–becomes known, the contractor is at the mercy of whatever interpretation may come. Contractors would have to include in their bids a figure that represents what the likely change orders would be, escalating prices. Those who don’t will be sure to cut every corner they can to keep their costs in line, reducing quality. Makes no sense to me.

25

How can a bidder find all the errors if he has only the last 2 weeks (effectively) of his 4 week bid period to discover them and get them on record? The architect may have had all of 8 weeks to do the entire project and get it right!

Of course the specs are started about 3 weeks from the drop-dead date (from incomplete plots) and are finished (but not coordinated) by 3 PM on the last day. That way, just about all the problems in the documents have to be picked up in the one hour before the documents are sent out for printing.

I always wish that the owner will hit a snag and call the architect on the day we are to be complete (no earlier), asking us to delay issue for one week or even two! Then we will be able to finish the details, get the engineers work, finish the specs, and see if they all dovetail.

Instead of all this, ideally we would have a sacred, inviolable week for checking and coordination built into our owner-architect agreements, but:
That is extremely rare
That gets violated left and right by more pressing concerns.

Now we are talking about a game OWNERS should play - not contractors.

Why would an owner shift responsibility to the bidders to find our mistakes when we know a way it can be done better, with less fuss and paper loaded on us? Lots of the owner-driven quality assurance by bidders exercise is positioning them for future troublemaking anyway.

Documents quality rests with the design professional (if the owner will just allow); construction quality (not design quality) rests with the contractor.

26

Very good points regarding the almost unrealistic ideal of requiring the bidders to bring up any last discrepancies at the pre-bid meeting. I agree that it is likely that the design team won’t catch all the errors and omissions before the documents hit the street. We have all received copies of modifications. But Anne described to us not only projects on which this process was successful, but she noted the likely reason why it was successful compensating the design team with the dollars and time to do the job right the first time.

As the saying goes, we dont have time to do it right the first time, but we have the time to do it over. Or something like that.

In a brief story of Games CMs Play, I had been writing specs for about four years when I was captured at a well known local architecture firm. I was assigned a project that was an addition to a homeless shelter. This firm had worked for this Owner and the CM on the few other projects on this site, but this was my first time with either.

For about a year at that time, I had decided to not use the Related Sections Article, except for special circumstances. (Is there a thread on this issue?) A week after the documents were issued to the CM, the CM called me to ask why the Related Sections were missing. He said, I use the Related Sections to put my work groups together. I told him that is not the purpose of the Related Sections and thanked him for reinforcing my decision not to use this Article. Does this count as a game?

Incidentally, Dave, it seems to me that in the scenario I brought up originally in this thread was instigated by the owner of said project. The architect was only playing the game that owners play. I think, though, that architects have plenty of other games that they play.

27

There is an archived “Related Documents” thread:

related documents

28

We all forget that architects and engineers have made the set of specifications and drawings. “The blame game should be the tittle of the book.” Plenty of times they do not revise the drawings or specifications. Architects want to look good for the owner and yet blame the contractor for all their errors. As a contractor I can say there is too many bad contractors out there, yet I have met my share of bad architects and engineers. In consideration to contractors, we all tend to forget the cost involved in public work. There is a reputation that all contractors are making too much money in change orders. Who should take the blame ? In reality is the responsability of the architect or engineer to ensure perfect drawings and specifications.

29

“Perfect drawings and specifications”???

Yeah, like perfect construction.

There are lots of reasons why projects have problems. Imperfect drawings and specifications are only one reason. Irresponsible design professionals are another. Incompetence is a malady that can run through the entire design-construct team.

Remedies have been proposed. Partnering (works until the first conflict that costs someone money). Design-build (faster, better, cheaper … choose two). And now BIM.

Having survived battles in the military construction world of outright malicious contractors while simultaneously doing construction contract administration on projects at State and local levels, I can say that when people of good will come together cooperatively and focus on accomplishing the goal of constructing the project, the result can be satisfaction with a well-built facility, giving the owner value for its money and the designers and constructors do well financially.

30

Although I am an advocate for the possibilities of BIM. I am the first to say that this tool is by NO means a solution to construction problems. As you elude to, Garbage in garbage out.

31

allude

oops :wink:

32

HAH! Perfect Drawings??? You gotta be kidding me. What are you going to say when I take a magnet to your drywall and tell you your screw is 12-1/2 inches away from the next one? The biggest problem in construction now a days is the contractor not willing to make a move until he is directed, with the architect holding his hand. Contractors never needed to have their hands held before, like they do now. I’ve got a project with a 60 foot wide space. There was a 5/8 inch dimension bust. (Yes, we blew the dimension. I’ll admit it the drawings were not “PERFECT”.) The contractor would not budge for 2 weeks, would not start building the space until revised drawings were issued. You gotta be kidding me. What architect will find the 5/8 in 60 feet. Just build it and stop playing the stupid “extras” games. One day I WILL do my inspection with a magnet and a ten foot straight edge and tell you to pull out all your drywall. Perfect? HAH!

Sorry for mincing my words.

33

“In reality is the responsibility of the architect or engineer to ensure perfect drawings and specifications.”

George, I generally hold Contractors in high regard. They have a difficult job and I recognize that. However, it appears that you do not quite get it if the statement above is an accurate representation of your beliefs.

One scenario: Perhaps you’ve heard the term “developers set”, which describes a practice put into play at least 20 years ago, where developers would commission architects to design a project but provide only a minimalist set of documents. They would resolve many of the gaps themselves in the field, and preferred the flexibility in selecting materials, detailing, etc, rather than having them proscribed by an architect who would be more likely to choose an expensive, durable, less litigation prone material.

Sadly, the developers set has now become the norm, because the owners feel in love with the shortened delivery times of the construction documents, as well as the reduced fees the architects had to charge for them. This means that our drawings are almost always never as complete as they were the past. We have neither the fee, schedule, nor owners permission to prepare them to our own ideal standards.

This leaves you the Contractor out in the cold. The owner forgets that the architects set is minimalist, promises you a “complete set of Construction documents”, and then we all expect you to stand in the gap and make up the difference. And that used to happen! But it does not seem to happen anymore. The contractors I am dealing with today don’t solve problems, they don’t actually build anything, they have become what I call “paper generals”.

Contractors have become adroit at turning the responsibility to the A/E and or the Owner.

In this scenario, the Architects fee is consumed by excessive construction administration costs, because the contractor creates a large number of unscreened RFI’s, submits poorly coordinated and often unreviewed submittals, passes through every substitution without any pre-qualification (often well after the time for substitution consideration has lapsed), and in general, just becomes more “needy” than in times past.

In the past, for many types of construction the architects CA budget was 10%. These days 30% is becoming more normal, and is still insufficient at times.

Is it fair to expect the GC to make up the difference between a minimalist set of construction documents and the Owners expectation of a change order free project? No, or course not. But is it fair to expect the architect to provide what amounts to an extended amount of service on a reduced fee and schedule budget? Certainly not.

So rather than poke at each other, we need to band together and educate the Owner! Owners have become adverse at taking on risk, but they are the sole beneficiary of the end result of the work, thus they should and must bear the majority of the risk. Your efforts and mine are much better spent convincing the Owner of their responsibility, explaining to them the basic tenants of fair pay and compensation, and above all, working together to survive the project profitably, as opposed to the mutually assured destruction of a litigious project.

34

I think that the point that George was making is that there are times when the drawings could be better and the Contractor makes an honest interpretation and is then blamed for the problem. This is in part due to the reluctance by the design professional to admit that he could have done better and as a result he rationalizes that the Contractor was at fault. This is a human failing that we should all be sensitive to.

While I agree that there is never a perfect set of documents the contracts on many projects assume that they are. In this context when there is a mistake in the documents the Contractor often has a valid claim. We may not feel that these claims are moraly justifiable even though they are legally justifiable. As administrators of the contract it behoves us to put our moral indignation aside and focus on the legal issues. This is not easy because we are human but it is something we should strive for.

35

Owners hire architects, engineers and other licensed professionals for our special skills and expertise. We are duty bound and legally required to exercise the ordinary competence and care typical of members of our profession: the famous or infamous Standard of Care. We are providing a service, not a guarantee of infallibility. The architect who claims the ability to produce a perfect set of documents is a fool, but not as big a fool as the owner who hires him.