Games that Contractors Play

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 602 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 08:57 pm:    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. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 62 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 09:02 pm:    Do a search on "Contractors Guide to Change Orders" Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 190 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 02:16 am:    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 David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 97 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 09:02 am:    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. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 189 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 09:55 am:    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. Julie Root Senior Member Username: julie_root Post Number: 45 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 11:58 am:    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! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 191 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 12:20 pm:    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". Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 192 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 12:28 pm:    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!!!!!!!! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 302 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 12:40 pm:    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 things—and 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. That’s 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. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 63 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 12:40 pm:    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. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 64 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 12:42 pm:    Ralph, if that PPT is under 11mb, I would love an emailed copy of it. nwoods@mve-architects.com Julie Root Senior Member Username: julie_root Post Number: 46 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 12:52 pm:    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? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 303 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 01:20 pm:    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] Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 294 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 01:21 pm:    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. Steve Talanian Senior Member Username: stalanian Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2005 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 01:29 pm:    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! Julie Root Senior Member Username: julie_root Post Number: 47 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 01:39 pm:    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. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 603 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 02:14 pm:    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! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 304 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 02:44 pm:    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!] Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 67 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, January 27, 2006 - 03:12 pm:    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! J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 173 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 09:17 am:    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. Dean E. McCarty Senior Member Username: dean_e_mccarty Post Number: 17 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 03:10 pm:    Again, late to the party on this one, but here goes. I had attended a meeting several years ago. I don’t 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 firm’s stance was that there would be no change orders on their projects (and it might have been only for one of this firm’s specific clients) and if the discrepancy wasn’t 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? Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 305 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 05:06 pm:    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. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 155 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 08:35 pm:    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. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 479 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 09:12 am:    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. Tom Heineman (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 10:40 am:    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. Dean McCarty, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: dean_e_mccarty Post Number: 19 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 11:04 am:    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 don’t 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. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 127 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 11:31 am:    There is an archived "Related Documents" thread: related documents George Ouvina (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 02:42 am:    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. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 247 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 10:58 am:    "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. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 145 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 11:05 am:    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. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 146 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 11:08 am:    allude oops ;) Anonymous   Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 11:34 am:    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. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 79 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 11:44 am:    "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 owner’s 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 architect’s 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 Owner’s 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! Owner’s 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. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 69 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 12:06 pm:    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. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 145 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 12:33 pm:    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.