Should Architect help Contractor repair?

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 843 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:09 pm:    The Contractor on a recent project totally screwed up a few items. The Owner and Contractor are looking towards the Architect for remedies and solutions (in lieu of replacement). Is it the Architect's job to solve problems created by the Contractor? Should the Architect tell the Contractor to tear it out and rebuild it like the Contract Documents? If the Architect does make recommendations for repair instead of replacement, should the Architect as for additional services? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 497 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:34 pm:    it is the Owner's call and if the Architect does anything, its extra services TO THE OWNER. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 574 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:38 pm:    Need first to talk turkey with the owner-- repairs are not what you contracted or are paying for! If at all possible with owner's consent and authority, reject the work and order it re-done. "Designing" repairs is hazardous and places undue and unnecessary liability on the architect [especially if solutions don't work]. Should, as a last resort, repairs be OK'd by owner, make sure the contractor understands [provide written information here] that they will pay your bills in full [before you provide the documents!!!] Bottom line-- try to win over owner and reject the work. And since there have been other screw-ups consider replacing contractor. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 289 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:46 pm:    Under AIA A201 (Article 12), "The Contractor shall promptly correct Work rejected by the Architect or failing to conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents.... Costs of correcting such rejected Work, including ....compensation for the Architect's services and expenses made necessary thereby, shall be at the Contractor's expense." The Contractor's obligation is to provide work conforming to the Contract Documents. If that means removal and replacement, then so be it. If that can be accomplished through repair, then so be it. The bottom line is that the finished work result, whether through repair or replacement, must conform to the contract documents. The Owner always has the right to accept non-conforming work, and has a right to an adjustment of contract sum for doing so. To the extent that the repaired work still does not conform to the contract requirements, then it could be argued that compensation would be due the Ownwer. But keep in mind that you may have language in your contract documents allowing repair, either in Division 01 or within the spec section defining the screwed up items. But whether or not the Owner is compensated for accepting non-conforming work, it would seem to me that the A/E under the A201 has a right to be compensated if there are additional services to correct the work. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 148 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 02:54 am:    I do not believe that you have any realistic option but to get involved. In some cases your client may be willing to settle for a less than perfect solution rather than have the project delayed. Remember your obligation is to your client. Discuss the issues with him. The courts in some cases have held that if the cost of redoing the repairs was significantly more expensive than the economic loss to the owner resulting from the repairs that it was unfair to require the contractor to tear out and rebuild the work. If you believe that this is the case discuss the issue with your client and advise him of this issue. Maybe he is willing to pay the additional cost to have the work redone. Another pragmatic reason for working with the Contractor to design repairs is the reality that when a Contractor loses money the likelihood of litigation and claims of negligence go up significantly. Also I believe that we have a legal obligation to help minimize the expense of repairs to the Contractor when not in conflict with our other obligations. This being said you do not have to loose money while helping. First notify the Contractor that he has the option of tearing out the defected work and constructing it in compliance with the documents. Notify the Contractor that, if he does not wish to do this, you will be willing to help develop a resolution to the problem if he pays your fees. Reference Section 12.2.1 of A201. Randy Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 36 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 07:32 am:    We try to keep an arms length relationship with the Contractor regarding additional services, and have had additional services paid by the Owner, and then recaptured or not by the Owner from the Contractor.