Substantial Completion punch list?

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

Author Message Bill Morley Senior Member Username: billm Post Number: 20 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 03:52 pm:    A201 Art. 9.8 Substantial Completion says "When the Contractor considers that the Work is substantially complete ...the Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Architect a comprehensive list..." In the recent OAC meeting the contractor announced that they were ready for me to start running my punch list. When I suggested that the contractor should provide the architect with a comprehensive list, the contractor (and the Owner) reacted incredulously. I explained that when we performed the substantial completion inspection, we would compare the contractor’s list with what we found, and provide a supplemental list, if necessary. I explained that it wasn’t appropriate for me to inspect the Work and provide them a list of the incomplete work before they had bothered to look at their own work. They reacted with more incredulity. The contractor said “Boy, you guys sure have an unusual way of doing things.” I expect that most architects are ready to run to the jobsite, notebook in hand, geared up to provide the contractor with the official punch list that the contractor can’t seem to finish a project without. The contractors expects to be provided with a list. The owners expect it. Other architects in this office expect it. Is there a disparity between Standard Operating Procedure and the General Conditions here? Have I misinterpreted the intent of Article 9.8? Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 338 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 04:09 pm:    Yes, there is a HUGE disparity between what Contractors have trained Owners to expect, and what AIA says the Architect should do. Sadly, most Architects comply with the "Owners's (re: contractor's) desires because we always are so eager to keep the Owner happy, and truthfully, the results are often better if the Architect controls the process, and we are to endeavor to guard against defects, right? But I'm with you, I ALWAYS educate the Contractor and Owner on how closeout shoulda-oughta work. It starts with definations. It's not a punchlist, it's the Contractor's Correction List. It must be submitted to the Architect along with the Notice of Completion, and we use that list, combined with a preliminary walk, to determine if they are ready for the punchwalk. The Punchwalk is when we determine that they are Substantially Complete, and that the Owner can take Beneficial Occupancy (or use) of the Building. During this Punchwalk, the Contractor updates and annotates the Contractor's Correction List, based on my observations and Inspection for Substantial Completion. Once the walk is complete, and if there are no code violations or life-saftey issues, and all outstanding items are accomplishable in a given time frame (often 30 days), I will establish that date as Date of Substantial Completion. I will then receive the updated, consolidated list from the Contractor, review it for accuracy, then Issue the Substantial Completion Certification form and attached the Contractor's Completion List to it. ...or I just do the darn thing myself when the Owner leans on me. Ellis C. Whitby, AIA, PE, CSI, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 65 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 04:15 pm:    IMHO: no. Did you ask the Contractor (and Owner) if they had read the specifications? On second thought, I guess asking the Owner that would “not be good.” Contractors often try to put this stunt, and I have always rejected it. If it is in the CDs, then they have to do it. If we have to do a punch without a contractor list it is at least an additional service. Usually, until the contractor provides a punchlist we do not show up for a substantial completion. In a very few jobs, the Owner required us to perform a punch without a list from the Contractor, but these were performed only because the project principal determined that we had to "for business reasons". These were often projects were the Owner had already excused the Contractor from various contract provisions (often without telling us) during bid negotiations. Rich Gonser AIA CSI CCCA Senior Member Username: gonserarch Post Number: 25 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 05:01 pm:    FYI, on a CM job, I'll make the CM do it before I look at it. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 434 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 05:13 pm:    In the local CSI chapter CDT classis, I always go over AIA A 201 in some detail even though that level of detail is not covered on the exam. There are always things that jump out at me that contractors claim they have never done or been responsible for. The Submittal Schedule is one of those itmes; punch lists are another. I believe that the wording for these items goes back to the '70s (at least). These guys simply push off everything they can on the Architect unless they are called. It is so easy for a contractor with even a minimal amount of experience to get even an experienced architect to do a lot of his work. I take the fact that such requirements have been in AIA A 201 for a long time to mean that a large portion of the construction industry does do it this way, and the contractor is ignorant of standard industry practices. I would suggest that some of this should be reviewed in the preconstructon meeting. MasterSpec includes a "Pre-Closeout Meeting" to address what is going to happen at this time and who is responsible. This would be another time to make sure the contractor understands his contractural duties. Oh, and we should remember that the contractor's "general conditions" costs (which incudes this sort of thing) is usually equal to or greater than the design fee, and may be twice the net fees (the part the architect gets to keep after paying consultants). Overhead and profit is on top of that. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 986 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 05:22 pm:    forgive me, but it is Friday afternoon (even on the west coast). if the contractor doesn't prepare the punch list; won't break up the specs and drawings into bidding packages (we're supposed to do that too); won't read the documents, find the suppliers, or even know what an ASTM is, what is it they are being paid to do, again? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 348 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, July 30, 2010 - 05:34 pm:    The following three paragraphs describe a short method of inspection/takeover. .1 Prior to application for certificate of Substantial Completion, carefully inspect the Work and ensure it is complete, that major and minor construction deficiencies are complete and/or corrected and the building is clean and in condition for occupancy. Notify the Architect in writing, of satisfactory completion of the Work and request an inspection. .2 During the Architect inspection, a list of deficiencies and defects will be tabulated. Correct same. .3 When the Architect considers deficiencies and defects have been corrected and it appears requirements of the Contract have been performed, make application for certificate of Substantial Completion. Refer to General Conditions Article GC 9 for specifics to application. Bill Morley Senior Member Username: billm Post Number: 21 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, August 02, 2010 - 02:18 pm:    Thanks guys. That helps. Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 21 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2010 - 04:10 pm:    We have a very comprehensive section that deals with closeout procedures. Due to Construction Lien legislation in Ontario, it is possible to achieve partial occupancy of a building or part thereof with achieving "Substantial Performance of the Work". (I actually had a project that had 4 phases where the majority of the cash value of the Contract (approx. 80%) was completed in the first 2 phases, the Contractor applied for Substantial Performance and Release of General Holdback, we refused and the Owner was taken to court to try and force payment. The judge ruled against the Contractor and in favour of our interpretation...and oddly enough the case was used as an example at a Construction Law seminar I attended). And yes, even with the requirements spelled out there are still some Contractors who try and download it to the Consultant. I don't know how helpful it would be to anyone, but if anyone is interested, send me an e-mail and I will send a copy. Anne...I believe the curt answer to your question may be "glorified babysitters and paper pushers" in some extremely bad examples. Long gone are the days when Contractors actually "built" things...it seems a lot are turning into glorified "flesh peddlers"...although there are still some good ones out there...aren't there??? Ride it like you stole it!!! ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 76 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 01:02 pm:    Anyone ever review the official procedures for Change Orders and Construction Change Directives vs. the way it's 'really' done? According to A201, the A/E is supposed to write this up and send it around; normally it seems that the GC generates the verbiage for the A/E to attach to the form and distribute. Sometimes I think the requirements in A201 are just there to trip people up who are taking their certification exams. Every year when I teach the CDT and CCS prep classes I ask how many people have ever issued, or been issued, a 'Bulletin'. Almost everyone raises their hand. I then ask them to show me where a Bulletin is defined in the Contract Documents. To date, I've never seen a Project Manual define the term. Frustrated yet? Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 56 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 09:51 am:    Maybe my firm is the exception? We actually issue a "Proposed Change" for all changes in the Work. And in 01250 we actually define what a Proposed Change is. When I do CA I will actually send documents back to our Consultants when they issue their first document to me if it is called anything other than a Proposed Change (the old term around here was Contemplated Change Order or Notice). I'm a BIG proponent of consistency in terms, which IMHO eliminates ambiguity for the Contractor/Subcontractors. Maybe our vigilance with this stems from the in-house CA program that was developed a number of years ago whereby we have to have a PC in order to generate a Change Order. With respect to a Change Directive, in the 8 years I have been with this firm I have never seen one issued. We typically use this as a last-ditch "sledgehammer" to force the Contractor to respond to a change in the Work when we have not been able to come to agreement on pricing. I have in the past (when I have a good working relationship with a GC) when time is of the essence issued a Proposed Change outlining the scope and given the Contractor direction to proceed on a T&M basis. There is also verbiage included noting that the Contractor needs to provide copies of material invoices and signed timesheets in order to get paid. Ride it like you stole it!!! Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 464 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, December 24, 2010 - 07:58 am:    We've developed and used a document titled "Bulletin" which is incrementally numbered and logged. Each Bulletin is clearly identified as to purpose; either 1) Request for Proposal; 2) Architect's Order for Minor Change (ASI); or 3) Construction Change Directive. Language for each purpose is similar to the language in corresponding AIA CA docs and A201. Single numbering/logging sequence assists with tracking the status of each Bulletin, eliminating the need to track each type of document separately. Administrative Change Orders incorporate Bulletin content in contract when necessary (as with accepted proposals). CA staff seeme to like the system. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1087 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, December 24, 2010 - 02:19 pm:    in my last office, we used "Bulletin" issues in the same way that Phil describes. They sort of collected all the various pieces that needed changing (for whatever reason) and also issued updated sets as they were issued. And the advantage, also as Phil says, is that the bulletins are numbered sequentially, which means that you have one series of numbers, not several of them. The whole series of construction clarifications, changes, updated drawings, changed conditions and what not make a wholly different information stream that is much more complicated to track compared to a decade ago. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 374 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, December 24, 2010 - 06:48 pm:    I personally find the ASI process to be more trouble than it's worth. If you have a minor change or correction, I find it vastly easier to call up my contractor and tell them I have an answer, send me a question!. That way, all we have to track is the RFI stream instead of two seperate streams of documents. Makes finding things later so much easier! We do use Bulletins, very similarly to PCO's (Proposed Change Orders), which are really Requests for Proposals, though 99% of the time, anything a Bulletin is issued for generally needs to be incorporated into the work for one reason or another. The other tool we use is the CCD, which I LOVE because only two of the three parties need to sign it to be binding, and you can direct the contractor to proceed and price concurrently (argue about it later). Very effective to reduce delays to the project. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 01:41 pm:    Nathan, the difference is that an RFI response does not change the Contract Documents, but an Order for Minor Changes does. There are times when that matters. There are also times when a minor change is not related to any question that a contractor would logically ask based on the content of the Contract Documents. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 910 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, December 27, 2010 - 05:15 pm:    I agree with Unregistered Guest above...an RFI is a clarification and not an instrument for a contract modification. If a question, presented by a contractor in the form of an RFI, requires a minor change to the contract documents, then my reponse to the RFI has always been the issuance of an ASI. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1291 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 09:10 am:    However, what Nathan describes often occurs for things that don't change the docs. A (spoken) conversation takes place, an answer is given: then to "record" the conversation, contractor issues RFI, architect answers. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 911 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:21 am:    That is the purpose of the RFI. If the contractor has a question about the intent of the documents, is unsure about an item, finds a discrepancy, etc. which does not require a contract modification, then the A/E's response on the RFI is all that is probably needed. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1292 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:30 am:    I guess my point was, sometimes the issue is already discussed/decided, but the architect says "send me an RFI on that." Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 912 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2010 - 11:42 am:    Ah, understood. I agree...I have done that on occasion, too. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 66 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 - 08:42 am:    The discussion has ignored one important method of communicating with the contractor and resolving questions during construction: the regular progress meetings. Asking and answering questions at progress meetings allows the issue to be documented in the meeting minutes and ends the discussion without additional paper work. I try to encourage this approach by specifying that questions be presented at progress meetings before submitting an RFI. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 376 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 12:36 pm:    Quote: "Nathan, the difference is that an RFI response does not change the Contract Documents, but an Order for Minor Changes does. There are times when that matters. There are also times when a minor change is not related to any question that a contractor would logically ask based on the content of the Contract Documents." I'm not sure I agree. I have been in too many legal proceedings where the RFI response was treated as authoritative direction to the contractor modifying what may been shown elsewhere in the documents. Yes, an ASI is an appropriately described document establishing a minor change not affecting cost or time, but RFI's are treated the same way by viturally everyone in the real world and the legal world (not the same thing!), who treat RFI's as such. The reality is that if an ASI or RFI creates a cost or time impact, they will end up being converted into a PCO/COR and eventually into a formal Change Order. If you don't have the opportunity for weekly meetings, the RFI is really the only way the contractor has to communicate with the Architect. I do not discourage the RFI process. It is healthy to have a good dialoge. The challenge is in training the contractor's junior project "engineer" how to think, how to read plans, and what is his scope verses the architect's, and what is a proper RFI. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 353 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 03:16 pm:    RFIs become direction for change when it is clear that the design professional treats them as such. If you treat the REF as direction and then they will be considered as direction. When the response necessitates a change it is not that hard to issue preliminary sketches with the note that a formal change order will be issued. When you do this it will be clear that they are not direction to proceed. In the "real world" decisions are often made in conflict with logic. The fact that individuals ignore the documents does not invalidate what they say. The contractor often finds it to his advantage to talk about "the real world" as justification for his actions but we should not fall into the trap that just because somebody got away with it once that it is always true. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1091 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 06:10 pm:    And you can always modify your contract general and supplementary conditions to make the RFI be an actual change document. I would say that half the offices I've worked in have developed their own contract administration forms and then modified the various (contract, general conditions, division 01, etc) documents in order to enforce their document decision making process.