|Marc C Chavez|
Post Number: 98
|Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
OK my turn. Architect makes "minor" change on submittal and marks as "approved as noted."
Contractor proceeds and presents bill for additional $1600.00 because change in shop drawing needed custom goodie (Architect thought it was standard and required no extra work)
Should the contractor have notified the Owner (at least) of the change and its cost prior to installation?
Is my architect stuck?
Do I have existing language to save Architect at this point?
And where is the language placed to stop this in the future (I assume in 01300 under submittals with a notice to notify the Owner when...)
|Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS |
Post Number: 48
|Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
Check your General and Supplementary Conditions in the article regarding changes. I'm not sure this will apply exactly, and I'm going on memory, but I know if a minor change is made by the A/E in a change directive (ie change with no $ or time affected) the Contractor is supposed to send a notice of a change order If he considers it a cost to the project within so many days of the directive whether he has a price ready or not. If there is a problem, (such as you describe) hopefully it can be addressed before installation can take place.
Hope this helps.
|Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA|
Post Number: 127
|Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
In my submittals section I define what each architect action is. For example, below is what it states for "approved" and "approved as corrected" actions:
1. APPROVED: Fabrication/installation may be undertaken. Approval does not authorize changes to the contract sum or contract time.
2. APPROVED AS CORRECTED: Same as "Approved."
However, you make a valid point in that there're no procedures established for the contractor to follow if a "change" on the submittal increases cost or time; something I might consider.
Otherwise, I think the Architect's Supplemental Instruction (which I believe Margaret was trying to refer to) should be the vehicle used to make minor modifications. Since the architect in your case apparently knew this was a change but thought there was no cost, he should have issued an ASI. If the contractor proceeded with the work, then he has accepted the change and understands it to be at no additional cost or time.
|David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA|
Post Number: 39
|Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
See responses below (IN ALL CAPS).
1. Should the contractor have notified the Owner (at least) of the change and its cost prior to installation? YES, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED AS A CLAIM. PROPOSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
Is my architect stuck? YES, FOR HAVING ADDED SCOPE TO THE PROJECT WITHOUT FIRST ADVISING OR SEEKING APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER (FOR WHICH THEY SHOULD BE DULY FLOGGED). THE OWNER MAY VERY WELL INSIST THE ARCHITECT PAY FOR THE CHANGE. (THE ARCHITECT CANNOT HANG HIS/HER HAT ON THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT PROPERLY FILE A CLAIM. THE CONTRACTOR WILL MERELY REPLY THAT THEY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH ON THE ARCHITECT'S DIRECTION.)
Do I have existing language to save Architect at this point? PROBABLY NOT.
And where is the language placed to stop this in the future (I assume in 01300 under submittals with a notice to notify the Owner when...) THE LANGUAGE IS ALREADY THERE - IN THE GENERAL CONDITIONS. ALL ONE HAS TO DO IS ABIDE BY IT.
SHOP DRAWINGS ARE NOT VEHICLES BY WHICH A PARTY CAN MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONTRACT. THAT'S WHAT CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS ARE FOR. DESIGN PROFESSIONALS DO NOT ALLOW CONTRACTORS TO SLIP IN CHANGES VIA THE SUBMITTAL PROCESS. SIMILARLY, THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SHOULD NOT EITHER.
IF I WERE THE OWNER, I'D TELL THE TWO TO BATTLE IT OUT AMONG THEMSELVES AND LEAVE ME OUT OF IT.
|Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA|
Post Number: 29
|Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
David is correct. Wise people taught me in the past and I try to impart the message to project architects. Submittals are not the place to change the contract for either the architect or the contractor. I constantly warn architects to make sure the contractor is not changing scope or substituting through the submittal process. Nor should it be used to "correct" minor mistakes by the design team. When it happens, the process gets sticky. Keep it clean.
The ASI works well for minor changes which may incur cost or schedule changes. It does not direct the contractor to do anything except present a proposal to the Owner as to what the damage may be. Then an informed decision can be made.
|J. Peter Jordan|
Post Number: 62
|Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
When I was working for various architects more than 30 years ago, it was common to complete designing during the "shop drawing phase." This is not advisable in the current environment. Mr. Combs is absolutely correct when he points out that "Shop Drawings are not vehicles by which a party can make modifications to the Contract." [emphasis deleted]. A sub told me a story several years back about supplying wood trim supplied with a radius that had been changed by the Architect when the Shop Drawings were reviewed. The general contractor refused to pay the sub for the material because it did not conform to the Contract Documents. I feel like the general contractors are playing games at this point in order to get more money from the Owner (or the Architect) or keep more money from the sub; however, they are simply adhering strictly to the contract requirements.
Three important concepts I try to point out to those who take my CDT class:
(1) Shop Drawings (and other submittals) ARE NOT Contract Documents (see AIA A 201).
(2) Shop Drawings (and other submittals) are not a means by which the Contract Documents may be modified.
(3) Shop Drawing (and other submittals) are the means by which the A/E verifies that the Contractor is complying with the Contract requirements. Selecting options at this point (e. g. color, texture) may be permissible provided that this action is permitted by the Contract Documents, and such action does not change the CDs.
|Marc C Chavez|
Post Number: 99
|Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 01:20 pm: |
I have beaten the architect on the nose with a rolled up set of shop drawings while shouting “Bad Architect. Bad. Bad Architect”. In response he was last seen whipping himself while mumbling “Mea culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa”
But seriously, thanks for the quick response. Our documents also have definitions of the approval stamp choices. The definition includes a statement about complying with the rest of the contract documents (which talk about “minor changes to the work” in several places.) The architect will make the argument that his approval did not authorize the contractor to add time or money. And like an unforeseen condition when the Contractor saw that the change was not “minor” he should have notified the Owner.
Well that’s what we’ll try. But I’m not taking bets.
|Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 01:23 pm: |
If you are using A201, paragraph 4.2.7 states that the architect's review is
"...only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents."
If the architect added scope to the work when marking up the shop drawings, that was the first mistake, but the Contractor has a responsibility to raise the issue prior to commencing with the work.
I would double check the Contract Documents to see if scope was indeed added. Do the drawings or specifications require things that were not included on the shop drawings? Were the architect's markups consistent with these? There are probably a lot of examples one could come up with whereby notes on the shop drawings are consistent with a reference standard or outright requirement in the specifications, even if not indicated on the drawings... If you can show this, you are in the clear.
Can you be more specific about what the architect required on the shop drawings that the Contractor has taken as additional scope? I am curious...
Post Number: 168
|Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 01:59 pm: |
Would the following have been benficial in this event;
[Cont'r responsibility]--Notify Architect in writing, at time of submission, of deviations in submittals from requirements of Construction Documents, including the reason(s) for such deviation and the effects on other portions of the Work, if any.
1. The Architect shall not be responsible for deviations from the Construction Documents not clearly indicated as such and specifically approved in writing by the Architect.
A. Deviations from Contract Documents: Submittals shall not contain deviations from the requirements of the Contract Documents, unless such deviations are specifically and conspicuously indicated as such. Deviations, even if so indicated, shall not be considered as approved unless accepted in writing by the Architect. Deviations which include substitutions of products or materials, or which constitute significant departures from the design intent of the Contract Documents shall be submitted as "Substitutions", under provisions of Section 01610.
|Kim A. Bowman, CSI, AAIA, LEED AP|
Post Number: 5
|Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 05:30 pm: |
Yeah, shop drawings ARE NOT PART of the Contract Documents...they are for the Architect's informational purposes only. The construction world would be a better place without shop drawings, but, they are a necessary evil because if we required no shop drawings at all, the specs and details would never be followed and the contractors would all do what they want. (They pretty much do anyway. Not a job goes by that when I walk on the project site, I see something that is not in accordance with the specs, and our CA people miss it too becasue they try to negotiate withe the crooked contractors!) Not much respect for contractors from this end!