| Author |
Message |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 14
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 06:47 pm: |    |
I am looking for references to information regarding contemporary practices for contract change and/or modification procedures.
I have been taught in the past that AIA has "depreciated" the use of the ASI (Architect's Supplemental Instruction" form, sort of a reverse RFI), in favor of the CCD (Construction Change Directive). Similarly, I have heard that the same is true for Bulletins verses CPR's (Change Proposal Requests).
Is there any validity to this?
The PRM simply lists them all. What are you using now?
Where can I find more information about this?
Respectfully,
Nathan Woods |
Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS
Senior Member
Username: dbrinley
Post Number: 122
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 07:11 pm: | |
We're 90% public sector; Our clients are highly involved in how they wish to manage changes. We utilize the CCD and CPR. I'll describe one project which is typical:
A CCD is prepared by consultant (us) but is required to be accompanied by a letter from the owner Project Manager validating the CCD. Only the CM can pass the CCD to the Contractor.
HOWEVER, the CM can produce a CCD in the middle of the night, etc. BUT the Contractor is simultaneously instructed to ignore such CCD(because the Owner didn't validate it using the ONLY accepted procedure). Thus the Owner places responsibility back to the Contractor to determine for itself how to manage such a situation. I'm not convinced that works, but somebody is.
A CPR may be prepared by either the CM or consultant (us), but is required to be delivered to the Contractor by the CM.
No ASIs. We've tried. Those can be valuable sources of information to the Contractor in my opinion. The Architect (who is the 'A/E Representative'; "Engineer" or anything but 'Architect') does not communicate in any paper manner directly with the Contractor.
Public work is better than private work IMHO but you go-getters stay put 'cuz you're not gonna get shortlisted anyway.
I'm looking forward to the point when we are both CM and "A/E Representative". But we have good CMs so I'm not at all complaining. And, they're big guys, so I generally wanna sit on their side of the table anyway.
Will anybody in business ever just talk straight? |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 134
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 07:24 pm: | |
The following is based on the AIA Commentary on A201.
If the owner and contractor can agree on both the change in contract sum and contract time, a change order is issued. A Change Order therefore is based upon agreement among the Owner, Contractor and Architect.
If no agreement can be reached, the owner can still require the work to be performed by issuance of a construction change directive. A CCD requires agreement by the Owner and Architect and may or may not be agreed to by the Contractor. The CCD is the mechanism by which the owner exercises a unilateral right to order changes in the work without invalidating the contract. It is used when a change order cannot be obtained due to limited time or disagreement between the parties with regard to associated changes in the contract sum or contract time.
In either event, and also in the case of an order for a minor change in the work issued by the architect, the contractor must perform changes that are within the general scope of the work.
An order for a minor change in the Work may be issued by the Architect alone. |
Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS
Senior Member
Username: dbrinley
Post Number: 123
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 07:46 pm: | |
I've found no owner manager on a public project that will permit an(y) architect to issue an order for a minor change in the work.
I know that's what A201 says, and I've said it since 1983 but - when I've fought it the (public) owner brings in their attorney and then I have to get down off the table.
Developer project - whole different thing. |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 545
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 08:25 pm: | |
Doug,
Currently on my public school job I am issuing MCW (Minor Change in Work) items to the contractor. We don't have ASIs so these take the place of them.
The only problem is that the contractor comes back and says that it is not a no cost item. Then he gives us a COP. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 15
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 08:36 pm: | |
quote:The only problem is that the contractor comes back and says that it is not a no cost item. Then he gives us a COP.
IMHO, that is not a problem, that is the process. In turn, we (the architect) have the opportunity to review the COP/CPR/COR to determine merit. In most cases, they are merited, to some degree. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 129
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 09:06 am: | |
Some of the discussion above gets at the heart of who is leading the CA effort. On a lot of public work, it is not the architect, but a contracting officer (a governmental official or a CM consultant). On private work, I have seen a tendency for architects to be restricted by owners to checking submittals, answering certain RFIs, and making a limited number of site visits (which may not include Substantial Completion). If you tell me who can issue what, I can tell you who is driving the boat during this phase of the work.
The difference between issuing an ASI and issuing a CCD is that the Contractor can look at an ASI, decide it's gonna' cost, and return a COP w/o starting the Work required by the ASI. With a CCD, the Contractor is supposed to initiate the change in the work while simultaneously discussing a change in time or money.
For private work where time is critical, CCDs are valuable tools to get the contractor moving on an issue. In my experience that is what happens on a lot of private work anyway--architect (or owner) tells the Contractor to make a change and the contractor saves up a bunch of these for a single change order to be done later. I believe that ASIs are also valuable tools, but architects tend to use them as wishful thinking in relation to time or cost.
I have run across modifications to A 201 in which the architect's ability to issue ASIs is deleted; however, I am not sure how the architect gets truly minor stuff (no change to time or money) fixed on a timely basis anything without this tool.
My current office makes generous use of CCDs in our private work. I would reccomend thinking long and hard before issuing a CCD on a public job. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 408
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 10:14 am: | |
My experience on public jobs without CMs is that these clients very often have no mechanism to change a contract without a board vote. What this means contractually is that if an unforeseen condition is discovered, even one that can be taken care of for $500, the work cannot be completed without waiting for a board meeting (which may not be scheduled for three weeks) and voting on it. Now, in practice everyone knows this can't work, so contractors generously take the risk and do the work based upon a "verbal". Otherwise, the project would never get finished in any reasonable time frame and litigation would be probable. The problem comes in when the amounts get much larger and no one is willing (rightfully so) to do it on a handshake. It puzzles me to no end why these public owners cannot understand the essential flaw in their model of contracting. But, they have been getting by on the verbal method, and board members probably don't really even understand the issue. |
Tom Peck
Senior Member
Username: tom_peck_csi
Post Number: 18
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 02:26 pm: | |
In the absence of agreement by the contractor for the cost of a revision, a CCD is issued. Eventually, though, a CO must be written to adjust the contract time or sum ... correct?
What would happen if the contractor never agrees to the cost? I suppose if a contractor doesn't agree to a CCD, and the only way for him to actually get paid for that work is to list a CO on his pay application, then he eventually has to back down and accept the A/E/Owner price? |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 135
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 02:51 pm: | |
Tom, you are correct, the intent is that eventually the work covered by a CCD would be incorporated into a change order.
The contractor's agreement is not required for a CCD, but the contractor still must do the work given in the CCD (assuming the project is using AIA A201 General Conditions, or that CCD requirements have been incorporated into the Supplementary Conditions if another general conditions are in effect). |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 409
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 03:08 pm: | |
In the scenario described by Tom: the CCD has a space to describe the method used to determine the cost. In my experience this has generally been a time and materials basis, in which case there are fewer disagreements with the contractor about the proposed final cost. In the end, the Architect is given the authority to determine the final cost. If the contractor disagrees, he or she can still file a claim according to the prescribed contract method. The useful purpose of the CCD from the owner's perspective is that it can force the contractor to proceed with the work, preventing them from holding the owner hostage on price. From the GC's point of view, it gives them something in writing that acknowledges that a cost-change has been made. Interestingly, the AIA documents do not require follow up with a change order if the contractor agrees to the cost, they only state that the CCD will be recorded as a change order, whatever that means. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 17
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 09:26 pm: | |
I value the discussion on this topic. I was intentionally vague about the owner type (public or private), the delivery methods, and the project types when I asked the inital question.
To those whose use of the ASI is limited or thwarted, I have experienced the same. My work around is to ask the Contractor for an RFI to which I could respond with my minor change item. That works pretty well, and limits the variety and type of documents to track. This helps avoid confusion in the field.
However, after further review and reading everything I could get my hands one, I think we will (as an office) stay with the ASI, CPR, CCD and Change Order process. The challenge will be migrating away from the Bulletins we currently use.
Thanks for your comments. |
|
4specs.com Home Page