Project Delivery and Suppliers

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 738 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 08:09 am:    Very interesting article for both professionals and product folks [reps, suppliers, and manufacturers] Enjoy! http://enr.ecnext.com/free-scripts/comsite2.pl?page=enr_document&article=opviar071107a David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 85 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 09:37 am:    I read the article and I am glad that Ralph called it to our attention. It took me three readings to begin to understand the author's intent. I am still not entirely clear who his audience is, but he makes some troubling statements about design: "Manufacturers can effectively shut out less expensive materials from other companies by using architects and product specifications to artificially inflate project costs. In this situation, the distributor's goals almost always are the opposite of the contractor's." Comment: Based on this statement, the author suggests that specifiers are manipulated by manufacturers to disregard cost-effective design solutions. Do 4specs correspondents feel they are under such influence from manufacturers? There is more: "Commercial contractors' procurement power has increased dramatically and yet many still adhere to a paradigm that allows architectural specifications to dictate specific material-purchase decisions. Contractors today have a choice to continue to do business the old fashioned way by taking whatever materials are available regionally at an often higher price, or to base their procurement decisions on service, quality and value. To do the latter means recognizing that architects have value in the project delivery but contractors are driving the bus." Comment: With the above statement, the author reveals a misunderstanding of the architect's professional and contractual responsibilities for design and product selection. From time to time, contractors try to grab the steering wheel. Those who make a habit of it get ordered off the bus. There is more: "The shift in the industry to design-build project delivery has changed general contractors' buying habits... Why not add materials distribution and product selection to the design process rather than using an architectural intermediary?" Comment: This man needs help, such as a crash course on the rights and responsibilities of the participants. If I had an extra PRM I would send it to him. He seems not to realize that design build project delivery can't happen without a licensed architect or engineer on board. As it goes on, the misunderstanding continues: "The typical construction project has become a series of tradeoffs and negotiations between the owner and the general contractor, rather than owner and architect. As a result, the general contractor is the key decision maker in driving product selection. The thought that a manufacturer is locked into a project because of a no-substitution specification by the architect is old-paradigm thinking. Contractors and owners are motivated by dollars and schedules, not specific products." Comment: )(!*@&#$%&*#()&*^)!@(+#_!!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally: "General contractors should look for a collaborative relationship that adds value when selecting materials. When sourcing materials, they should ask: If I can get the same quality materials at a lower price, does it matter where it comes from? Do the materials specified have design implications or have more cost-effective and efficient product solutions been excluded? Whose schedule is more important mine or the supplier's? How much experience does the supplier have in such projects? " Comment: I surmise the author is an expert in materials distribution and feels the architect is an antiquated, value-draining entity. I think he needs to learn a great deal about the value of the architect's role in projects. I hope others post their comments about this article. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 377 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 11:38 am:    Well, on first reading, it sounds like the author believes every product is a commodity product. "If I can get the same quality materials at a lower price, does it matter where it comes from?" works for gypsum board, a commodity product, but works less well for toilet accessories, and works not at all for that special stone you need from a specific quarry. We had a recent project where the contractor made an unauthorized substitution of toilet accessories. The ones he used looked exactly like the ones we had specified....looked exactly like on the day they were put in, that is. They soon began to show rust because they were not type 304 stainless steel but an inferior grade. So, yes they met our design intent in terms of what they looked like, but our design intent also included some functional issues, like "not rusting". By the way, Phil Kabza did a nice presentation at the last CSI convention titled "Specifying and Achieveing Design Quality" that was a very succinct look at the differences in products (commodity vs. custom) and at how much leeway to give the contractor in making the final product selection. Perhaps Phil will summarize some of his comments here? Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 119 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 11:58 am:    Great - I plan to pass this along to our manufacturers in a month or so. There is a subtle twist to this statement: "If I can get the same quality materials at a lower price, does it matter where it comes from?" This refers to an out of state contractor being forced to purchase from a local to the project distributor that may not have the same pricing structure as his home town distrbutor, hence the same product, same manufacturer different price in different locations. This is not about freight differences, but different price sheets in different locations or different discounts depending on the local distributor's volume as compared to his home town distributor. Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 120 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 12:43 pm:    Thinking about this further and looking at the author's employeer: American Direct Procurement http://www.americandirectco.com/ And a statement on their website: "AMERICAN DIRECT has proven to be the alternative to standard distribution and, as you will see in the following pages, we have positioned ourselves to be a market leader in commercial construction material procurement." J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 258 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 04:19 pm:    Nothing beats quality like a good price. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 936 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 05:37 pm:    I have a little picture in my office from one of the locker manufacturers. It shows some badly worn out lockers with the following title below. "Quality is long remembered, while price is soon forgotten." Harold S. Woolard, FCSI Senior Member Username: harold_woolard Post Number: 60 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Friday, November 09, 2007 - 11:34 pm:    Every time I talk to the Contractor it is close to what J. Peter said except it is "nothing beats quality like a cheaper price". I look at several of the "big boxes" that use one architect, one contractor, and builds the same square footage for each store, and builds all over the USA and in the Divisions where my company specializes, there are usually only local distribution, but if the architect does specify a national manufacturer that has national distribution it works out fine, it is the small mom & pop manufacturer that has only manufacturing place let's say IS in Arizona and the project is in Florida that I think contractor has problems, especially when the architect does not accept or equal submittals, and any thoughts of a LEED project can lose you points, from the 500 mile, manufacturing facility. FROM A MANUFACTURING STAND POINT THE ARCHITECT ALWAYS WANTS QUALITY, THE CONTRACTOR ALWAYS WANTS A CHEAPER PRICE! Just my thoughts! Harold S. Woolard, FCSI W. R. Meadows, Inc. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 354 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007 - 12:24 am:    If you want cheaper oats, buy those that have gone through the horse once. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 289 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007 - 09:23 pm:    Thanks, George, for the kind words about our workshop on product specification language. We hope to offer a web-based version later this year. I took Colin's advice and looked at the above-quoted author's website. His company procures products for national account purchasing for facility construction projects. So he has a particular take on things, or drum to beat, in this whole question. Before we get too upset about what the author has to say about architects and specifications, let's spend some time reading the orginal article and thinking about our practice. Many of us like to specify using closed proprietary specifications because it gives us the maximum control - plus it limits the amount of research we need to perform. Fact is - that doesn't necessarily best serve our owners' interests. Look at the door hardware marketplace, for instance. As specifiers, we can seldom obtain objective, competitive specifications from hardware specifiers in the distributor market, because all the hardware specifiers work for one of the two Uberhardware companies. They write lock-out specifications that we don't really understand. Is the owner well served in this situation? Are we? Did the owner ask for that particular key cylinder, or patented keyway system, or door closer cylinder material? Notwithstanding our very real concerns about unequal substitutions that degrade our specifications and our projects, how should we be working to provide competitive value to our owners? We need to think through how we can assert our knowledge for our owners' benefit, while obtaining adequate compensation for evaluating the product proposals from contractors who are increasingly more knowledgeable about the product distribution marketplace than we can afford to be. Want to really worry about something? Read the ConsensusDocs General Conditions. They're built on their predecessor AGC and COAA documents in which approved submittals and RFI responses become contract documents, and architects aren't needed for CA and change order approval. Some of these contract provisions fly in the face of state licensing statutes, but they do illustrate the interest of contractors in getting architects out of the way of their project controls. We need to make sure we have enough to offer our owners - and they know it - so that these self-interested contracting and purchasing practices won't seduce our owners into obtaining quick fixes and long term problems in their facilities.