The End Run

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1203 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 07:33 am:    100728 THE END RUN ! by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Cincinnati, OH Getting time for “………SOME FOOTBALL!!!!!”, as the pros go to camp. But of the whole game, let’s just hone in on the end run play-- the ol’ USC “student body right/left”, or the Fightin’ Irish “running ‘round Chicago”!! There is far too much end running in our game [extraneous information to the Owner unilaterally, complaints about work or requirements of other parties, unilaterally, indications of different fallacious cost factors, lack of simple coordination and conversation to protect or promote one's self-interest, etc]. While not illegal in football or construction, it is certainly not creating better relationships, or better construction projects. With the Owner a party to and susceptible to two contracts [which are not tied together but by a loosely and solely “gentlemen’s working relationship”], the ability to run the end [i.e., transmit information along but one of the contract lines to the Owner] is all too tempting-- it is distracting from the true purpose, often times, and anywhere from most untidy to playing nasty havoc on the site. It’s simple! The design professional [and consultants] concoct a game play with certain selections, options, etc. as they deem appropriate in meeting their Owners’ requirements. Owner, IF properly informed, buys into this scheme and thus we go to construction. BUT if at any time, or on any item that which HAS BEEN DONE caused a blip on the schedule the ol’ end run appears-- the Contractor-Owner relationship and contract eruptions. Guess who is usually wrong in this situation, even though never made part of the discussion? You bet your sweet bippy! The result? Issues are never fully resolved; the fat lady never sings; and Yogi Berra remains an insightful oracle that it truly is not over until……… The real problem is that this can become part of the disharmony on a project site and eventually an unneeded distraction. I realize there are two perfectly valid contracts on the table for the Owner, but there really needs to be the proverbial buy-in by those persons so they understand that our efforts to provide projects to their liking is one thing they “buy”. If they then choose to “buy” the who-cares-what-just-so-it-gets-done attitude, and professional considerations and determinations are meaningless, the pox lies NOT on us-- we met our contractual and professional obligations. Allowing rampant free-lancing and unraveling previous decisions may seem to serve well, but Owners must come to “buy” that also. In addition, there is a need for pragmatic approaches here. What we do and decided is based on our BEST professional information, understanding, skill, talent, and insight. If any tem then becomes a schedule problem that is NOT an unraveling of our effort-- neither is it repudiation! It is simply “another” way to do the project, but with less insight, information, understanding and belief in the originally approved design concept. It’s more just choosing to buy an apple instead of an orange! And there is added risk that it turns out to be a lemon in the end!!! We and our design professional colleagues need to defense these “end runs” just to keep the playing field level and coherent. We can’t rotate the defense, slide a ‘backer over or draw up a safety to defense the end run—we have none! We do have voice, and professional standing to merely engage the Owner in a “if you do this, this can or may happen”; but that does not invalidate our work; at least when such situations arise, please give us the courtesy of a phone call, in lieu of immediate rebuke or anger. We worked with what we were given-- the situation at hand is DIFFERENT and had we known about it we might have made another decision. Also, the contractors are not without liability to schedule projects based on “plans and specs” as given over to them, meeting ALL requirements for products, procedures and documentation. It’s all in the specs if not on the drawings! Seems to me that plain, simple, old-fashioned fairness and cooperation, in all of this, are both meaningful factors in the “faster-better-cheaper” climate of the day. So, too, adherence to the documents, unless collectively modified by all parties!