The old days, maybe 5-10 years ago, when shops were submitted, we'd redline the drawings - do our RAR, RAN, REJ, or APP - send back to the GC, the GC would coordinate and send to the relevant subs, or am I missing something? Now, the sub, and the GC, after we send back the redlined drawings, want us to go back into the AE drawings, and re-issue sets of ASIs. When did this start? Is this typical for you all as well? We don't have the CA budget for that kind of shit, one, and b, where is the GC, and their PM, what are their roles; why the fuck do I have a responsibility to run CA on THEIR work?
What are you seeing? Are you seeing the GC using project management software as a crutch? Wherein, they post submittals, and no one on the construction team has any responsibility to do their job, and it's the architects fault?
I'm realizing that the disconnect lies in the communication between architect, GC, and their MEP design build. We send our drawings to the GC, they post the ASI to procore, but don't send the updates to the design build. The design build is responsible for setting the sleeves, locating the drains, conduit and junction boxes. I assumed that since the design build is part of the construction team, they would coordinate with their team.
Digital submittals, in general, have made contractors lazy. When they had to print everything, they only picked the relevant information. Now I get the whole fucking catalog, and I'm lucky if they've even circled what they intend to use. And what do I do when that happens? I pick the most expensive version.
Procore and similar programs are just a fancy dropbox. I don't think it's changed much beyond what was being done digitally, before. I do hate the emails. I despise getting tons of emails. I'm the POC for one of my projects. Every single item that gets posted, I get an email.
With regard to drawing updates, all my projects require record drawings. We get marked up sets from the contractor, and also generate our own to give to the Owner. So, every sketch is put into the record drawings. If something done in submittals changes the work, it goes in. If you're having problems with something like this, you have a contract problem, or have an understanding of contract problem.
it seems like this might be best solved with a note to the GC asking which drawings they would like help with at the posted hourly rates & an attached contract for time/materials to handle drafting outside of your CA scope
then, it should at least give them pause & assert that you're not a drafting service on retainer by the owner
Only on very rare, and very custom shops, have we had to reissue certain drawings. Everything is between the CM and his/her subs. I attended some of their coordination meetings on my last project but the heavy coordination is very clearly in the CM's job description.
I'm realizing that the disconnect lies in the communication between architect, GC, and their MEP design build. We send our drawings to the GC, they post the ASI to procore, but don't send the updates to the design build. The design build is responsible for setting the sleeves, locating the drains, conduit and junction boxes. I assumed that since the design build is part of the construction team, they would coordinate with their team.
the architect's role in babysitting the contractor's subs seems to be increasing quite a bit. often it seems the GC/superintendent don't even look at the drawings anymore. just look at how many square feet, put a means price to it, and hope for the best.
The architect (in theory at least) cares more about the project than anyone else. Developers are looking for the lowest cost, CMs demenoatrate their “value” by beating up everyone and avoiding responsibility, contractors and subs do as little as possible knowing they’re probably not going to get paid, not to mention competition between consultants angling for the biggest slice of pie.
Meanwhile the architects tear their hair out in frustration. Well, some is us, at least. Next time you see a bald architect ... having ethics places one at a severe disadvantage in this society.
May 11, 19 3:04 pm ·
·
x-jla
Bingo. The problem is that the one who cares most is not always at the wheel. This can be solved with reorganization of project delivery methods
. Unfortunately, the law makes innovation in this area unnecessarily difficult.
The majority of my CA experience is from the CM side. I come in peace. I'm here to learn and offer another perspective. I do "coordination" for MEP+FP & STR with ARCH. We use something besides Procore.
1. Can someone confirm the acronyms in the original post? Revise and Resubmit (RAR)? Resubmit as Noted (RAN)? Reject (REJ)? Approve (APP)? I've only seen approved, Approved as Noted (AAN), and Revise & Resubmit (R&R).
2. Can you elaborate on re-issuing sets of ASIs? I've never received one from the AE. On my jobs the AE provide addenda, bulletins, (rarely) sketches, and (rarely) rev'ed sheets with RFI responses. Typically when something requires an RFI (un-constructible, not to code, etc.) the AE demands the following from me:
a. A list of all referenced sheets I reviewed b. A sheet/sketches showing the issue in plan, section, elevation, and 3d axon/perspective c. Different solutions for them to pick from.
3. Typical "coordination" workflow: a. The individual trade contractors draw out their scope as shown on the contract documents b. I flag all the RFI-able items we're unable to re-route without significant changes to the design intent. c. Meet w/ the AE to try and work through issues so we can write confirming RFIs d. Submit shop drawings as a submittal once we're coordinated. d. Work through field issues as they arise.
4. I'm curious to hear what each of you consider the scope of coordination to be. I'm on a job where the MEP engineer's position is their design is both "schematic in nature" and "issued for construction". They claim they aren't responsible for checking the as-builts & laser scan we provide before they complete their design (new core-shell fitout). They also claim its solely the CMs job to make their design work with itself and the architecture. When I was a designer at an architecture firm 3 years ago this attitude would've gotten the the engineer fired.
I think the CM and trades should make a reasonable effort to re-route systems that don't fit. However, trying to delegate the redesign of major shafts, risers, food service, FP zoning, steel/slabs, etc. to the trade contractors in order to meet code seems unreasonable. I'm hoping this engineer is the exception and not a new trend.
It sounds like a few of you have had some very bad experiences with CMs/GCs. I"m sorry to hear that. It sucks, but it does happen on our end as well.
May 11, 19 7:24 pm ·
·
curtkram
if it was designed wrong, I can see how you would want the MEP firm to redo their work. If it was not designed wrong and you're asking them to redo their work as part of the contractor's responsibility to coordinate trades, then the pushback is understandable. their fee probably doesn't include doing their job twice. we will try to be fairly accurate with big things, like duct trunks and maybe cable trays. Electrical conduit is typically not shown and any other piping is diagrammatic. It's not dimensioned on the plan and the sub probably isn't that accurate anyway. we usually don't even see sprinklers until you submit shops because that's delegated design, so we can't coordinate that. The scope for that level of coordination has to be on the contra
ctor.
I agree on your first 3 points. I disagree about all piping. Do you consider chilled water risers (8"+ pipe w/o insulation) to be diagrammatic?
I can see piping routing being diagrammatic and on the trades to coordinate, but not if the contractor has to change the system to something not in the spec or approved submittal to make it work.
Do you think the architect has a responsibility to coordinate their consultants work, and if so, to what extent?
May 12, 19 12:10 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
1. Some firms, and their attorneys, advise against using "Approved as Noted" so I try to use Reviewed. RAR Revise and Resubmit. The others are correct. We even use FIO, For Information Only.
May 12, 19 9:15 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
2. ASIs, are Architectural Supplemental Instructions, typically time and money are not involved, and are merely to provide clarifications; dimensions, note clarification, etc. Addenda is provided during the bidding phase, and typically are alterations to the contract documents.
May 12, 19 9:18 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
4.
The AE team doesn't build anything, the GC team, by virtue of bidding, accepting the work, and signing the contract are attesting to their ability to read the contract documents - note I didn't state, construction documents - have asked the appropriate RFIs during the bid phase...etc. If in the course it's become apparent that some elements don't work, as it often happens with ceiling plenums and MEP work, it's incumbent that all parties are resolute in crafting a solution that resolves the issues.
May 12, 19 9:23 am ·
·
athensarch
Thank you, this is helpful.
May 12, 19 11:58 am ·
·
SneakyPete
Architects hire idiot lawyers who think that avoiding the word "Approved" somehow protects them when shit goes sideways, using meaningless terms like "No Exceptions Taken" and the like. Courts, being staffed by people with brains who are not so easily fooled, view this as a distinction without a difference and rule accordingly.
Pete, anything and everything can be litigated. However, when an attorney says do, you do, as with most things in life, there's no certainty, but death.
"The solution has been to explicitly limit the scope of the engineer’s or architect’s review both in the contract and on the shop-drawing stamp itself. Although most shop-drawing stamps now include an “approved” option, this approach uses language that strictly limits the scope of the submittal review to “conformance with information given and the intent of the construction documents.”
Digital submittals, in general, have made contractors lazy. When they had to print everything, they only picked the relevant information. Now I get the whole fucking catalog, and I'm lucky if they've even circled what they intend to use. And what do I do when that happens? I pick the most expensive version.
Procore and similar programs are just a fancy dropbox. I don't think it's changed much beyond what was being done digitally, before. I do hate the emails. I despise getting tons of emails. I'm the POC for one of my projects. Every single item that gets posted, I get an email.
With regard to drawing updates, all my projects require record drawings. We get marked up sets from the contractor, and also generate our own to give to the Owner. So, every sketch is put into the record drawings. If something done in submittals changes the work, it goes in. If you're having problems with something like this, you have a contract problem, or have an understanding of contract problem.
it seems like this might be best solved with a note to the GC asking which drawings they would like help with at the posted hourly rates & an attached contract for time/materials to handle drafting outside of your CA scope
then, it should at least give them pause & assert that you're not a drafting service on retainer by the owner
It's complicated but yeah. Just like AutoCAD and REVIT, now ProCore is extracting a million pounds of flesh from all our asses. Yet we have put up with these vampiric software companies for decades folks. (BTW it's not just hurting architects. It's also hurting Inspectors, AHJ's, Owners, etc. I have seen it a lot recently) (and it's hurting the GC's too, a lot of them won't have repeat clients because of it)
We are 20 sheep having a discussion with 2000 NWO wolves as to what's for dinner. Except we're already half eaten. Aren't computers great though? Keep posting to Facebook and paying taxes and using credit cards... I'm sure all these problems will go away eventually. FOL.
Short answer... don't issue any ASI unless it's absolutely necessary. Invest in lots of lube and use your wallet to bite down on. This is going to hurt.
With regard to going back to the way submittals were processed, in my opinion, I think we need to go back 100 years to when architects ran the construction process. I got my GC license and started building what I designed. On projects where our firm was the architect and the GC, we never once had an argument between the architect and the GC. There was no finger pointing. The job got done faster and at a much lower cost to the owner.
Now, our firm's architecture services are in high demand and we have gone back to designing for others to build and have to deal with the GC and other outside influences whispering (and sometimes shouting) misinformation in the owner's ear.
The problem with procore and submittals is a contractual issue. I have had to resort to simply stating that our firm does not recognize procore communications and establish criteria by which the owner's rep and GC can obtain CA assistance if they want it.
It sucks. It is pissing people off. But better pissed off now than after the GC uses procore to create a record (that they and only they) control which would be detrimental to our firm in a legal context. We want to help. But, sometimes the best way to help someone is to draw a firm line.
agreed 100% on the procore issue. My superiors disagree, and continue to hand not just the means and responsibility of construction but even the production of communication and "the record" over to the GC. I got "caught" putting in OAC meeting minutes into my field report, referencing photos. Field reports are only to log construction progress and deficiencies... not OAC discussion/action points.
I'm not sure anyone would want or have the time to read all these posts but hell i give it a go. Know that I'm neither a fan nor detractor of a project management system. I just think that like anything else new its has its benefits and short comings and will try and be as direct with what I think they are based on the 40 some years doing this.
The Basic Pro's
Document management - Procore and many of the others do an excellent job in managing the contract documents. The nice thing about the Procore it tends to be more intuitive and much like he folder based system we use n our PCs. Not once while using a PM system have the documents ever gotten messed up.
Issuing deficiency and other observations are much easier and in real time. The accountability and tracking of the items is beyond what i could do using excel or any other manual tracking.
Submittals and RFIs. If the contractor has an admin that is properly trained in how a workflow is done and appropriately enters the planning aspect of the submission, the proper review time by the A/E and utilizes the CSI format properly, then there is nothing that come to near to the power that it has on a project.
Emails. The only thing that i do like about it is that you can tag and issue with the email. So, say you had to amend a closed submittal, you could send an email within the submittal and attached the modified submission. It will forever be associated to the submittals for record.
The Basic Con's
Control. I think everyone knows what I mean by this. The owner of the license has the ability to entry, not enter or even change information that would be under our purview. i.e. There have been a few occasions where the contractor has closed a punch list item or even changes the language of the item with out the architects consent; or cutting the review time of a submittal by half because they were late in submitting it; or have left out dates of when the submission was submitted by a sub or reviewed by the GC. The worse scenario is if at he end of the project they contractor cuts out the architect and no longer access the system or information. So why? why do we allow it? Well as you know its a dollars and cents issue. Architect do not need nor can afford to pay for the full system. The contractor can easily burry the costs of the system in there general conditions.
I've actually have has some discussion with procure on these issues. It was there position that they are coming out with a version for architects which can communicate with the other licenses with out duplicating task work. They also can and worked with us on cost, because frankly we only need about 5 of the modules to be effective in the CA management. Honestly, I don't understand why they would not develop something like this. it would guarantee their corner in the market. I'm waiting with baiting breath for this.
In the interim I just have to watch the contractor to be sure to keep them playing within the rules of the game.
Regarding the updating of the documents. 100% spot on. It seems that we are now doing as-built drawings so they no longer have to track the changes. the only suggestion i have with that is if the change is due to a conflict or error in my documents I will update them, but if its a change because its cheaper or easier way to do it for them, then it would be appropriate to track and invoice for the time spent. Drawings are available upon payment.
I think that whether this exists in the drawings or specs, it is incumbent upon the Architect to describe what a "complete submittal" is and also enumerate that in the contract between the Owner and Architect under Construction Administration services. What complicates things is that usually the GC is asked to produce a "submittal schedule," but if the Architect does this in advance, the Architect has more control over what is expected to be reviewed. In any event, just as the Architect describes how many submittal reviews are included in the contract, so too must the architect tell the owner what he or she is or is not reviewing in terms of "completeness". There is a clause in the A201 about the General Contractor affixing the GC's stamp on the submittal, which should signal that the GC has reviewed the submittal prior to forwarding the Architect for review. Often times, subs just upload their submittal and the GC neither reviews nor stamps the submittal, OR the GC does so as a formality and simply forwards it over to the Architect.
By outlining in the Contract between Owner and Architect what constitutes a complete submittal, the Architect protects himself from Owner's position of non-payment of excessive reviews, and by outlining what a complete submittal is in the Contract Docs, the Architect doesn't have to waste time reviewing incomplete submittals, especially when the Architect is pressured to turn them around fast with a satisfactory marking.
I can't tell you how many times GC's don't make the extra effort to review their sub-contractor's submittals. I have literally refused to review some submittals because they have been incomplete and I have had success in pushing back against the incompleteness precisely because I have included the language described above.
Lazy or they know its shit so they don't even want to look at it or be bothered by it. The subs should know what the f--- they are doing but...... anyway, good point BB.
When you create a submittals list, do you want to see shop drawings, product data, and samples, or just one or the other, or a combination? If a contractor just provides you with samples and shop drawings but no product data, is the submittal “complete?”
Pressed enter too quickly…(continued from above) entire system? What if the u-value is is just for the glass rather than the entire system? Is that submittal “complete”?
Architects like to think that the contractors should know what the architect is looking for, but that is such an ambiguous and irresponsible assumption…
Most of the GCs in the residential (lowrise, SFRs, duplexes, and other small projects) often are not going to provide this stuff because they really don't know what they are doing. They are literally figuring it out as they go. Mostly with no education, supervised training experience, etc.
May 15, 24 5:14 pm ·
·
BulgarBlogger
The inexperience or incompetence of contractors does not negate contractual terms.
don't have the knowledge and skills to do what the contract terms demand. I think its better off that we make becoming an architect (or engineer) license a pre-requisite (but not only requirement) for a commercial (building vs civil/bridge/etc.) contractor license. For Residential GC license tier, I would say a CPBD certification or an architect license being pre-requisite.
Of course, I would expect there be more additional requirements in construction experience/education & exams (written & practice exams in 3+ trades for GC, 1-2 trades for limited or specialty contractor license tier and certain other requirements). This way we can actually have construction professionals not construction amateurs. I may even consider a few other education variation than just the NAAB accredited degree but that's a long tough road.
However, we can't expect inexperienced/incompetent contractors to magically pull off the requirements. What is the minimum education and training they are currently required to have. In which case, if you are more competent to do the task then them, why let them do that. It's a danger to the public. I know, insurance companies and the pain they cause and the lawyers.
May 16, 24 12:22 am ·
·
BulgarBlogger
Hence why we a bid usually goes to the lowest QUALIFIED bidder… or at least it should.
May 16, 24 12:28 am ·
·
archanonymous
Today qualified only means they have their paperwork in order - insurance, bonds, municipal construction program enrollment, etc... I've rarely if never seen a contractor qualified by the actual quality of work or ability to complete it.
"Most of the GCs in the residential (lowrise, SFRs, duplexes, and other small projects) often are not going to provide this stuff because they really don't know what they are doing. They are literally figuring it out as they go. Mostly with no education, supervised training experience, etc."
First off - that's not correct. I've worked on plenty of small projects with small sized contractors - they provide a submittal schedule.
Second - we don't work with inexperienced or incompetent contractors.
Third, I don't care why they're not doing it. If they don't provide it then we inform the owner and a stop work is issued.
May 16, 24 9:55 am ·
·
BulgarBlogger
@ArchAnonymous My experience has been that contractors get interviewed and if you don’t know their work, you visit some of their current and recently completed projects as part of the interview process. References are often asked for as well. Now this is in NYC. I don’t know what other shitty markets in the country people practice in, but this is the way contractor selections should go…
Who wants to do construction administration purely in paper and pencil/pen... with today's requirements.
100 or so years ago give or take, state wide licensing of contractors was a hit or miss matter. Even more so than today. In a lot of places, your "contractor's license" was through the local jurisdiction which is more like local city/county business license which may have fees or taxes that are different based on occupational field.
Even today, there are many places where anyone can open up shop by just filing the basic local business license with the city or county you do work in and any ordinary business license. In many places, today, you would have to get insurance and bond. Some places have state licenses for specific trades but not necessarily generic contracting. A 100 years ago, insurance and bonding was someone more rarer but there were places. If you do design-build... you may have to shift from the A&E standard Professional Liability Insurance to what is called a Contractor's Professional Liability Insurance. Basically the same thing in several aspects but with a few extra stuff pertinent to construction. I'm not an insurance agent so the specifics of the terms have to be looked at.
--------
Back to topic:
Construction Administration like all things in life are now done via computers and software tools to facilitate those processes. You have this shared drop box service because otherwise, you have to set up a server and all the port forwarding and IT shit for a networked share that can be accessed outside your local area network. This was what was done in the early days but that was a complicated pain in the ass and required an IT person to manage that thing. Procore and like systems, the vendor provides the cloud services through their own servers which you wouldn't have to set up your own and do stuff to link your website and domain to your external IP address and open up port forwarding so certain services can be accessed from remote like your consultants.
Be careful with romanticizing about the "good ol' days" which wasn't necessarily all "good" and forgot about the PITA moments that led you and the industry to these services in the first place.
So what may be better is what can these software programs be better to better serve architects, engineers, and contractors. Of course, maybe some of the problem with contractors is a lot of them are dumb because they never went to college and barely passed high school if that. Increase the qualification requirements for construction contractors. Established a multi-tier process with the trades where they go from new person, through journyman, through craftsman, and then get licensed with the particular trade. Proficiency in multiple trades and you are general contractor. Not just a written exam but a practical exam (exam where the person must actually demonstrate and perform trade tasks). Kind of like the welder certification process. You have to have the trade skills. There can also be practical testing with reading plans and specifications to answer the questions. This would be a more rigorous requirement. This would improve competency which can in part resolve some of the issues stated. Anyway, it is silly we have this issue. Software is a tool but it can't fix stupid.
May 15, 24 5:26 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Construction Administration: Has the Procoring of CA fucked CA for architects?
Long-short;
The old days, maybe 5-10 years ago, when shops were submitted, we'd redline the drawings - do our RAR, RAN, REJ, or APP - send back to the GC, the GC would coordinate and send to the relevant subs, or am I missing something? Now, the sub, and the GC, after we send back the redlined drawings, want us to go back into the AE drawings, and re-issue sets of ASIs. When did this start? Is this typical for you all as well? We don't have the CA budget for that kind of shit, one, and b, where is the GC, and their PM, what are their roles; why the fuck do I have a responsibility to run CA on THEIR work?
What are you seeing? Are you seeing the GC using project management software as a crutch? Wherein, they post submittals, and no one on the construction team has any responsibility to do their job, and it's the architects fault?
#dontbarkatmemybiteismuchworse
3 Featured Comments
I'm realizing that the disconnect lies in the communication between architect, GC, and their MEP design build. We send our drawings to the GC, they post the ASI to procore, but don't send the updates to the design build. The design build is responsible for setting the sleeves, locating the drains, conduit and junction boxes. I assumed that since the design build is part of the construction team, they would coordinate with their team.
Digital submittals, in general, have made contractors lazy. When they had to print everything, they only picked the relevant information. Now I get the whole fucking catalog, and I'm lucky if they've even circled what they intend to use. And what do I do when that happens? I pick the most expensive version.
Procore and similar programs are just a fancy dropbox. I don't think it's changed much beyond what was being done digitally, before. I do hate the emails. I despise getting tons of emails. I'm the POC for one of my projects. Every single item that gets posted, I get an email.
With regard to drawing updates, all my projects require record drawings. We get marked up sets from the contractor, and also generate our own to give to the Owner. So, every sketch is put into the record drawings. If something done in submittals changes the work, it goes in. If you're having problems with something like this, you have a contract problem, or have an understanding of contract problem.
it seems like this might be best solved with a note to the GC asking which drawings they would like help with at the posted hourly rates & an attached contract for time/materials to handle drafting outside of your CA scope
then, it should at least give them pause & assert that you're not a drafting service on retainer by the owner
All 17 Comments
Only on very rare, and very custom shops, have we had to reissue certain drawings. Everything is between the CM and his/her subs. I attended some of their coordination meetings on my last project but the heavy coordination is very clearly in the CM's job description.
Yes. 1000% this. And it's led to a lot of confusion, rework, and misunderstandings.
Another form of value engineering.
ASI’s are for details that wasn’t clear in the first go-round, not for redlines. WTF. This sounds really bad.
I'm realizing that the disconnect lies in the communication between architect, GC, and their MEP design build. We send our drawings to the GC, they post the ASI to procore, but don't send the updates to the design build. The design build is responsible for setting the sleeves, locating the drains, conduit and junction boxes. I assumed that since the design build is part of the construction team, they would coordinate with their team.
the architect's role in babysitting the contractor's subs seems to be increasing quite a bit. often it seems the GC/superintendent don't even look at the drawings anymore. just look at how many square feet, put a means price to it, and hope for the best.
Curt, exactly. I refuse to be the huckleberry.
I have my hands full babysitting my engineer consultants. Ain’t got no time for the subs.
they don't look at the drawings or the specs
The architect (in theory at least) cares more about the project than anyone else. Developers are looking for the lowest cost, CMs demenoatrate their “value” by beating up everyone and avoiding responsibility, contractors and subs do as little as possible knowing they’re probably not going to get paid, not to mention competition between consultants angling for the biggest slice of pie.
Meanwhile the architects tear their hair out in frustration. Well, some is us, at least. Next time you see a bald architect ... having ethics places one at a severe disadvantage in this society.
Bingo. The problem is that the one who cares most is not always at the wheel. This can be solved with reorganization of project delivery methods
. Unfortunately, the law makes innovation in this area unnecessarily difficult.
The majority of my CA experience is from the CM side. I come in peace. I'm here to learn and offer another perspective. I do "coordination" for MEP+FP & STR with ARCH. We use something besides Procore.
1. Can someone confirm the acronyms in the original post? Revise and Resubmit (RAR)? Resubmit as Noted (RAN)? Reject (REJ)? Approve (APP)? I've only seen approved, Approved as Noted (AAN), and Revise & Resubmit (R&R).
2. Can you elaborate on re-issuing sets of ASIs? I've never received one from the AE. On my jobs the AE provide addenda, bulletins, (rarely) sketches, and (rarely) rev'ed sheets with RFI responses. Typically when something requires an RFI (un-constructible, not to code, etc.) the AE demands the following from me:
a. A list of all referenced sheets I reviewed b. A sheet/sketches showing the issue in plan, section, elevation, and 3d axon/perspective c. Different solutions for them to pick from.
3. Typical "coordination" workflow: a. The individual trade contractors draw out their scope as shown on the contract documents b. I flag all the RFI-able items we're unable to re-route without significant changes to the design intent. c. Meet w/ the AE to try and work through issues so we can write confirming RFIs d. Submit shop drawings as a submittal once we're coordinated. d. Work through field issues as they arise.
4. I'm curious to hear what each of you consider the scope of coordination to be. I'm on a job where the MEP engineer's position is their design is both "schematic in nature" and "issued for construction". They claim they aren't responsible for checking the as-builts & laser scan we provide before they complete their design (new core-shell fitout). They also claim its solely the CMs job to make their design work with itself and the architecture. When I was a designer at an architecture firm 3 years ago this attitude would've gotten the the engineer fired.
I think the CM and trades should make a reasonable effort to re-route systems that don't fit. However, trying to delegate the redesign of major shafts, risers, food service, FP zoning, steel/slabs, etc. to the trade contractors in order to meet code seems unreasonable. I'm hoping this engineer is the exception and not a new trend.
It sounds like a few of you have had some very bad experiences with CMs/GCs. I"m sorry to hear that. It sucks, but it does happen on our end as well.
if it was designed wrong, I can see how you would want the MEP firm to redo their work. If it was not designed wrong and you're asking them to redo their work as part of the contractor's responsibility to coordinate trades, then the pushback is understandable. their fee probably doesn't include doing their job twice. we will try to be fairly accurate with big things, like duct trunks and maybe cable trays. Electrical conduit is typically not shown and any other piping is diagrammatic. It's not dimensioned on the plan and the sub probably isn't that accurate anyway. we usually don't even see sprinklers until you submit shops because that's delegated design, so we can't coordinate that. The scope for that level of coordination has to be on the contra ctor.
I agree on your first 3 points. I disagree about all piping. Do you consider chilled water risers (8"+ pipe w/o insulation) to be diagrammatic? I can see piping routing being diagrammatic and on the trades to coordinate, but not if the contractor has to change the system to something not in the spec or approved submittal to make it work.
Do you think the architect has a responsibility to coordinate their consultants work, and if so, to what extent?
1. Some firms, and their attorneys, advise against using "Approved as Noted" so I try to use Reviewed. RAR Revise and Resubmit. The others are correct. We even use FIO, For Information Only.
2. ASIs, are Architectural Supplemental Instructions, typically time and money are not involved, and are merely to provide clarifications; dimensions, note clarification, etc. Addenda is provided during the bidding phase, and typically are alterations to the contract documents.
4. The AE team doesn't build anything, the GC team, by virtue of bidding, accepting the work, and signing the contract are attesting to their ability to read the contract documents - note I didn't state, construction documents - have asked the appropriate RFIs during the bid phase...etc. If in the course it's become apparent that some elements don't work, as it often happens with ceiling plenums and MEP work, it's incumbent that all parties are resolute in crafting a solution that resolves the issues.
Thank you, this is helpful.
Architects hire idiot lawyers who think that avoiding the word "Approved" somehow protects them when shit goes sideways, using meaningless terms like "No Exceptions Taken" and the like. Courts, being staffed by people with brains who are not so easily fooled, view this as a distinction without a difference and rule accordingly.
Pete, anything and everything can be litigated. However, when an attorney says do, you do, as with most things in life, there's no certainty, but death.
https://www.csemag.com/articles/shop-drawing-approval-liability/
"The solution has been to explicitly limit the scope of the engineer’s or architect’s review both in the contract and on the shop-drawing stamp itself. Although most shop-drawing stamps now include an “approved” option, this approach uses language that strictly limits the scope of the submittal review to “conformance with information given and the intent of the construction documents.”
define what are willing to do in CA in your contract
Digital submittals, in general, have made contractors lazy. When they had to print everything, they only picked the relevant information. Now I get the whole fucking catalog, and I'm lucky if they've even circled what they intend to use. And what do I do when that happens? I pick the most expensive version.
Procore and similar programs are just a fancy dropbox. I don't think it's changed much beyond what was being done digitally, before. I do hate the emails. I despise getting tons of emails. I'm the POC for one of my projects. Every single item that gets posted, I get an email.
With regard to drawing updates, all my projects require record drawings. We get marked up sets from the contractor, and also generate our own to give to the Owner. So, every sketch is put into the record drawings. If something done in submittals changes the work, it goes in. If you're having problems with something like this, you have a contract problem, or have an understanding of contract problem.
it seems like this might be best solved with a note to the GC asking which drawings they would like help with at the posted hourly rates & an attached contract for time/materials to handle drafting outside of your CA scope
then, it should at least give them pause & assert that you're not a drafting service on retainer by the owner
It's complicated but yeah. Just like AutoCAD and REVIT, now ProCore is extracting a million pounds of flesh from all our asses. Yet we have put up with these vampiric software companies for decades folks. (BTW it's not just hurting architects. It's also hurting Inspectors, AHJ's, Owners, etc. I have seen it a lot recently) (and it's hurting the GC's too, a lot of them won't have repeat clients because of it)
We are 20 sheep having a discussion with 2000 NWO wolves as to what's for dinner. Except we're already half eaten. Aren't computers great though? Keep posting to Facebook and paying taxes and using credit cards... I'm sure all these problems will go away eventually. FOL.
Short answer... don't issue any ASI unless it's absolutely necessary. Invest in lots of lube and use your wallet to bite down on. This is going to hurt.
With regard to going back to the way submittals were processed, in my opinion, I think we need to go back 100 years to when architects ran the construction process. I got my GC license and started building what I designed. On projects where our firm was the architect and the GC, we never once had an argument between the architect and the GC. There was no finger pointing. The job got done faster and at a much lower cost to the owner.
Now, our firm's architecture services are in high demand and we have gone back to designing for others to build and have to deal with the GC and other outside influences whispering (and sometimes shouting) misinformation in the owner's ear.
The problem with procore and submittals is a contractual issue. I have had to resort to simply stating that our firm does not recognize procore communications and establish criteria by which the owner's rep and GC can obtain CA assistance if they want it.
It sucks. It is pissing people off. But better pissed off now than after the GC uses procore to create a record (that they and only they) control which would be detrimental to our firm in a legal context. We want to help. But, sometimes the best way to help someone is to draw a firm line.
agreed 100% on the procore issue. My superiors disagree, and continue to hand not just the means and responsibility of construction but even the production of communication and "the record" over to the GC. I got "caught" putting in OAC meeting minutes into my field report, referencing photos. Field reports are only to log construction progress and deficiencies... not OAC discussion/action points.
I'm not sure anyone would want or have the time to read all these posts but hell i give it a go. Know that I'm neither a fan nor detractor of a project management system. I just think that like anything else new its has its benefits and short comings and will try and be as direct with what I think they are based on the 40 some years doing this.
The Basic Pro's
Document management - Procore and many of the others do an excellent job in managing the contract documents. The nice thing about the Procore it tends to be more intuitive and much like he folder based system we use n our PCs. Not once while using a PM system have the documents ever gotten messed up.
Issuing deficiency and other observations are much easier and in real time. The accountability and tracking of the items is beyond what i could do using excel or any other manual tracking.
Submittals and RFIs. If the contractor has an admin that is properly trained in how a workflow is done and appropriately enters the planning aspect of the submission, the proper review time by the A/E and utilizes the CSI format properly, then there is nothing that come to near to the power that it has on a project.
Emails. The only thing that i do like about it is that you can tag and issue with the email. So, say you had to amend a closed submittal, you could send an email within the submittal and attached the modified submission. It will forever be associated to the submittals for record.
The Basic Con's
Control. I think everyone knows what I mean by this. The owner of the license has the ability to entry, not enter or even change information that would be under our purview. i.e. There have been a few occasions where the contractor has closed a punch list item or even changes the language of the item with out the architects consent; or cutting the review time of a submittal by half because they were late in submitting it; or have left out dates of when the submission was submitted by a sub or reviewed by the GC. The worse scenario is if at he end of the project they contractor cuts out the architect and no longer access the system or information. So why? why do we allow it? Well as you know its a dollars and cents issue. Architect do not need nor can afford to pay for the full system. The contractor can easily burry the costs of the system in there general conditions.
I've actually have has some discussion with procure on these issues. It was there position that they are coming out with a version for architects which can communicate with the other licenses with out duplicating task work. They also can and worked with us on cost, because frankly we only need about 5 of the modules to be effective in the CA management. Honestly, I don't understand why they would not develop something like this. it would guarantee their corner in the market. I'm waiting with baiting breath for this.
In the interim I just have to watch the contractor to be sure to keep them playing within the rules of the game.
Regarding the updating of the documents. 100% spot on. It seems that we are now doing as-built drawings so they no longer have to track the changes. the only suggestion i have with that is if the change is due to a conflict or error in my documents I will update them, but if its a change because its cheaper or easier way to do it for them, then it would be appropriate to track and invoice for the time spent. Drawings are available upon payment.
I think that whether this exists in the drawings or specs, it is incumbent upon the Architect to describe what a "complete submittal" is and also enumerate that in the contract between the Owner and Architect under Construction Administration services. What complicates things is that usually the GC is asked to produce a "submittal schedule," but if the Architect does this in advance, the Architect has more control over what is expected to be reviewed. In any event, just as the Architect describes how many submittal reviews are included in the contract, so too must the architect tell the owner what he or she is or is not reviewing in terms of "completeness". There is a clause in the A201 about the General Contractor affixing the GC's stamp on the submittal, which should signal that the GC has reviewed the submittal prior to forwarding the Architect for review. Often times, subs just upload their submittal and the GC neither reviews nor stamps the submittal, OR the GC does so as a formality and simply forwards it over to the Architect.
By outlining in the Contract between Owner and Architect what constitutes a complete submittal, the Architect protects himself from Owner's position of non-payment of excessive reviews, and by outlining what a complete submittal is in the Contract Docs, the Architect doesn't have to waste time reviewing incomplete submittals, especially when the Architect is pressured to turn them around fast with a satisfactory marking.
I can't tell you how many times GC's don't make the extra effort to review their sub-contractor's submittals. I have literally refused to review some submittals because they have been incomplete and I have had success in pushing back against the incompleteness precisely because I have included the language described above.
Lazy or they know its shit so they don't even want to look at it or be bothered by it. The subs should know what the f--- they are doing but...... anyway, good point BB.
So how do you define completeness?\
When you create a submittals list, do you want to see shop drawings, product data, and samples, or just one or the other, or a combination? If a contractor just provides you with samples and shop drawings but no product data, is the submittal “complete?”
What if you are reviewing a glazing system but the contractor just submit s product data for the glass rather than the entire share m
Pressed enter too quickly…(continued from above) entire system? What if the u-value is is just for the glass rather than the entire system? Is that submittal “complete”?
Architects like to think that the contractors should know what the architect is looking for, but that is such an ambiguous and irresponsible assumption…
Well the contractor is supposed to provide you with a submittal schedule.
I’ve only gotten that on highrise and public works projects.
But then again we had spec books for this projects…
For the past 20 years I've always has specs for projects, and I've always required a submittal schedule in Div 01.
Most of the GCs in the residential (lowrise, SFRs, duplexes, and other small projects) often are not going to provide this stuff because they really don't know what they are doing. They are literally figuring it out as they go. Mostly with no education, supervised training experience, etc.
The inexperience or incompetence of contractors does not negate contractual terms.
I agree. Reality is they just don '
don't have the knowledge and skills to do what the contract terms demand. I think its better off that we make becoming an architect (or engineer) license a pre-requisite (but not only requirement) for a commercial (building vs civil/bridge/etc.) contractor license. For Residential GC license tier, I would say a CPBD certification or an architect license being pre-requisite.
Of course, I would expect there be more additional requirements in construction experience/education & exams (written & practice exams in 3+ trades for GC, 1-2 trades for limited or specialty contractor license tier and certain other requirements). This way we can actually have construction professionals not construction amateurs. I may even consider a few other education variation than just the NAAB accredited degree but that's a long tough road.
However, we can't expect inexperienced/incompetent contractors to magically pull off the requirements. What is the minimum education and training they are currently required to have. In which case, if you are more competent to do the task then them, why let them do that. It's a danger to the public. I know, insurance companies and the pain they cause and the lawyers.
Hence why we a bid usually goes to the lowest QUALIFIED bidder… or at least it should.
Today qualified only means they have their paperwork in order - insurance, bonds, municipal construction program enrollment, etc... I've rarely if never seen a contractor qualified by the actual quality of work or ability to complete it.
Richard Balkins wrote:
"Most of the GCs in the residential (lowrise, SFRs, duplexes, and other small projects) often are not going to provide this stuff because they really don't know what they are doing. They are literally figuring it out as they go. Mostly with no education, supervised training experience, etc."
First off - that's not correct. I've worked on plenty of small projects with small sized contractors - they provide a submittal schedule.
Second - we don't work with inexperienced or incompetent contractors.
Third, I don't care why they're not doing it. If they don't provide it then we inform the owner and a stop work is issued.
@ArchAnonymous My experience has been that contractors get interviewed and if you don’t know their work, you visit some of their current and recently completed projects as part of the interview process. References are often asked for as well. Now this is in NYC. I don’t know what other shitty markets in the country people practice in, but this is the way contractor selections should go…
BB - That's what we do when we assist our clients in choosing a contractor.
Who wants to do construction administration purely in paper and pencil/pen... with today's requirements.
100 or so years ago give or take, state wide licensing of contractors was a hit or miss matter. Even more so than today. In a lot of places, your "contractor's license" was through the local jurisdiction which is more like local city/county business license which may have fees or taxes that are different based on occupational field.
Even today, there are many places where anyone can open up shop by just filing the basic local business license with the city or county you do work in and any ordinary business license. In many places, today, you would have to get insurance and bond. Some places have state licenses for specific trades but not necessarily generic contracting. A 100 years ago, insurance and bonding was someone more rarer but there were places. If you do design-build... you may have to shift from the A&E standard Professional Liability Insurance to what is called a Contractor's Professional Liability Insurance. Basically the same thing in several aspects but with a few extra stuff pertinent to construction. I'm not an insurance agent so the specifics of the terms have to be looked at.
--------
Back to topic:
Construction Administration like all things in life are now done via computers and software tools to facilitate those processes. You have this shared drop box service because otherwise, you have to set up a server and all the port forwarding and IT shit for a networked share that can be accessed outside your local area network. This was what was done in the early days but that was a complicated pain in the ass and required an IT person to manage that thing. Procore and like systems, the vendor provides the cloud services through their own servers which you wouldn't have to set up your own and do stuff to link your website and domain to your external IP address and open up port forwarding so certain services can be accessed from remote like your consultants.
Be careful with romanticizing about the "good ol' days" which wasn't necessarily all "good" and forgot about the PITA moments that led you and the industry to these services in the first place.
So what may be better is what can these software programs be better to better serve architects, engineers, and contractors. Of course, maybe some of the problem with contractors is a lot of them are dumb because they never went to college and barely passed high school if that. Increase the qualification requirements for construction contractors. Established a multi-tier process with the trades where they go from new person, through journyman, through craftsman, and then get licensed with the particular trade. Proficiency in multiple trades and you are general contractor. Not just a written exam but a practical exam (exam where the person must actually demonstrate and perform trade tasks). Kind of like the welder certification process. You have to have the trade skills. There can also be practical testing with reading plans and specifications to answer the questions. This would be a more rigorous requirement. This would improve competency which can in part resolve some of the issues stated. Anyway, it is silly we have this issue. Software is a tool but it can't fix stupid.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.