question: you're visiting a job site and notice that a wall wasn't built to plan. it's not the right height and it's not located in plan correctly. the contractor says that they needed space to run a duct and that they needed to core the floor where the wall was supposed to be.
no RFI was issued before making the change.
what actions would you take to document this and how would you resolve the problem?
Why did the duct need to be there? Why did they need to core the floor there? Did they submit shop drawings showing the wall in the original or the new location? Did they submit shop drawings showing the duct in that location? What does the General Conditions say about accepting or rejecting nonconforming work? Does the change work with the design, or does it screw something up? If it screws something up, is it pertinent to life-safety, code, accessibility, acoustics, etc.?
No change order needed, as the documents were correct this whole time (assuming no discrepancies between arch and mech plans). No need to modify them, so change order (i.e. contract modification) is unnecessary.
Simplest answer is note nonconformance in your field report and don't certify payment for that work until it is corrected. If the Owner wants to accept the nonconforming work, they can. This is assuming a standard General Conditions.
That doesn't solve the problem with your duct being in the wrong place or it being the wrong size or something like that. That's why I'd try to figure out where that went wrong before you get too bent out of shape about the wall. Hopefully yours and your ME's drawings are coordinated properly. Might simply be nonconforming work as well, in which case, see paragraph above.
just to follow up: the MEP is coordinated. they're not following design intent because they think they think they know better in this particular case. ie: nonconforming work. which will actually cause problems with the plan layout.
Only problems I can think of when using an ASI is if you use it incorrectly. ASIs are supposed to be minor changes not affecting project cost or time. If you write an ASI that will affect project cost or time, you're using it incorrectly ... it should have been a change order.
The problem with an ASI would come if the contractor thinks the ASI results in a change that changes the project cost or time. In that case they usually have a certain number of days from receipt to express their displeasure in your assumptions of no cost or time.
All of this is spelled out in the General Conditions and Division 01 specifications. You should read them.
You write a tight ASI by being clear and concise with the language. Drawings help.
Also, and I know this is sacrilege, but sometimes contractors do know better. Well, if not better, sometimes they know things we didn't think of that can result in a better design solution. Sometimes listening and asking questions is important too.
Aug 8, 17 6:40 pm ·
·
Rusty!
It doesn't matter if contractor knows better. There is an intrinsic conflict of interest between GC and Architect. Building a wall in random location without seeking written approval first is a fuck you move that requires a response with same level of glee.
Aug 8, 17 7:33 pm ·
·
Rusty!
You and your hammer. How about a sturdy dolly that can just move said wall to the correct location.
I'm not saying you can't go out on site and show them where to build the wall with your middle finger, just that it would be a good idea to get some information before you do. Worst thing to do would to get all hot under the collar and make them move it only to realize weeks later they were right.
The responses are too kind - kidding. If you are the architect, first thing you need to do, beyond all the responses thus far, is to communicate to the owner, just why this contractor is a fucking clown. Not really, but yes. The owner needs to be made aware of the complete lack of respect and communication that this particular contractor has toward their project, and not the reasons why what was done, was not only incorrect, but a fucking wanton disregard for the documents bid by this reprobate.
Then, in the construction meeting, call this shithead to account for their insolence, then have a beer.
Wow, you folks are pretty hot headed. Design intent or not, sometimes the GC does know better. Of course it's crucial that they communicate with you, which is really the problem here.
Anyway I had this same issue recently. The kitchen plumbing wall in an apartment building had to move because you can't core through the outer reinforcing strands of a hollow core slab. Unfortunately everybody missed this in reviewing shop drawings, so we had to make it work by making the kitchen 9" smaller. We couldn't make it 4" bigger (the alternative) because it would have shrunk The washroom on the other side of the wall to less than 5' wide.
These things happen. Unfortunately.
Aug 8, 17 9:47 pm ·
·
bowling_ball
Thanks for the enlightened comment.
Aug 8, 17 9:51 pm ·
·
bowling_ball
Curious as to what you would have done. Contact is design build, 15 storey apartment building. 7 storeys of slabs are already in place, and going up one floor per week.
As the architects, we're not really responsible for approving shop drawings, we simply review. You already know that but it's worth pointing out. In any case, with the speed of modern construction and in a design build scenario, my point is that sometimes shit happens and you just have to make the best decision you can, whether it's a perfect solution or not. For developed as clients, if the building doesn't open on the day promised, there's hell to pay.
You might want to check your agreement to see if your responsible for approving shop drawings. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but AIA agreements generally require the architect to "review and approve" submittals such as shop drawings, product data, and samples (i.e. action submittals). Of course they also state that the review of these submittals is not for the purpose of determining accuracy and completeness of information, so you're supposedly off the hook for catching errors like this anyway.
Cue someone saying they don't use AIA agreements in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Then cue someone saying their stamp for submittals doesn't say "approved" in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Seriously though, I'm curious what agreements typically state in Canada.
Aug 9, 17 12:54 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
EI, typically is the same up here in the vast frozen tundra north of the border. At least it's easier to core through Igloos. Seriously though, I review all sleeving because my engineers don't. All they normally care for is diameter and spacing... but then again, the wanker placing the forms cares even less.
Aug 9, 17 8:31 am ·
·
bowling_ball
So David, a client shows up with a million dollar arch fee and you say no because you don't like design build for some reason? Really? Personally I love design build. Anyway I have a hard time believing that.
I've been in situations like this and seen it go both ways. Some times the GC goes well if we correct it, it's going to take XXX amount of time and the owner gives them a pass (if they don't see it as big deal) and the architect basically gets the cold shoulder. GCs are fun :)
Agree with Quentin. You can fuss all you want, but ultimately it's up to the owner. If the owner and the GC are on the same page, you can find yourself on the outside looking in. Seen it happen before. It's a team that gets a project done; hold your ground when necessary, but know where you stand and don't make the wrong enemies.
I do small scale commercial and contractors always think they know better.
My routine is:
1) Turn on the additional services timer.
2) Write a ballistic email to the client noting what the contractor did wrong.
3) Offer the client options. This can range from "eh, this is minimal" to "eff this, the contractor either demos this and fixes this or you need to give me a letter indemnifying me forever and ever".
4) Let the client decide.
5) Make doubly sure that the client understand where the blame lies (be it them, the contractor, me or someone else).
Aug 9, 17 12:20 pm ·
·
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.
changes made by GC in field
Hey archinect,
question: you're visiting a job site and notice that a wall wasn't built to plan. it's not the right height and it's not located in plan correctly. the contractor says that they needed space to run a duct and that they needed to core the floor where the wall was supposed to be.
no RFI was issued before making the change.
what actions would you take to document this and how would you resolve the problem?
Why did the duct need to be there? Why did they need to core the floor there? Did they submit shop drawings showing the wall in the original or the new location? Did they submit shop drawings showing the duct in that location? What does the General Conditions say about accepting or rejecting nonconforming work? Does the change work with the design, or does it screw something up? If it screws something up, is it pertinent to life-safety, code, accessibility, acoustics, etc.?
No change order needed, as the documents were correct this whole time (assuming no discrepancies between arch and mech plans). No need to modify them, so change order (i.e. contract modification) is unnecessary.
Simplest answer is note nonconformance in your field report and don't certify payment for that work until it is corrected. If the Owner wants to accept the nonconforming work, they can. This is assuming a standard General Conditions.
That doesn't solve the problem with your duct being in the wrong place or it being the wrong size or something like that. That's why I'd try to figure out where that went wrong before you get too bent out of shape about the wall. Hopefully yours and your ME's drawings are coordinated properly. Might simply be nonconforming work as well, in which case, see paragraph above.
thanks for the replies archinine & EA.
just to follow up: the MEP is coordinated. they're not following design intent because they think they think they know better in this particular case. ie: nonconforming work. which will actually cause problems with the plan layout.
also had a follow up question.
have either of you done an ASI? what problems came up if you used one? how do you write a tight ASI?
thanks
Only problems I can think of when using an ASI is if you use it incorrectly. ASIs are supposed to be minor changes not affecting project cost or time. If you write an ASI that will affect project cost or time, you're using it incorrectly ... it should have been a change order.
The problem with an ASI would come if the contractor thinks the ASI results in a change that changes the project cost or time. In that case they usually have a certain number of days from receipt to express their displeasure in your assumptions of no cost or time.
All of this is spelled out in the General Conditions and Division 01 specifications. You should read them.
You write a tight ASI by being clear and concise with the language. Drawings help.
Also, and I know this is sacrilege, but sometimes contractors do know better. Well, if not better, sometimes they know things we didn't think of that can result in a better design solution. Sometimes listening and asking questions is important too.
It doesn't matter if contractor knows better. There is an intrinsic conflict of interest between GC and Architect. Building a wall in random location without seeking written approval first is a fuck you move that requires a response with same level of glee.
You and your hammer. How about a sturdy dolly that can just move said wall to the correct location.
I'm not saying you can't go out on site and show them where to build the wall with your middle finger, just that it would be a good idea to get some information before you do. Worst thing to do would to get all hot under the collar and make them move it only to realize weeks later they were right.
The responses are too kind - kidding. If you are the architect, first thing you need to do, beyond all the responses thus far, is to communicate to the owner, just why this contractor is a fucking clown. Not really, but yes. The owner needs to be made aware of the complete lack of respect and communication that this particular contractor has toward their project, and not the reasons why what was done, was not only incorrect, but a fucking wanton disregard for the documents bid by this reprobate.
Then, in the construction meeting, call this shithead to account for their insolence, then have a beer.
Wow, you folks are pretty hot headed. Design intent or not, sometimes the GC does know better. Of course it's crucial that they communicate with you, which is really the problem here.
Anyway I had this same issue recently. The kitchen plumbing wall in an apartment building had to move because you can't core through the outer reinforcing strands of a hollow core slab. Unfortunately everybody missed this in reviewing shop drawings, so we had to make it work by making the kitchen 9" smaller. We couldn't make it 4" bigger (the alternative) because it would have shrunk The washroom on the other side of the wall to less than 5' wide.
These things happen. Unfortunately.
Thanks for the enlightened comment.
Curious as to what you would have done. Contact is design build, 15 storey apartment building. 7 storeys of slabs are already in place, and going up one floor per week.
"everybody missed this"
Credit where credit is due.
As the architects, we're not really responsible for approving shop drawings, we simply review. You already know that but it's worth pointing out. In any case, with the speed of modern construction and in a design build scenario, my point is that sometimes shit happens and you just have to make the best decision you can, whether it's a perfect solution or not. For developed as clients, if the building doesn't open on the day promised, there's hell to pay.
Developers, not developed.
You might want to check your agreement to see if your responsible for approving shop drawings. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but AIA agreements generally require the architect to "review and approve" submittals such as shop drawings, product data, and samples (i.e. action submittals). Of course they also state that the review of these submittals is not for the purpose of determining accuracy and completeness of information, so you're supposedly off the hook for catching errors like this anyway.
Cue someone saying they don't use AIA agreements in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Then cue someone saying their stamp for submittals doesn't say "approved" in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Seriously though, I'm curious what agreements typically state in Canada.
EI, typically is the same up here in the vast frozen tundra north of the border. At least it's easier to core through Igloos. Seriously though, I review all sleeving because my engineers don't. All they normally care for is diameter and spacing... but then again, the wanker placing the forms cares even less.
So David, a client shows up with a million dollar arch fee and you say no because you don't like design build for some reason? Really? Personally I love design build. Anyway I have a hard time believing that.
Design / build is where it's at, especially when you do both.
I've been in situations like this and seen it go both ways. Some times the GC goes well if we correct it, it's going to take XXX amount of time and the owner gives them a pass (if they don't see it as big deal) and the architect basically gets the cold shoulder. GCs are fun :)
Agree with Quentin. You can fuss all you want, but ultimately it's up to the owner. If the owner and the GC are on the same page, you can find yourself on the outside looking in. Seen it happen before. It's a team that gets a project done; hold your ground when necessary, but know where you stand and don't make the wrong enemies.
90% of my CA work is dealing with this bullshit.
I do small scale commercial and contractors always think they know better.
My routine is:
1) Turn on the additional services timer.
2) Write a ballistic email to the client noting what the contractor did wrong.
3) Offer the client options. This can range from "eh, this is minimal" to "eff this, the contractor either demos this and fixes this or you need to give me a letter indemnifying me forever and ever".
4) Let the client decide.
5) Make doubly sure that the client understand where the blame lies (be it them, the contractor, me or someone else).
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.