I've been in this profession for a long time and I've never had to use one of these before. It's a consultant. But I don't really understand how we utilize them.
Do we bring them in right from the beginning, or at every milestone (30%, 60%, 90%), or just at the end? Is this basically integrating Value Engineering into the entire design process? Isn't this a service a contractor on a CM at Risk contract would do?
If anyone has stories to share - or warnings to advise - please do! I appreciate help.
(Here's a picture of a little sauna I designed, as a thank you, and to maybe help you relax if the phrase "constructability review" stresses you out.)
Thanks Donna, It does stress me out and that image helped.
I have run into this a few times on projects. It seems like an alternative term for an owners rep, who has more of a mind for construction than development, typically an ex contractor. I would recommend they are involved as early as possible. The few times I have run into it they were brought in at DD or part of the way through CD and caused really really big headaches by questioning every detail to essentially prove their worth. The mind set they approached things from is "how easy is that to build" instead of how correct, functional or aesthetically pleasing is something. Which can be very very frustrating. in the perfect world beautiful things are easy to build, but we know that's not the case.
That being said it can be a really good thing as you can shift some of the construction liability onto this individual. I found myself saying "what would you prefer" a lot.
One more thing we are outsourcing and then wondering why we are just squeaking little gerbils in the process.
Aug 7, 18 6:39 pm ·
·
Bloopox
It's not something that I've seen architecture firms outsourcing by choice. Where I've encountered this is on university and school projects, where the owner or the funding authority requires the third party review.
Exactly. This is a required part of a potential contract with a significant funding authority.
Aug 7, 18 8:49 pm ·
·
Bloopox
We've lucked out often and gotten reviewers with whom we've worked in other capacities - perrennial clerk of the works types - who don't particularly want to aggravate us too much since we'll probably work together again. We've even gotten somebody who used to work for our firm years ago. The more problematic ones are the guys from big CM companies, especially if they're not particularly local so don't know the applicable building and energy codes.
On my typical residential remodel projects I always preferred to work with a selected contractor already on board to essentially do this kind of "constructability review" as we went through the design process. I like collaborating, especially in remodel work where some careful selective demo can help hone in on what are sensible approaches. But I've never encountered this terminology and on this kind of complex project (actually it's not a huge project but a big scope).
Donna, is there also a cost estimator? Is this constructabullshit reviewer with the contractor or the client? I'd figure out who they work for and who they are in lieu of, and who's scope theirs might overlap with. At least then you know where you stand.
I've had great collaborations with cost estimators before, and design build can be a dream. That said, a third party between you and the contractor sounds like a recipe for trouble.
In my experience this process is like a peer review conducted by CMs, rather than a VE exercise. Although, if you get stuck with a mediocre one, this peer reviewer will pick apart your drawings and attempt some VE in order to make themselves seem more valuable to the client. Ideally, you have a good reviewer who is well-versed in the building/program type and is engaged from early on (end of SD, beginning of DD). If you are working with a CM, this would typically be an add-service if you or the client requests it. I've never had constructability reviews as a base service with a CM.
When I have had to use these consultants, I like to spend half a day (or full day, depending on the size/complexity of the project) meeting in person and doing a full page-turn/worksession in order to have the reviewer understand the design intent, the client's priorities, and what still needs to be done (if you are not done with CDs yet). I find this adds the most value for all parties involved and saves a lot of time in the long run (but you have to "waste" time up front having this meeting). YMMV, depending on the project type/client/budget/etc.
We used one on a hospital renovation, they were awesome (we used them from SD on with a monthly or bi monthly check in / review) they helped us sequence renovations, changed a few details and finishes to things that would not disrupt ongoing operations as much and they helped us site the cranes, construction lifts and staging areas. On a smaller project they might be redundant, but it was a huge help to have someone thinking about logistics and sequencing on a tight complex site.
I think with any consultant it is good to be clear up front what you expect them to do for the project.
I have only had one project with the constructability reviewer, but here goes. Mostly, as others have said, it was the CM for the project who weighed in on how they planned to approach the project, what the sequencing would look like, and what typical products they planned to use. We could reach out to specific manufacturers about products we were unfamiliar with ahead of time, and also tailor our notes/drawings to provide more detailed information as requested by the CM, which helped us cut down on RFIs. The CM provided cost estimates with this service which were completely off base, so we also had our own cost estimators look at the project to get a more realistic idea for the client.
Mostly I just wanted to say that I like your sauna and I wish I had one! :)
I've been a constructability consultant, sort of, as part of building science consulting, mostly for very high-end residential architects. I was hired mainly to recommend and review details and materials, and to make sure that what was drawn was buildable. I also included a building code review while I was at it. I reviewed at SD, DD, and CD, and offered to review during construction as well. Some projects were design/build but most were design-only, with or without a contractor on board--in all cases, the builder was either too busy or not experienced enough in high performance details.
The only way for it to be effective is to make the consultant part of your team from the beginning, and most importantly, incorporate their suggestions.
Must have been fun to "check" the sauna for final deficiencies. I can just imagine showing up in just a towel... How else can you verify that it's as per the architect's drawings?
Thanks everyone! This is helping me define their scope much better, and it's likely we will also be getting independent cost estimates, too.
Thanks for the sauna comments. here's another picture from the client's ad page - it's in a hip apartment building. The color, Miles, comes from the chromatherapy LEDs!
I'm registered, but work for a CM now. We provide that service at major milestones depending on the project delivery method to ensure the design is coordinated and buildable. For example, on a design-assist job we did it pretty much continuously from 30% DD onward. On public bid work I've done it at 50% and 90%CDs. The idea is to catch, report, and fix these things during design before they become costly RFIs and change orders.
We provide a .pdf that includes: a summary of findings and keyed plan/section/3d views to go along with our model showing every instance where something is of concern.
Some examples of items we've documented: uncoordinated arch/str (brace frames through doors), underground plumbing drawn through footings, ductwork that is too great in volume to fit above the ceiling but below structure, ceilings drawn too low to meet code, plumbing/el conduit drawn vertically through beams, arch backgrounds on MEP+FP drawings that are out of date with new walls/grids, etc.
The public work I've been involved with have many examples where it's apparant the design team work in isolation from each other and the architect simply compiled everyone's work at the last moment.
My rant: I've come to find "CM to coordinate" to mean "we didn't bother making sure this actually works so you figure it out, ok?"
Thank you athensarch! This is helpful. And pretty much aligns with what I was envisioning, though it pains me to think about architects NOT being able to manage to design a constructable building. I mean for heavens sake that *is* our job, right?! Anyway, thank you!
Aug 9, 18 9:20 am ·
·
thatsthat
This sounds like an awesome job!! Did you just apply to an open position or did you have to work your way up to get it?
Aug 9, 18 9:35 am ·
·
Rusty!
I want to put the concept of design-assist into a design-assist built rocket, and shoot it right into the sun. Sadly it will not even make it past the clouds due to shit quality design-assist brings into everything.
Aug 9, 18 10:15 am ·
·
athensarch
Happy to help! I didn't mean to vent...I'm on the public bid job now and sometimes the stress gets to me.
I think part of the reason for the poor drawings is due to how the contracts are structured. They're adversarial in nature. Low fee and faster paced schedule for design team means fewer staff and time spent on producing quality drawings. You work until your deadline, hope your sub consultants use your updated backgrounds and follow your direction to update drawings based on RCPs/ other communication etc. It's similar on the build side.
On the design-assist job we were more financially incentivized to work together. It was rewarding in that for custom/challenging parts of the design we brought on certain trades early. This allowed us to have rewarding discussions such as: What details still need to be identified? What are best practices from a constructibility standpoint? What products have you had success with?
Aug 9, 18 6:25 pm ·
·
athensarch
thatsthat, I got lucky and met someone with hiring authority. I had a long interview process with many informal discussions/tests to give them the confidence I'd be a good fit culturally and could do the job. While I didn't quite start at the bottom I have had to prove to a lot of people on the build side (PMs, supers, foremen, etc.) I'm competent. That's earned. You learn a lot and I enjoy it.
I'm often asked to CM some of our office's "b team" design packages.
Aug 8, 18 9:05 pm ·
·
joseffischer
Hmm... in-house we call that QC work... on paper every job should have a QC person who checks the set starting approx. 2 weeks before it's officially to go out the door. In practice, this rarely works, but it's funny to watch the higher-ups start pointing fingers at the mid-levels. "how did you not catch that?" "I did, see, here's the redline on the set you gave me a week after you already sent it to the client." .....silence
I don't think it was called a constructability review, but I recently went through a "peer review" where our client spent money on another architect to review our drawings and specs. It was a joke. I felt like the client was paying them to learn how to architect from me (at my firm's cost). It was a lot of time spent explaining basics.
I have actually worked for firms where we had to get actual constructability reviews ... usually for publicly-funded institutional projects. Some were better than others. The key is, as has been pointed out above, to keep them focused on the things that others aren't already doing. Eg. if you have a cost estimator, the constructability reviewer shouldn't be doing an estimate. My advice, get a copy of their contract if you can, and make sure they focus on what they are being paid to do, and not stepping on other people's toes.
Aug 9, 18 11:46 am ·
·
joseffischer
Great comment! Getting copies of contracts are important
I perform constructability reviews daily. Projects are of all types. Construction types I through V.
I look for Code issues, accessibility, coordination with MEPS and whether MEPS is coordinated with architectural, whether mEPS is complete, details and whether they are correct and complete. I also make design suggestions when they might be appropriate.
Reviews have been performed during SD, DD, several percentages of CD, for specific trades like curtainwall or exterior enclosure, for zoning, and energy.
Am an independent and objective additional set of eyes on your drawings to help you save time, money, and frustration in the design and construction process.
It amazes how many architects do not provide adequate coordination and detailing. My clients have included starchitects to two-person firms and issues are fundamentally the same, across the board.
Count the number of RFIs and change orders you or your firm averages on a project. Whatever it is, do you consider it normal. Normal is a highly subjective term. What do your clients think? Would you ever tell your client that 4,000 RFIs and fifty change orders due to your lack of coordination or incomplete drawings are anticipated on your project?
Firms are busy and under ever-increasing pressures to get projects into construction. If your firm could employ an outside consultant who will save you and your client time, money, and frustration, would it be worth the money.
May 17, 19 8:43 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.
What is a "Constructability Reviewer"?
I've been in this profession for a long time and I've never had to use one of these before. It's a consultant. But I don't really understand how we utilize them.
Do we bring them in right from the beginning, or at every milestone (30%, 60%, 90%), or just at the end? Is this basically integrating Value Engineering into the entire design process? Isn't this a service a contractor on a CM at Risk contract would do?
If anyone has stories to share - or warnings to advise - please do! I appreciate help.
(Here's a picture of a little sauna I designed, as a thank you, and to maybe help you relax if the phrase "constructability review" stresses you out.)
Good article on the subject here:
https://www.wbdg.org/resources...
Thanks Donna, It does stress me out and that image helped.
I have run into this a few times on projects. It seems like an alternative term for an owners rep, who has more of a mind for construction than development, typically an ex contractor. I would recommend they are involved as early as possible. The few times I have run into it they were brought in at DD or part of the way through CD and caused really really big headaches by questioning every detail to essentially prove their worth. The mind set they approached things from is "how easy is that to build" instead of how correct, functional or aesthetically pleasing is something. Which can be very very frustrating. in the perfect world beautiful things are easy to build, but we know that's not the case.
That being said it can be a really good thing as you can shift some of the construction liability onto this individual. I found myself saying "what would you prefer" a lot.
One more thing we are outsourcing and then wondering why we are just squeaking little gerbils in the process.
It's not something that I've seen architecture firms outsourcing by choice. Where I've encountered this is on university and school projects, where the owner or the funding authority requires the third party review.
Exactly. This is a required part of a potential contract with a significant funding authority.
We've lucked out often and gotten reviewers with whom we've worked in other capacities - perrennial clerk of the works types - who don't particularly want to aggravate us too much since we'll probably work together again. We've even gotten somebody who used to work for our firm years ago. The more problematic ones are the guys from big CM companies, especially if they're not particularly local so don't know the applicable building and energy codes.
Thanks everyone.
On my typical residential remodel projects I always preferred to work with a selected contractor already on board to essentially do this kind of "constructability review" as we went through the design process. I like collaborating, especially in remodel work where some careful selective demo can help hone in on what are sensible approaches. But I've never encountered this terminology and on this kind of complex project (actually it's not a huge project but a big scope).
Donna, is there also a cost estimator? Is this constructabullshit reviewer with the contractor or the client? I'd figure out who they work for and who they are in lieu of, and who's scope theirs might overlap with. At least then you know where you stand.
I've had great collaborations with cost estimators before, and design build can be a dream. That said, a third party between you and the contractor sounds like a recipe for trouble.
In my experience this process is like a peer review conducted by CMs, rather than a VE exercise. Although, if you get stuck with a mediocre one, this peer reviewer will pick apart your drawings and attempt some VE in order to make themselves seem more valuable to the client. Ideally, you have a good reviewer who is well-versed in the building/program type and is engaged from early on (end of SD, beginning of DD). If you are working with a CM, this would typically be an add-service if you or the client requests it. I've never had constructability reviews as a base service with a CM.
When I have had to use these consultants, I like to spend half a day (or full day, depending on the size/complexity of the project) meeting in person and doing a full page-turn/worksession in order to have the reviewer understand the design intent, the client's priorities, and what still needs to be done (if you are not done with CDs yet). I find this adds the most value for all parties involved and saves a lot of time in the long run (but you have to "waste" time up front having this meeting). YMMV, depending on the project type/client/budget/etc.
Oh, and I like your sauna! :)
We used one on a hospital renovation, they were awesome (we used them from SD on with a monthly or bi monthly check in / review) they helped us sequence renovations, changed a few details and finishes to things that would not disrupt ongoing operations as much and they helped us site the cranes, construction lifts and staging areas. On a smaller project they might be redundant, but it was a huge help to have someone thinking about logistics and sequencing on a tight complex site.
I think with any consultant it is good to be clear up front what you expect them to do for the project.
Over and OUT
Peter N
Nice sauna. Is the color from the glass?
I have only had one project with the constructability reviewer, but here goes. Mostly, as others have said, it was the CM for the project who weighed in on how they planned to approach the project, what the sequencing would look like, and what typical products they planned to use. We could reach out to specific manufacturers about products we were unfamiliar with ahead of time, and also tailor our notes/drawings to provide more detailed information as requested by the CM, which helped us cut down on RFIs. The CM provided cost estimates with this service which were completely off base, so we also had our own cost estimators look at the project to get a more realistic idea for the client.
Mostly I just wanted to say that I like your sauna and I wish I had one! :)
I've been a constructability consultant, sort of, as part of building science consulting, mostly for very high-end residential architects. I was hired mainly to recommend and review details and materials, and to make sure that what was drawn was buildable. I also included a building code review while I was at it. I reviewed at SD, DD, and CD, and offered to review during construction as well. Some projects were design/build but most were design-only, with or without a contractor on board--in all cases, the builder was either too busy or not experienced enough in high performance details.
The only way for it to be effective is to make the consultant part of your team from the beginning, and most importantly, incorporate their suggestions.
Must have been fun to "check" the sauna for final deficiencies. I can just imagine showing up in just a towel... How else can you verify that it's as per the architect's drawings?
Thanks everyone! This is helping me define their scope much better, and it's likely we will also be getting independent cost estimates, too.
Thanks for the sauna comments. here's another picture from the client's ad page - it's in a hip apartment building. The color, Miles, comes from the chromatherapy LEDs!
ooh! Do they change colors?
They do!
Maybe I could do this in my bedroom. Not make it an actual sauna, but have the wood, lighting, and barrel of rocks.
Sweet. Pink is much better than green.
That is one nice sauna, Donna.
You're a poet and don't know it.
Oh, I can help answer this!
I'm registered, but work for a CM now. We provide that service at major milestones depending on the project delivery method to ensure the design is coordinated and buildable. For example, on a design-assist job we did it pretty much continuously from 30% DD onward. On public bid work I've done it at 50% and 90%CDs. The idea is to catch, report, and fix these things during design before they become costly RFIs and change orders.
We provide a .pdf that includes: a summary of findings and keyed plan/section/3d views to go along with our model showing every instance where something is of concern.
Some examples of items we've documented: uncoordinated arch/str (brace frames through doors), underground plumbing drawn through footings, ductwork that is too great in volume to fit above the ceiling but below structure, ceilings drawn too low to meet code, plumbing/el conduit drawn vertically through beams, arch backgrounds on MEP+FP drawings that are out of date with new walls/grids, etc.
The public work I've been involved with have many examples where it's apparant the design team work in isolation from each other and the architect simply compiled everyone's work at the last moment.
My rant: I've come to find "CM to coordinate" to mean "we didn't bother making sure this actually works so you figure it out, ok?"
Thank you athensarch! This is helpful. And pretty much aligns with what I was envisioning, though it pains me to think about architects NOT being able to manage to design a constructable building. I mean for heavens sake that *is* our job, right?! Anyway, thank you!
This sounds like an awesome job!! Did you just apply to an open position or did you have to work your way up to get it?
I want to put the concept of design-assist into a design-assist built rocket, and shoot it right into the sun. Sadly it will not even make it past the clouds due to shit quality design-assist brings into everything.
Happy to help! I didn't mean to vent...I'm on the public bid job now and sometimes the stress gets to me.
I think part of the reason for the poor drawings is due to how the contracts are structured. They're adversarial in nature. Low fee and faster paced schedule for design team means fewer staff and time spent on producing quality drawings. You work until your deadline, hope your sub consultants use your updated backgrounds and follow your direction to update drawings based on RCPs/ other communication etc. It's similar on the build side.
On the design-assist job we were more financially incentivized to work together. It was rewarding in that for custom/challenging parts of the design we brought on certain trades early. This allowed us to have rewarding discussions such as: What details still need to be identified? What are best practices from a constructibility standpoint? What products have you had success with?
thatsthat, I got lucky and met someone with hiring authority. I had a long interview process with many informal discussions/tests to give them the confidence I'd be a good fit culturally and could do the job. While I didn't quite start at the bottom I have had to prove to a lot of people on the build side (PMs, supers, foremen, etc.) I'm competent. That's earned. You learn a lot and I enjoy it.
I'm often asked to CM some of our office's "b team" design packages.
Hmm... in-house we call that QC work... on paper every job should have a QC person who checks the set starting approx. 2 weeks before it's officially to go out the door. In practice, this rarely works, but it's funny to watch the higher-ups start pointing fingers at the mid-levels. "how did you not catch that?" "I did, see, here's the redline on the set you gave me a week after you already sent it to the client." .....silence
I don't think it was called a constructability review, but I recently went through a "peer review" where our client spent money on another architect to review our drawings and specs. It was a joke. I felt like the client was paying them to learn how to architect from me (at my firm's cost). It was a lot of time spent explaining basics.
I have actually worked for firms where we had to get actual constructability reviews ... usually for publicly-funded institutional projects. Some were better than others. The key is, as has been pointed out above, to keep them focused on the things that others aren't already doing. Eg. if you have a cost estimator, the constructability reviewer shouldn't be doing an estimate. My advice, get a copy of their contract if you can, and make sure they focus on what they are being paid to do, and not stepping on other people's toes.
Great comment! Getting copies of contracts are important
Very nice space. Marketing slogan @ no charge:
Wanna Sauna? Donna!
I perform constructability reviews daily. Projects are of all types. Construction types I through V.
I look for Code issues, accessibility, coordination with MEPS and whether MEPS is coordinated with architectural, whether mEPS is complete, details and whether they are correct and complete. I also make design suggestions when they might be appropriate.
Reviews have been performed during SD, DD, several percentages of CD, for specific trades like curtainwall or exterior enclosure, for zoning, and energy.
Am an independent and objective additional set of eyes on your drawings to help you save time, money, and frustration in the design and construction process.
Yeah, thats what Architects do!
It amazes how many architects do not provide adequate coordination and detailing. My clients have included starchitects to two-person firms and issues are fundamentally the same, across the board.
Count the number of RFIs and change orders you or your firm averages on a project. Whatever it is, do you consider it normal. Normal is a highly subjective term. What do your clients think? Would you ever tell your client that 4,000 RFIs and fifty change orders due to your lack of coordination or incomplete drawings are anticipated on your project?
Firms are busy and under ever-increasing pressures to get projects into construction. If your firm could employ an outside consultant who will save you and your client time, money, and frustration, would it be worth the money.
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.