I am curious as to how a junior architect can start getting this experience. Is this a career stage that comes after being in production for some time? Also, is it at all possible to get this experience at large firms as a somewhat junior architect?
If you work on a project all the way through end of CDs, you can volunteer to do it, or more likely you will get volunteered. "Voluntold" as the kids say it.
It's probably the most intimidating new experience you will have in an office. But I have seen so many kids go from terrified to being really really good at it. It's the rights of passage before you become a PA and you get your own gang of juniors to terrorize.
One word of advice, don't be too good at it. You have an opportunity to truly salvage a poorly documented project. Don't take too much credit. Unless you think shuffling submittals was that one true calling in life you finally found.
I have used people right out of school to assist more senior people with CA tasks. CA of a project where the builder is capable and honest can be a pretty simple affair. Contractor incompetence and dishonesty are what can make CA complicated and difficult.
As others have said - ask your supervisors to assist in the CA process and they will most likely comply.
CA is a boring, tedious, paper pushing endeavor that can suck the life out of you. That being said, CA is a vital part of the architectural process. Regardless how good the projects design and drawings are, without doing a good job on CA the building will turn out poorly.
Also worth mentioning that doing CA on a project you had a major role in producing the design is eye-opening when the GC tells you that X detail is fucking dangerous to the poor trades person who has to torch a roof membrane off a 9-storey lift because the dumb-ass architect thought a skinny roof extension was a good idea. Repeating a story I heard from a friend of a friend, of course.
I won't disagree that it can suck the life out of you, but I think it can actually be quite invigorating. A lot of that depends on the contractor and how well the project was documented.
Thank you all for your answers. My concern had been that if I request to do CA, I would have to go to site and deal with technical issues which I wouldn't be able to resolve myself. I know that I could ask my supervisors to send me to site but I am worried that the responsibility on-site might be more than what I could successfully pull given my junior status. The case is I want to jump straight into something too difficult to handle and have to depend too much on others holding my hand. However, I think that shadowing a senior could be a good option. In the case, wouldn't the PM mind that I am spending time away from the office and therefore sacrificing hourly fee on learning rather than producing?
Feb 8, 21 11:57 am ·
·
Non Sequitur
yes, all valid concerns if your office values billable efficiency over the development of their staff. Your mileage will vary based on the quality of the management team. Best option is ask to attend/shadow regular, or semi-regular site visits and make up for that time outside of your contractual hours and offer to help with any sort of site-report or follow-up drawings that come out of those site visits.
Junior people at our firm are trained to relay anything they can't answer to someone who can. Shadowing is going to depend on how your firm is set up. If it has distinct silos where a CA person or department does all CA, they may not want to train you. If the firm has people working on all project phases, then they will probably want you to learn about CA. For me, I think it's an essential part of training any young architect.
No harm in telling the GC/subs, “I’ll have to get back to you”. Project architects tell me that constantly and it’s OK so long as they folllow-up.
I was 3-4yrs into my previous firm and couldn’t get CA experience so I studied shops/submittals/RFIs from past projects on my own time or during slow periods at work.
If a firm isn’t willing to give you that experience, consider changing firms.
One of the first lessons I learned in CA was never to get bullied into providing an answer you weren't ready to provide. Learn to say the phrase, "Submit this as an RFI, and then I'll look into it and get back to you." This goes for site visits as well as random phone calls and emails.
Second best lesson was to answer the question they should be asking, not necessarily the one they are asking.
Really though, most of the advice so far is spot on. You'll learn by doing, and that involves some mentorship from people who have been doing this longer and have more experience. If your office isn't providing that, you really should look for a firm that does.
If you're looking for something you can read/study to get a head start ... look into the CCCA study materials from CSI. Particularly the Construction Contract Administration Practice Guide and the Project Delivery Practice Guide. Also really familiarize yourself with AIA A201 General Conditions.
If you're working on a specific project, familiarize yourself with that project's General Conditions and its Division 01 specifications. This is an absolute must.
Really great advice here. The OP should learn the A201 if that is what their firm uses. Also learn how to read specifications and its 3 parts. When I first teach intern architects about specs, I start with the 3 parts and expand up from there. It seems easier for them to grasp starting with the more specific, especially if they have limited experience.
EA, are you a CCCA? I am a CDT and *hopefully* soon a CCS. Happy to see some other CSI folks on the forum.
No. I've thought about it though. It would be the next step for me certifications wise.
Are you taking the CCS exam this spring?
I'm not sure I'd call myself a "CSI folk." I think the organization has some good material, but they drive me crazy with how terrible they are at promoting and engaging the industry with it. I keep thinking I should get more involved locally, but the meetings are just terrible.
I took it in fall 2020 because what else was there to do in a pandemic if not study. I'm awaiting my results.
I agree though. There is a lot of 'we want to be like AIA' talk but without any mention of AIA's flaws. The content and knowledge base they've built is pretty fantastic, but the promotion/engagement is awful. I've been enjoying their learning library to fulfill CEUs.
Should be coming soon, no? I saw they released the names of people who passed the CDT this last fall.
Are you writing specs, or were you just looking to get some more insight into them?
Feb 8, 21 1:20 pm ·
·
thatsthat
Yep. Supposed to be Wednesday. I took it in November. The wait is terrible.
Feb 8, 21 2:18 pm ·
·
thatsthat
Damn enter button. I was/am a project architect as well for certain projects and write specs for a few other teams. My employer wanted a certified spec writer, and I’m happy I did it. Learned a ton.
Kudos on learning a ton. Hoping you're rewarded on Wednesday with a pass. CSI must have had to set cut scores or something. I recall the CDT exam being one I found out pass/fail as soon as I finished.
If you want to get into CA you can offer to help with specifications, but specifications is the mother of all pigeon holes, or you can find out who is doing CA and offer to help draw details. The thing about CA is it moves fat and can pile up fast, I often have 5-10 subcontractors generating subittals and RFIs and 5-10 consultants who might have burned up their fee and are very slow to respond per project in CA. You typically have 5 business days to respond to a submittal or RFI. The reason specifications can be a way into CA is most of the Submittal issues are the contractor proposing a product that is or is not in compliance with the specifications.
"[...] most of the Submittal issues are the contractor proposing a product that is or is not in compliance with the specifications."
I'm not sure you're saying what you mean to say here. Why would there be a submittal issue if the contractor is proposing a product that is in compliance with the specifications? You make it sound like the issue with submittals is that there are submittals.
"Most of the problems with binary code is that things are either a 1 or a 0."
you still need to verify the product proposed is compliant, if you rubber stamp things without checking you get mistakes. You have work if it is the correct product and more work if it is not.
You check to see if the product is compliant with the design intent of the project documents. You're NOT checking to verify the product complies with the spec, that is the contractors job.
Chad, the spec is part of the project documents, the spec is the tool we use to enforce the design intent. Often we get products that at a glance meet the spec but there are, for example in lighting fixtures, a lot of options to chose despite the product specification as some of the little choices impact project delivery. The contractor's job is not to make those decisions but to provide you and the owner with the info to make the best informed decisions possible. Even if you have a perfect spec you can run into a lead time issue where a substitute is needed to keep the project on schedule so there is always some amount of work with every submittal.
"You have work if it is the correct product and more work if it is not."
Isn't that the job though? My point is that checking the submittal for compliance is a feature, not a bug. It's not rubber stamping without checking, it's doing your job. If you think it is an issue to check submittals for compliance, you're complaining about doing your job and maybe you shouldn't be involved with CA at all. It is literally what your client is paying you to do. If you don't want to check submittals, don't ask for them. See what issues happen then.
Now if you want to have a discussion about how you can better check the submittals so it isn't as time consuming (i.e. how you can do a better job), I'd be happy to have that discussion. Maybe then things won't pile up so fast and you can stay on top of them. I'll agree with you that getting involved in the specifications will be important here.
Peter - I know that. My comment wasn't regarding choosing options on products. It was saying that if your spec says the lighting fixture must meet 'xyz' it's the contractors responsibility to submit a product that meets those requirements - says so right in the AIA contracts. Obviously we still do a overview check on the product to make sure it's meeting the design intent of what was specified - that's just being a good architect. As an architect we're not legally required to do so but we'd be foolish it we didn't.
Chad, check that contract language closely. AIA B101* says, "The Architect shall review and approve, or take other appropriate action upon, the Contractor's submittals [...] but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. [...]" (emphasis mine)
So no, you're not checking quantities, dimensions, installation methods, safety measures, etc. But you are contractually obligated to check for conformance with specs as well as the design intent.
Yes I'm being pedantic, but it's an important distinction that checking for compliance is the job.
Good point! It's also important to note that if using the AIA contracts the GC has similar language regarding submitting products that conform with the information given.
As I said above, regardless if the GC is supposed to check the submittals for conformance it's still a good idea for us to verify it.
How does one learn to do construction administration?
I am curious as to how a junior architect can start getting this experience. Is this a career stage that comes after being in production for some time? Also, is it at all possible to get this experience at large firms as a somewhat junior architect?
If you work on a project all the way through end of CDs, you can volunteer to do it, or more likely you will get volunteered. "Voluntold" as the kids say it.
It's probably the most intimidating new experience you will have in an office. But I have seen so many kids go from terrified to being really really good at it. It's the rights of passage before you become a PA and you get your own gang of juniors to terrorize.
One word of advice, don't be too good at it. You have an opportunity to truly salvage a poorly documented project. Don't take too much credit. Unless you think shuffling submittals was that one true calling in life you finally found.
I have used people right out of school to assist more senior people with CA tasks. CA of a project where the builder is capable and honest can be a pretty simple affair. Contractor incompetence and dishonesty are what can make CA complicated and difficult.
How to start getting site experience? Ask your supervisors/bosses and get them to know what your goals are.
Start with the paperwork. Submittals, etc. Know the contracts so you don't say something to someone that gets you in trouble.
As others have said - ask your supervisors to assist in the CA process and they will most likely comply.
CA is a boring, tedious, paper pushing endeavor that can suck the life out of you. That being said, CA is a vital part of the architectural process. Regardless how good the projects design and drawings are, without doing a good job on CA the building will turn out poorly.
Also worth mentioning that doing CA on a project you had a major role in producing the design is eye-opening when the GC tells you that X detail is fucking dangerous to the poor trades person who has to torch a roof membrane off a 9-storey lift because the dumb-ass architect thought a skinny roof extension was a good idea. Repeating a story I heard from a friend of a friend, of course.
CA has an interpersonal and problem solving aspect that I enjoy.
All valid points. I still think CA can suck the life out of you. :)
I won't disagree that it can suck the life out of you, but I think it can actually be quite invigorating. A lot of that depends on the contractor and how well the project was documented.
Very true. CA on fast track projects though . . . . ::shudder::
Thank you all for your answers. My concern had been that if I request to do CA, I would have to go to site and deal with technical issues which I wouldn't be able to resolve myself. I know that I could ask my supervisors to send me to site but I am worried that the responsibility on-site might be more than what I could successfully pull given my junior status. The case is I want to jump straight into something too difficult to handle and have to depend too much on others holding my hand. However, I think that shadowing a senior could be a good option. In the case, wouldn't the PM mind that I am spending time away from the office and therefore sacrificing hourly fee on learning rather than producing?
yes, all valid concerns if your office values billable efficiency over the development of their staff. Your mileage will vary based on the quality of the management team. Best option is ask to attend/shadow regular, or semi-regular site visits and make up for that time outside of your contractual hours and offer to help with any sort of site-report or follow-up drawings that come out of those site visits.
Junior people at our firm are trained to relay anything they can't answer to someone who can. Shadowing is going to depend on how your firm is set up. If it has distinct silos where a CA person or department does all CA, they may not want to train you. If the firm has people working on all project phases, then they will probably want you to learn about CA. For me, I think it's an essential part of training any young architect.
No harm in telling the GC/subs, “I’ll have to get back to you”. Project architects tell me that constantly and it’s OK so long as they folllow-up.
I was 3-4yrs into my previous firm and couldn’t get CA experience so I studied shops/submittals/RFIs from past projects on my own time or during slow periods at work.
If a firm isn’t willing to give you that experience, consider changing firms.
One of the first lessons I learned in CA was never to get bullied into providing an answer you weren't ready to provide. Learn to say the phrase, "Submit this as an RFI, and then I'll look into it and get back to you." This goes for site visits as well as random phone calls and emails.
Second best lesson was to answer the question they should be asking, not necessarily the one they are asking.
Really though, most of the advice so far is spot on. You'll learn by doing, and that involves some mentorship from people who have been doing this longer and have more experience. If your office isn't providing that, you really should look for a firm that does.
If you're looking for something you can read/study to get a head start ... look into the CCCA study materials from CSI. Particularly the Construction Contract Administration Practice Guide and the Project Delivery Practice Guide. Also really familiarize yourself with AIA A201 General Conditions.
If you're working on a specific project, familiarize yourself with that project's General Conditions and its Division 01 specifications. This is an absolute must.
Really great advice here. The OP should learn the A201 if that is what their firm uses. Also learn how to read specifications and its 3 parts. When I first teach intern architects about specs, I start with the 3 parts and expand up from there. It seems easier for them to grasp starting with the more specific, especially if they have limited experience.
EA, are you a CCCA? I am a CDT and *hopefully* soon a CCS. Happy to see some other CSI folks on the forum.
No. I've thought about it though. It would be the next step for me certifications wise.
Are you taking the CCS exam this spring?
I'm not sure I'd call myself a "CSI folk." I think the organization has some good material, but they drive me crazy with how terrible they are at promoting and engaging the industry with it. I keep thinking I should get more involved locally, but the meetings are just terrible.
I took it in fall 2020 because what else was there to do in a pandemic if not study. I'm awaiting my results.
I agree though. There is a lot of 'we want to be like AIA' talk but without any mention of AIA's flaws. The content and knowledge base they've built is pretty fantastic, but the promotion/engagement is awful. I've been enjoying their learning library to fulfill CEUs.
Should be coming soon, no? I saw they released the names of people who passed the CDT this last fall.
Are you writing specs, or were you just looking to get some more insight into them?
Yep. Supposed to be Wednesday. I took it in November. The wait is terrible.
Damn enter button. I was/am a project architect as well for certain projects and write specs for a few other teams. My employer wanted a certified spec writer, and I’m happy I did it. Learned a ton.
Kudos on learning a ton. Hoping you're rewarded on Wednesday with a pass. CSI must have had to set cut scores or something. I recall the CDT exam being one I found out pass/fail as soon as I finished.
If you want to get into CA you can offer to help with specifications, but specifications is the mother of all pigeon holes, or you can find out who is doing CA and offer to help draw details. The thing about CA is it moves fat and can pile up fast, I often have 5-10 subcontractors generating subittals and RFIs and 5-10 consultants who might have burned up their fee and are very slow to respond per project in CA. You typically have 5 business days to respond to a submittal or RFI. The reason specifications can be a way into CA is most of the Submittal issues are the contractor proposing a product that is or is not in compliance with the specifications.
Hope this helps
Over and OUT
Peter N
"[...] most of the Submittal issues are the contractor proposing a product that is or is not in compliance with the specifications."
I'm not sure you're saying what you mean to say here. Why would there be a submittal issue if the contractor is proposing a product that is in compliance with the specifications? You make it sound like the issue with submittals is that there are submittals.
"Most of the problems with binary code is that things are either a 1 or a 0."
you still need to verify the product proposed is compliant, if you rubber stamp things without checking you get mistakes. You have work if it is the correct product and more work if it is not.
You check to see if the product is compliant with the design intent of the project documents. You're NOT checking to verify the product complies with the spec, that is the contractors job.
Chad, the spec is part of the project documents, the spec is the tool we use to enforce the design intent. Often we get products that at a glance meet the spec but there are, for example in lighting fixtures, a lot of options to chose despite the product specification as some of the little choices impact project delivery. The contractor's job is not to make those decisions but to provide you and the owner with the info to make the best informed decisions possible. Even if you have a perfect spec you can run into a lead time issue where a substitute is needed to keep the project on schedule so there is always some amount of work with every submittal.
"You have work if it is the correct product and more work if it is not."
Isn't that the job though? My point is that checking the submittal for compliance is a feature, not a bug. It's not rubber stamping without checking, it's doing your job. If you think it is an issue to check submittals for compliance, you're complaining about doing your job and maybe you shouldn't be involved with CA at all. It is literally what your client is paying you to do. If you don't want to check submittals, don't ask for them. See what issues happen then.
Now if you want to have a discussion about how you can better check the submittals so it isn't as time consuming (i.e. how you can do a better job), I'd be happy to have that discussion. Maybe then things won't pile up so fast and you can stay on top of them. I'll agree with you that getting involved in the specifications will be important here.
Peter - I know that. My comment wasn't regarding choosing options on products. It was saying that if your spec says the lighting fixture must meet 'xyz' it's the contractors responsibility to submit a product that meets those requirements - says so right in the AIA contracts. Obviously we still do a overview check on the product to make sure it's meeting the design intent of what was specified - that's just being a good architect. As an architect we're not legally required to do so but we'd be foolish it we didn't.
EA - I would love to have a discussion about how to better check submittals so it isn't so time consuming.
Chad, check that contract language closely. AIA B101* says, "The Architect shall review and approve, or take other appropriate action upon, the Contractor's submittals [...] but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. [...]" (emphasis mine)
So no, you're not checking quantities, dimensions, installation methods, safety measures, etc. But you are contractually obligated to check for conformance with specs as well as the design intent.
Yes I'm being pedantic, but it's an important distinction that checking for compliance is the job.
*Your contract language may vary.
Good point! It's also important to note that if using the AIA contracts the GC has similar language regarding submitting products that conform with the information given.
As I said above, regardless if the GC is supposed to check the submittals for conformance it's still a good idea for us to verify it.
"specifications is the mother of all pigeon holes"
Truer words were never spoken.
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.