lol. I guess obsessively.

I once had a CM demand that I work in the job site trailer of a project so I was "available" at all times. I was more than happy to bill my mileage and 40 hours a week to his project while spending 10-20 of those 40 hours playing Windows solitaire in the trailer and most of the rest looking at submittals and RFIs that I could have done just as well back at my office, but I somehow don't think it was really the most efficient use of my time.

I wear full PPE, this can include masks if certain type of work is being done.

Unless there's a written requirement for more, the only PPE I generally bring to a site is my hard hat. My current company requires hard hat AND yellow vest. I also just learned that I am eligible for reimbursement for a pair of prescription safety glasses (which I'll probably never wear to a job site but will come in mighty handy in the home shop).

I bring my own hard hat, vest, and steel toed boots. I keep a pair of cut/puncture resistant gloves in my car as well, because I've had projects where they were required. I wear vision glasses. I've done masks for work reasons before, but only when the work they are doing would merit it.

typ PPE for us is boots and hardhat (c/w office sticker) and we'll throw on a high-viz vest if there is crane or large vehicle activity. No respirator/mask required... but perhaps I should have, and no safety googles because I have wear prescriptions. I'm also "certified" for harness/lifeline work but refuse to do anything of the sorts.  Let the GC get in that cherry-picker or swing stage since they know what they are doing.  I have other things to do and don't need to slow them down.

I’ve been digging really really deep into the studies on crystalline silica. I don’t believe the osha PEL is low enough. There is a huge lack of studies that apply to “bystanders” aka people not operating the equipment. From what I have been able to find, concentrations rarely exceed 1/2 of the PEL for “bystanders” within the construction site whom are not engaged in the actual task. And, the TWA for a 30min site visit would probably be very low. It’s pretty concerning though, as the data seems to suggest that silica is carcinogenic even in that absence of silica related lung disease that typically takes decades of exposure to develop. I’m trying to achieve exposures below 10% of the PEL for all people on site, but the availability of data is slim and complicated…I’ve been wearing a N-95 anyways, but it’s not required. Am I being paranoid? Lol.

This is during high dust generating tasks like demo, mixing concrete, etc.

Flip-flops, a Hawaiian shirt, and an aquavit cocktail.

Interesting. 

How do you do CA work then? 

 How do you adhere to AIA contracts requiring site visits?

Not sure what you mean by adhere to AIA contracts requiring site visits. AIA contracts are just a framework to help you get started, you're allowed to edit them however you want. Our contracts state that CA work includes shop drawings & correspondence. Sometimes CA is entirely hourly & sometimes we have a lump sum, depends on how intensive we think it will be. All depends on the project scope & type.

When I said a couple grand that was a blanket statement, but it all depends on the location etc etc. Sometimes it's like $800 & we go out and do a punch list or something. Obviously everything is project related. If we do an aquarium or something, we're out there doing legit CA work that's been put into our contract. A starbucks shell out in the middle of rural nowhere? I'll most likely never see it in person. Doesn't make financial sense to anyone for me to go out there.

Our building code here (likely required by our federal architect's act) requires us to do regular site visits.

RJ87 - AIA contract B101 clearly states that the architect needs to visit the project during construction to ensure that it's conforming with the design intent. AIA contracts are not just 'framework to start from'. They are complete and concise contracts that are stand alone. 

 Sure you can modify the AIA contracts but you need to be careful.

 For example, the B101 contract states in several places  that the architect needs to take measures to ensure that the building construction conforms with the design intent shown in the drawings. This is in addition to the to site visit section of the CA portions of the AIA contracts.  

Non - Is "here" Canada? I always forget who the Canadians are.

Chad - I understand what you're saying, but you're quoting a contract that's a standard framework & not a requirement. But yes you have to be careful editing contracts, they're contracts. Article 1 "Architect's Responsibilities" clearly lays out that construction observation is not our responsibility.

I suppose my point is: Yes, you can use an out of the box AIA contract. No, you're not required to.

All depends how you want to operate & what kind of job it is. Someone who cranks out 60 Taco Bells a year isn't going to go see them all. Although if I spent my day drawing Taco Bells I'd probably take any excuse I possibly could to get out of the office.

@RJ87, you just reminded me of my second job in "architecture". I cranked out 40 store mall TIs in a year...

No knock on the company cranking out Taco Bells either, I'm sure they make good money doing it. Lot of money to be made in national rollouts if you can put up with the pace & monotony. I did about a dozen liquor stores when I first got started as a project manager. The drawings weren't difficult & it gave me an opportunity to learn the admin / MEP side, in retrospect it was a good learning experience. I was thankful when I moved onto other project types though, I was starting to see liquor stores drawings in my dreams.

RJ87 wrote:

Dang it lost my reply.

You're correct RJ87.

HOWEVER

"Construction Observation" is different than site visits to ensure that the work follows the design intent of the construction documents.  If you don't remove every instance of the above in B101 then you have to do site visits.  

RJ87 wrote:

 "Article 1 "Architect's Responsibilities" clearly lays out that construction observation is not our responsibility. "

Actually article 1 of the B101 – 2017 does not say this. Article 2 is the architect’s responsibilities, and it says no such thing. Article 3.6 dose say:

Yes, Chad is absolutely right. If the GC and the client used the AIA Contract, then the architect is responsible for the above clause. In this particular clause, when a GC submits a PayApp for the works done, the AOR needs to visit the site and review the works against the design intent. Then, they need to report to the owner with those 3 options. Be careful who you have as your client, they can hold you responsible for this, as I have been past 2 years. :)   I had our legal/procurement team to review this and the AOR is on the hook. 

If your client and the GC signed this B101 form, then it is not a framework.. It is the fully executed legally binding contract. 

Sorry, B series is the contract between the owner and the architect.

Chad: As I mentioned earlier, you're quoting a standard AIA contract that has language in it that you can change. Those contracts can be adapted to fit however you want to operate. The random contract I clicked on was a modified B105 for an outparcel (we have separate contracts for outparcels typically), not a B101. Article 1 in B105 is Architects Responsibilities & in OUR contract, it clearly states that it's not our responsibility to go to the site unless they provide in writing that they'd like us to go out for an additional service fee.

It all depends on what a specific contract says. The AIA does not matter beyond their STANDARD contract. Back to my 60 taco bells example, the architect isn't going to those.

RJ87 - I understand that you're using a modified AIA contract. There is nothing wrong with that. My point still stands - an unmodified AIA contract states that architects need to do site visits. 

To be fair, your posts where a bit confusing. I thought you were saying that standard AIA contracts have arch responsibilities in section 1 and don't say anything about requiring site visits.  We weren't talking about your firm's modified contracts but standard AIA contracts.  

No worries, to be honest we've used our modified contracts for so long that they've replaced "standard" AIA contracts in my head. Was just making sure it was clear that they can say whatever you want them to say, the beauty of writing your own. It is extremely helpful to a lot of people that they have a standard contract to start with though, by far the best thing AIA does in my opinion.

P.S. - Ironically I'm going to a site today to do a punch list. Pray for me to not sweat through my shirt when I'm on the roof in the middle of a Florida September.

RJ8 - Regardless of how many Taco Bells one dose the standard AIA contracts do matter . They are well understood and widely used. 

 As I've said from the beginning you can modify standard AIA contracts all you want. You just need to be careful. For example: if you're using your modified B101 you need to make sure that an unmodified A103 contract isn't also being used. If it is there could be serious conflicts between the two contracts.

“This contract supersedes all other verbal and written agreements.” Maybe add something like this to be safe.

You could add that. 

 However I don't know if that would work. I've seen architectects use that line in contracts and it was applicable in very, very, very narrow circumstances. 

 For example: I know an architect who added that to his contract to release him from any type of site visits for a project a great distance from him. There was defective work and the architect was sued and lost because no site visits where done. 

 It was determined that doing site visits was part of a standard of practice for that area for the type of work being done. It didn't help that the owner / GC used a standard, unedited AIA contract.  That contract stated the architect would be responsible for verifying that the work conformed with the design intent of the construction documents.

As I've said from the beginning of this, be careful when editing AIA contracts.  

Yeah, if you have any professional duty or responsibility you probably can’t contract that away.

An architect has a standard of practice which is a professional duty and a responsibility.

You can put anything you want in a contract.  That doesn't mean it will hold up in court.  

That's the part I find interesting.

 "It didn't help that the owner / GC used a standard, unedited AIA contract. That contract stated the architect would be responsible for verifying that the work conformed with the design intent of the construction documents."

The architect isn't a part of that contract, so how would that be enforceable? If I wrote in a contract "If x-jla does not go to job sites, Chad Miller owes me $50." and only x-jla & I sign it, why would Chad owe me money? That's where I think it would only hold up in court if you didn't remove the tie backs to the correlating A10_ contract. Maybe its the standard of care portion, who knows. I guess that's why you become an LLC & carry insurance.

Since it was a standard contract that is widely accepted it was proof that the the standard of practice was to do site visits to ensure that the work conformed with the construction documents. The architects claim that his contract excluded site visits was deemed to be gross negligence since he was not be following standard practices. 

 It would be similar if you modified an AIA contract to say the architect isn't responsible for ensuring that the building design follows code.

That's the big thing.  You can modify an AIA contract all you want.  If it violates the "standard of practice for the region" (verbage in the A and B contracts) you could still be in the wrong.   Getting sued for something like this and loosing would destroy your insurability.  At the very least your premiums would skyrocket.  I guess it all depends how much money your firm has.