Here's a tricky contractor situation. I'd like some advice.
We approved a set of shop drawings for steel work. Everything was fine, but then, inexplicably, the shop drawings were re-issued from the steel fabricator with a MAJOR change that altered the whole design in a bad way.
I called the steel fabricator to say that there was no way we would accept this change. He then spoke to the contractor, who contacted me to say "can the new drawings stand with the 9" dimension?"
Now, there were two 9" dimensions on the drawing. One that we wanted, and one that had been changed from 3". I emailed back for clarification, and the contractor's response made me think he was referring to the 9" dimension we wanted. So I approved what I thought was the original shop drawing.
Lo and behold, the thing is built with the changed dimension and looks awful. The owner hates it, we hate it.
I read back through the emails. The contractor's email is definitely misleading. However, I did authorize based on a misunderstanding.
Who is to blame? Who picks up the cost of fixing the steel work?
I didn't sign a hard copy of anything. I sent an email back that said "sounds good. Go ahead and release the drawings to build." But the problem was, I didn't know which set I was approving.
This isn't the most professional job, by the way. There's no set protocol for shop drawings. It depends on the sub.
the mistake was using email and conversation rather than insisting on reviewing revised shop drawings.
i suspect you'll have to negotiate with the gc, fabricator & your office if indeed you end up changing the steel.
i don't agree with cryzko on this one,
a) there should be no 'talking' involved - rely on the drawings only.
b) you shouldn't talk to subs or fabricators w/o gc's authorization. they have a right to expect that everything goes through them.
Right, el jeffe. I came from a commercial firm where the shop drawings dictate (and for exactly this reason: emails can be misleading.)
But this is much more "casual." The times I've insisted on protocols and procedures, the contractor and his subs throw a fit. They accuse me of not trusting their work.
there was no reason to call the fabricator upon the issuance of the second set of shop drawings. i would have called the contractor and asked why i was being sent revisions of submittals i already approved. then i would have marked up and stamped "rejected" or "revise and resubmit" on the new drawings and sent them back to the contractor.
well, if shop drawings were required in the bid, and the gc provided them, then it is fair to assume that they were intended to have force to prevent this type of situation. the casualness doesn't really matter - once shop drawings are issued, there's nothing casual about it.
the more i'm thinking about it, if you can 'prove' pressure from the gc to deviate from the shop drawing process despite your protests, i think you're in better shape with regards to chipping in to pay for the remediation.
It's an expensive residence. We've had problems with the steel fabricator rushing into fabrication before drawings were fully approved.
But from the beginning the GC has based approvals for many things on emails or word-of-mouth. It's not what I'm used to, but my boss and the GC seemed to do it that way, so I went with the flow. Until now, when it resulted in an error. I now understand why there are "rules" to approving shops.
in my opinion, it was a misunderstanding. no one is to blame per se, but with absolutely no legal weight behind this opinion, i don't believe the contractor should have to fix it.
i would talk to the contractor, tell him there was a mistake and ask him to fix it. if he refuses, you will have to go to your client and see if he or she wants the mistake remedied at his or her expense. at the end of the project, whomever takes the hit from the expense of repairs will likely file a claim. at which point, the legality of the problem will be determined by the court.
[all of this is assuming, the mistake was really a big deal. i think sometimes architects tend to blow small details out of proportion.]
I have always used full size templates (paper or cardboard) for metal work prior to fab. I use digital fabrication mostly.
It might be something to consider. For most things, the plans at scale - or maybe 3" = 1' - 0", can be done thru a sign shop with a 48" plotter. I use the full size plots as sign off documents prior to any fabrication. As drawn is as built. It has saved me mega headaches such as yours.
It might not apply to all of your project - but, it might be something to consider in the future.
The general contractor (and associated sub-contractors) are obligated to deliver a project that is in conformance with the contract documents.
The architect reviews shop drawings for general conformance with information shown on the contract documents.
Information shown in the contract documents SHOULD NOT be changed in shop drawings without the issuance of a contract modification (Construction Change Directive with associated sketches).
At the very minimum, an RFI should have been issued by the general contractor with a specific sketch showing the dimension in question.
The Contractor is responsible for errors and omissions in the shop drawing submittals. AIA 201 Article 3.12 and also 4.2.7
From 4.2.7
"Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities, or for substantiating instructions for installation of performance of equipement or systems, all which remain the responsibility of the Contractor as required by the Contract Documents."
The problem for you is when the contractor specifically outines in writing any substitution or alteration - and that is the part of this that is open to interpretation.
Speak to them reasonably, if that does not work issue a directive.
you should have talked to the fabricator and not the contractor
Never, ever, ever do this. Even when it seems like it will save you a lot of heartache. In the end it will cause way MORE heartache if something gets miscommunicated / installed differently than you agreed, and that is almost always the case. EVEN WITH FANTASTIC SUBS you should still ALWAYS speak to them at a MINIMUM with the GC present, if not simply go through the GC only.
Sep 25, 08 4:24 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.
Tricky Contractor Situation
Here's a tricky contractor situation. I'd like some advice.
We approved a set of shop drawings for steel work. Everything was fine, but then, inexplicably, the shop drawings were re-issued from the steel fabricator with a MAJOR change that altered the whole design in a bad way.
I called the steel fabricator to say that there was no way we would accept this change. He then spoke to the contractor, who contacted me to say "can the new drawings stand with the 9" dimension?"
Now, there were two 9" dimensions on the drawing. One that we wanted, and one that had been changed from 3". I emailed back for clarification, and the contractor's response made me think he was referring to the 9" dimension we wanted. So I approved what I thought was the original shop drawing.
Lo and behold, the thing is built with the changed dimension and looks awful. The owner hates it, we hate it.
I read back through the emails. The contractor's email is definitely misleading. However, I did authorize based on a misunderstanding.
Who is to blame? Who picks up the cost of fixing the steel work?
Also, what's the protocol for avoiding this kind of thing?
did you sign off on the re-issued dwg's?
you should have talked to the fabricator and not the contractor
I didn't sign a hard copy of anything. I sent an email back that said "sounds good. Go ahead and release the drawings to build." But the problem was, I didn't know which set I was approving.
This isn't the most professional job, by the way. There's no set protocol for shop drawings. It depends on the sub.
the mistake was using email and conversation rather than insisting on reviewing revised shop drawings.
i suspect you'll have to negotiate with the gc, fabricator & your office if indeed you end up changing the steel.
i don't agree with cryzko on this one,
a) there should be no 'talking' involved - rely on the drawings only.
b) you shouldn't talk to subs or fabricators w/o gc's authorization. they have a right to expect that everything goes through them.
Right, el jeffe. I came from a commercial firm where the shop drawings dictate (and for exactly this reason: emails can be misleading.)
But this is much more "casual." The times I've insisted on protocols and procedures, the contractor and his subs throw a fit. They accuse me of not trusting their work.
well, maybe the contractor should have been clear....
i would agree on seeing dwg's....thats the whole point.....
but if you received dwg's from the fab. to ok then whats the problem in talking directly to them?????
is there a price difference between the 9" to 3"...i'm sure there is...and maybe the contractor is trying to hustle a few bucks..... just a thought
is it a big project?.....
there was no mention of a g.c. either......
there was no reason to call the fabricator upon the issuance of the second set of shop drawings. i would have called the contractor and asked why i was being sent revisions of submittals i already approved. then i would have marked up and stamped "rejected" or "revise and resubmit" on the new drawings and sent them back to the contractor.
well, if shop drawings were required in the bid, and the gc provided them, then it is fair to assume that they were intended to have force to prevent this type of situation. the casualness doesn't really matter - once shop drawings are issued, there's nothing casual about it.
the more i'm thinking about it, if you can 'prove' pressure from the gc to deviate from the shop drawing process despite your protests, i think you're in better shape with regards to chipping in to pay for the remediation.
tough shit. were you hired by the contractor? i assume not. what does your contract with the OWNER say?
It's an expensive residence. We've had problems with the steel fabricator rushing into fabrication before drawings were fully approved.
But from the beginning the GC has based approvals for many things on emails or word-of-mouth. It's not what I'm used to, but my boss and the GC seemed to do it that way, so I went with the flow. Until now, when it resulted in an error. I now understand why there are "rules" to approving shops.
at least you have shop drawings and there's only one mistake.
it's better than the "don't worry - we're going to build it according to your drawings" and then proceeding to fuck up every non-standard detail.
Plenty of that going on too.
i've developed quite an appreciation for scotch since opening my own practice....
so whats the conclusion
blame it on the architect
blame it on the contractor
blame it on the fabricator
in my opinion, it was a misunderstanding. no one is to blame per se, but with absolutely no legal weight behind this opinion, i don't believe the contractor should have to fix it.
i would talk to the contractor, tell him there was a mistake and ask him to fix it. if he refuses, you will have to go to your client and see if he or she wants the mistake remedied at his or her expense. at the end of the project, whomever takes the hit from the expense of repairs will likely file a claim. at which point, the legality of the problem will be determined by the court.
[all of this is assuming, the mistake was really a big deal. i think sometimes architects tend to blow small details out of proportion.]
I have always used full size templates (paper or cardboard) for metal work prior to fab. I use digital fabrication mostly.
It might be something to consider. For most things, the plans at scale - or maybe 3" = 1' - 0", can be done thru a sign shop with a 48" plotter. I use the full size plots as sign off documents prior to any fabrication. As drawn is as built. It has saved me mega headaches such as yours.
It might not apply to all of your project - but, it might be something to consider in the future.
e-)
The general contractor (and associated sub-contractors) are obligated to deliver a project that is in conformance with the contract documents.
The architect reviews shop drawings for general conformance with information shown on the contract documents.
Information shown in the contract documents SHOULD NOT be changed in shop drawings without the issuance of a contract modification (Construction Change Directive with associated sketches).
At the very minimum, an RFI should have been issued by the general contractor with a specific sketch showing the dimension in question.
See the AIA 201...
The Contractor is responsible for errors and omissions in the shop drawing submittals. AIA 201 Article 3.12 and also 4.2.7
From 4.2.7
"Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities, or for substantiating instructions for installation of performance of equipement or systems, all which remain the responsibility of the Contractor as required by the Contract Documents."
The problem for you is when the contractor specifically outines in writing any substitution or alteration - and that is the part of this that is open to interpretation.
Speak to them reasonably, if that does not work issue a directive.
Never, ever, ever do this. Even when it seems like it will save you a lot of heartache. In the end it will cause way MORE heartache if something gets miscommunicated / installed differently than you agreed, and that is almost always the case. EVEN WITH FANTASTIC SUBS you should still ALWAYS speak to them at a MINIMUM with the GC present, if not simply go through the GC only.
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.