We are looking for input from Contract Administration experts on how to handle a situation with a General Contractor who has issued an RFI requesting which of the two drawings to be used that were listed with the same sheet number, but with different content, between the Permit Set and Contract Set's of documents.
During permit review, building official required emergency lighting plans to be prepared for a remodel to an old auto dealership service facility. Additional drawings were provided by our MEP consultant. These documents were submitted and accepted by the Building Official. When we (architect) requested that the MEP consultant update the bid set, the MEP consultant inadvertently omitted one of the drawings for the emergency lighting. So the permit set of documents is complete and the bid set is missing one floor out of three emergency lighting plans. This issue sprang from the fact that the MEP consultant had numbered both the main lighting plan and the emergency lighting plan with the same sheet number (E-121). And when they recompiled the bid set, they omitted one of the drawings by mistake.
Fast forward... in response to the contractors RFI, the MEP consultant has re-issued the emergency light plan as (E121A) as a new sheet number.
Please confirm if there is a way to handle this RFI without incurring, if possible, a change order for the information not included in the bid set of documents. The permit drawings were available at the City for review.
Thanks, Jeffrey
Non Sequitur
Nov 28, 16 8:14 pm
What was tendered? If you tendered with your permit submission, then you're probably out of luck. Don't ever expect the contractor to do their due diligence and seek that the drawings they have in hand are the most up to date... they make their living on extras.
Rookie mistake, and the architect fucked up by not making any coordination effort.
thisisnotmyname
Nov 28, 16 8:48 pm
Determine which set is referenced in the construction contract between the owner and builder. I assume it is the contract set and hence the builder can ask for extra money for the lights that were left out of that set.
Unless the cost of the extra lights is staggering, I've seen stuff like this usually paid for out of the owner's contingency budget. You as the architect usually apologizes to the owner and privately yells at the MEP.
Zulqar
Apr 22, 20 6:52 pm
thisisnotmyname, this is the way to go! it happens all the time...
wurdan freo
Nov 28, 16 8:57 pm
Who gives a shit if the permit set was available... If the bid docs didn't reference the permit set a contractor has no reason or obligation to review them. If you're adding scope to the contract, which it sounds like you are, then I would expect a change order.
That being said, how did the contractor become aware of the discrepancy? Sounds like they were aware of the permit set and brought the issue to your attention. If they were aware of it, they should have asked the question pre bid. If they only became aware of the bid set after contract award then back to my original paragraph. Hard to say without understanding the details of the situation. Either way you'll probably see a change order. Whether or not it can be justified is the challenge for you.
geezertect
Dec 1, 16 10:34 am
The civilized way out is to split the cost three ways. The MEP screwed up by not including code requirements in his initial design and obviously not coordinating sheet numbers. The architect screwed up by not coordinating and because he hired the MEP as his subcontractor (is that correct?) and is responsible for the MEP's work. And the owner should participate for part of it because the bid was artificially low to begin with and he was never "entitled" to get the building quite that cheap to begin with. It's an interesting question whether the general contractor should also participate since he maybe should have known that the additional lighting requirements were likely an omission and should have alerted somebody. But, he is probably legally in the clear. He can argue pretty persuasively that the design team has the primary responsibility of knowing what scope of work is required to get the job done per code.
curtkram
Dec 1, 16 10:58 am
those lights cost money, so they have to be paid for. it's inconvenient that the cost wasn't included in the initial bid, but ultimately it's the owner's lights, the owner's building, and the owner that has to pay for them. i don't think it's fair to say you should get free stuff because of an oversight or a mistake.
it's not shenanigans unless they included the cost in their initial bid and are now asking to be paid twice for the same stuff, or if they ramp up the cost too much, or if they were trying to manipulate the cost in some other way. granted they may have won the bid by excluding costs they knew they would have to add later, but that's just sort of a difficulty we have to deal with in real life. i would not ask the architect or mep to contribute to the cost in this case.
senjohnblutarsky
Dec 1, 16 11:18 am
Was the sheet referenced in your index of drawings? This should have generated an RFI/Question during bidding. So, you have a very minimal amount of leverage. If it wasn't, the omission wasn't just on the MEP's part.
As others have said, they have to be there. The Owner was made aware that they were going to be in the building due to their requirement in the permit set. So, they should be willing to pay for them. The A/E might have to pick up the bill for some additional coordination.
There will be a change order, and the contractor will charge more than if they'd been in the base bid. You might keep costs down some by claiming the sheet was referenced in your index, and that there should have been an RFI during bidding. You won't get much for this, though.
georgescarfe
Apr 22, 20 7:40 am
If there was knowledge of these sheets and requirements at the time of bidding and it is a simple scriveners error then the Contractor should show that it was not in it's pricing. If it is not in the pricing then the Owner should pay the 1st costs (cost of labor and material) not any GC's/GR's, profit or fee. If there was no way for the contractor to know of this requirement at the time of bidding then the normal change order should apply. Our experience is that GC will not include these items under a hard bid but include it as an allowance at bid time. That allows the GC to request any overrun in the cost should it happen.
Attn: Contract Administration professionals
We are looking for input from Contract Administration experts on how to handle a situation with a General Contractor who has issued an RFI requesting which of the two drawings to be used that were listed with the same sheet number, but with different content, between the Permit Set and Contract Set's of documents.
During permit review, building official required emergency lighting plans to be prepared for a remodel to an old auto dealership service facility. Additional drawings were provided by our MEP consultant. These documents were submitted and accepted by the Building Official. When we (architect) requested that the MEP consultant update the bid set, the MEP consultant inadvertently omitted one of the drawings for the emergency lighting. So the permit set of documents is complete and the bid set is missing one floor out of three emergency lighting plans. This issue sprang from the fact that the MEP consultant had numbered both the main lighting plan and the emergency lighting plan with the same sheet number (E-121). And when they recompiled the bid set, they omitted one of the drawings by mistake.
Fast forward... in response to the contractors RFI, the MEP consultant has re-issued the emergency light plan as (E121A) as a new sheet number.
Please confirm if there is a way to handle this RFI without incurring, if possible, a change order for the information not included in the bid set of documents. The permit drawings were available at the City for review.
Thanks, Jeffrey
What was tendered? If you tendered with your permit submission, then you're probably out of luck. Don't ever expect the contractor to do their due diligence and seek that the drawings they have in hand are the most up to date... they make their living on extras.
Rookie mistake, and the architect fucked up by not making any coordination effort.
Determine which set is referenced in the construction contract between the owner and builder. I assume it is the contract set and hence the builder can ask for extra money for the lights that were left out of that set.
Unless the cost of the extra lights is staggering, I've seen stuff like this usually paid for out of the owner's contingency budget. You as the architect usually apologizes to the owner and privately yells at the MEP.
thisisnotmyname, this is the way to go! it happens all the time...
Who gives a shit if the permit set was available... If the bid docs didn't reference the permit set a contractor has no reason or obligation to review them. If you're adding scope to the contract, which it sounds like you are, then I would expect a change order.
That being said, how did the contractor become aware of the discrepancy? Sounds like they were aware of the permit set and brought the issue to your attention. If they were aware of it, they should have asked the question pre bid. If they only became aware of the bid set after contract award then back to my original paragraph. Hard to say without understanding the details of the situation. Either way you'll probably see a change order. Whether or not it can be justified is the challenge for you.
The civilized way out is to split the cost three ways. The MEP screwed up by not including code requirements in his initial design and obviously not coordinating sheet numbers. The architect screwed up by not coordinating and because he hired the MEP as his subcontractor (is that correct?) and is responsible for the MEP's work. And the owner should participate for part of it because the bid was artificially low to begin with and he was never "entitled" to get the building quite that cheap to begin with. It's an interesting question whether the general contractor should also participate since he maybe should have known that the additional lighting requirements were likely an omission and should have alerted somebody. But, he is probably legally in the clear. He can argue pretty persuasively that the design team has the primary responsibility of knowing what scope of work is required to get the job done per code.
those lights cost money, so they have to be paid for. it's inconvenient that the cost wasn't included in the initial bid, but ultimately it's the owner's lights, the owner's building, and the owner that has to pay for them. i don't think it's fair to say you should get free stuff because of an oversight or a mistake.
it's not shenanigans unless they included the cost in their initial bid and are now asking to be paid twice for the same stuff, or if they ramp up the cost too much, or if they were trying to manipulate the cost in some other way. granted they may have won the bid by excluding costs they knew they would have to add later, but that's just sort of a difficulty we have to deal with in real life. i would not ask the architect or mep to contribute to the cost in this case.
Was the sheet referenced in your index of drawings? This should have generated an RFI/Question during bidding. So, you have a very minimal amount of leverage. If it wasn't, the omission wasn't just on the MEP's part.
As others have said, they have to be there. The Owner was made aware that they were going to be in the building due to their requirement in the permit set. So, they should be willing to pay for them. The A/E might have to pick up the bill for some additional coordination.
There will be a change order, and the contractor will charge more than if they'd been in the base bid. You might keep costs down some by claiming the sheet was referenced in your index, and that there should have been an RFI during bidding. You won't get much for this, though.
If there was knowledge of these sheets and requirements at the time of bidding and it is a simple scriveners error then the Contractor should show that it was not in it's pricing. If it is not in the pricing then the Owner should pay the 1st costs (cost of labor and material) not any GC's/GR's, profit or fee. If there was no way for the contractor to know of this requirement at the time of bidding then the normal change order should apply. Our experience is that GC will not include these items under a hard bid but include it as an allowance at bid time. That allows the GC to request any overrun in the cost should it happen.