specsandcodes

CSI Certification: Set Yourself Apart

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) back in 2008, the architecture profession was one of the hardest hit professions when it came to layoffs.  However, a year later in 2009, the BLS stated that between then and 2018, the architecture profession will grow “faster than the average” with a total increase of 16 percent.  Other construction professionals, according to the BLS, will also see a similar increase with the exception of mechanical and electrical engineers, which expect a much smaller increase of around 2 to 6 percent.  The construction trades will also see a moderately aggressive increase over this time period.

Why is this outlook important?  When the work begins to increase, so will the demand for employees, and with the large field of eligible prospects (i.e. those without jobs and looking), the competition for the jobs that become available will be aggressive.  The key to securing one of those jobs is to stand out above your competition—and the CSI Certification program can help give you that extra competitive edge.

Time and experience in practice are good measurements for evaluating employee candidates; but time and experience does not objectively show that you understand the construction process and the documents used in getting a project built.  Through CSI’s Certification Program, there is something for everyone in the construction industry that will help you prove to others that you do understand the construction industry and, specifically, your profession.

The Construction Documents Technologist (CDT) Certificate:  This is the ideal starting point for anyone in the construction industry.  By passing the CDT, you have demonstrated your understanding of the design and construction process; the purpose and importance of clear, correct, complete, and concise construction documents; knowledge of General Conditions and their relationship to the specifications; the various types of delivery methods available to construct a project, and the contractual relationship between the parties of each.  The CDT is the prerequisite for the following CSI certifications.

The Certified Construction Contract Administrator (CCCA):  If you are an individual who is regularly engaged in the administration of a construction contract during the construction, or have responsibilities that extend into the construction phase, the CCCA is the next step.  This certification focuses on the details of the construction process from contract execution to final completion; including subjects on site observation, pay applications, contract modifications, submittals, substitutions, and project closeout.

The Certified Construction Specifier (CCS):  The CCS is the oldest of CSI credentials, which was first offered in 1978.  With this certification, you have shown that you have mastered the ability to properly prepare a set of construction specifications to convey the qualitative requirements of a construction contract.  This certification covers subjects such as page layout per PageFormat, section organization per SectionFormat, specification language, Division 01 General Requirements, and master guide specifications.

The Certified Construction Product Representative (CCPR):  Every product representative wants to sell more of their product, and one of the best ways of doing this is by learning how to do it better.  The CCPR credential shows specifiers and other construction professionals that you understand their business as well as your own—it establishes that credibility that is so important for a product representative to become that “golden rep”:  the “go to” person who knows their specific industry.

That is CSI’s Certification Program in a nutshell.  If you were an employer and you had several candidates of equal strengths and experiences, but there was one with a CSI credential, which one would you choose?

I thought so.

Towards a More Irrelevant Architect

Just recently, I was doing some research on the change in the architectural profession from the time of ancient Egypt to today’s practice in the United States for an upcoming practice management course I teach at Taliesin West.  Even without this research, it is obvious to me (and probably others in the industry) that the modern day architect is nothing like the architect of ancient Egypt, Greece, or Rome, or like the master builder of the Middle Ages.  With little surprise, but some dismay, I note that the architect of the 19^th Century also varies quite significantly from that of today’s architect.  The interesting thing about these changes is that they do not reflect positively on the profession—the architect of the 21^st Century is but a shadow of its past self and appears to be on course to a position of irrelevancy, as other players in the construction industry assume the charges that have historically been the architect’s.

The observation is not a new one.  Following the recession of the early 1990’s, John Seiler, an Adjunct Professor of Architecture and Urban Design at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, stated in an article:

As worldwide economic ill health and dilatory recovery continue to preoccupy many architects as they consider the state of their profession, this hopefully temporary condition tends to overshadow a more fundamental concern:  Architects’ diminishing influence over design and construction decisions.  The struggle for power between architects and other construction industry role players is an increasingly menacing problem.¹

In an effort to protect its members, and the profession in general, from undue risk, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) inadvertently reduced the influence of the architect by minimizing the liability to which the architect may be subject.  This shirked risk was quickly snatched up by other members of the construction industry—namely by contractors and members of the growing construction management profession.

Now the AIA cannot be blamed entirely for the architect’s shrinking dominance in the construction industry.  I believe some of the downfall is due to the natural progression of building science—buildings are getting more and more complex.  In the beginning, the architect was in full control of the construction process:  design, engineering, and construction.  Material selection was limited to a small palette with which the architect was quite familiar, and building engineering was uncomplicated, to say the least.  Then, as buildings became more complex, there was a need to bring specialists onto the design team.  This is a reality that gradually became evident throughout the history of the architectural profession.    

Over the next couple of millennia, portions of the architect’s role were divvied out to a multitude of specialized professions, such as engineering (structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, fire protection), contracting, and a slew of other specialties like kitchen design, acoustics, accessibility, theater, etc.  However, just in the past century, building complexity has experienced exponential growth and the architectural profession adjusted to it by shedding more responsibility to others.

In response to the explosive growth in building science, the architectural profession could have retained its dominance by becoming the maestro of the construction industry—the conductor and coordinator of all things related to building.  However, the architectural profession seems ready and willing to let others take control of the construction process as long as the architect reigns supreme in the art of building design—technical matters are for others to be concerned with.  In place of technical proficiency, the architectural profession appears to have substituted on a grand scale social engineering—specifically, sustainability.

I support sustainable construction, but is reroofing a building because it leaked a sustainable solution?  How about ripping out walls because of mold growth, or taking up damaged flooring because water vapor transmission wasn’t addressed…are these sustainable design approaches?  To prove my point of misguided emphasis in the architectural profession, you need not look further than the course listing for continuing education at the 2011 AIA Convention.  Just by reading the titles, of the 157 offerings, 24 (15%) contained the words “sustainable” or “sustainability.”  Another eight courses (5%) used the word “green” and three (2%) had “LEED” in their titles.  This is a total of approximately 22%, nearly a quarter of the courses offered.  But wait, there’s more. 

Since some courses did not use catchy “green wash” terms in their titles, you need to analyze the number of “Sustainable Design” (SD) learning units offered (which is only one of the 28 acceptable topics within the health, safety, and welfare, or HSW, category^{2, 3}) to see the real impact that this new direction has made on the profession.  Out of the 302 total learning units available, 128.25 learning units (42.5%) had the SD designation.  Compare that to only 23.25 learning units (7.7%) available for all other HSW topics—many of which had little to no building technology indicated in the brief course description provided.

My friend and colleague, Walter Scarborough, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP, supports this theory in his blog:

Weak construction documents, the proliferation of consultants that are replacing the services of architects, the expanding role of the contractor, declining technical competency, and a profession that is focused elsewhere are converging to a point in which the architectural profession may not recover.⁴

If architects want to retain whatever edge they tenably hold in the area of building construction, they need to expand their knowledge of building technology and construction documents; architects must also take a leadership role in the design and construction process.  Otherwise, the architect will be relegated to just a design role and nothing more, which begs the question:  If an architect is one who does architecture—the art and science of building design and construction—what do we call a person who only does the art? 

 ____________________________________

¹ Seiler, John. “Debate about the Architect’s Role—Future and Present.” The President and Fellows of Harvard, 1993.

² The list of acceptable topics, according to the American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems’ (AIA/CES) 2011 Provider Manual, includes:  1) accessibility, 2) acoustics, 3) building design, 4) code of ethics, 5) construction administration, 6) construction contract laws, legal aspects, 7) construction documents, services, construction functions materials, methods, and systems, 8) energy efficiency, 9) environmental: asbestos, lead-based paint, toxic emissions, 10) environmental analysis and issues of building materials and systems, 11) fire: building fire codes—flame spread, smoke contribution, explosives, 12) fire safety systems: detection and alarm standards, 13) insurance to protect the owners of property and injured parties, 14) interior design, 15) laws and regulations governing the practice of architecture, 16) life safety codes, 17) materials and systems: roofing/waterproofing, wall systems, etc., 18) material use, function, and features, 19) mechanical, plumbing, electrical: system concepts, materials, and methods, 20) natural hazards (earthquake, hurricane, flood) related to building design, 21) preservation, renovation, restoration, and adaptive reuse, 22) security of buildings, design, 23) site and soil analysis, 24) site design, 25) specification writing, 26) structural issues, 27) evaluation methods, techniques, and 28) sustainable design.

³ Of the 18 required learning units (LUs) that an AIA member must earn during the membership year, 8 are required to be within the health, safety, and welfare (HSW) category.  At the beginning of 2009, the AIA required that 4 of the 8 required HSW LUs include topics relating to sustainable design.

⁴ Scarborough, Walter. "Specifying Mediocrity? Without a Technical Foundation, Design Is on Shaky Ground." Web log post. Durability and Design. The Journal of Architectural Coatings, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. <http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/blog/?fuseaction=view&blogID=57>.

Highest Level of Workmanship?

I recently reviewed a client’s set of drawings and one of the “general notes” on the cover sheet stated, “The work shall be performed to the highest level of workmanship standards of the building trades working under this contract.”  What does that mean?

First, let’s start with a basic review of what a “general note” on the drawings should be.  Foremost, general notes, as CSI’s Uniform Drawing System (UDS) states, “do not repeat specification content on the drawings nor are they repeated within the specifications.”  General notes should be able to stand on their own to assist the user of the drawings in interpreting the entire set of drawings--not just one discipline’s drawings.  If it sounds like a specification requirement, it probably is.

At first blush, one would say that the general note in question might comply with that basic requirement, since the General Conditions (A201-2007) do not mention “workmanship” and neither do properly prepared Division 01 sections.  The fact that “workmanship,” or its cousin “workmanlike,” are missing in these documents is not by accident, but, rather, by design.  These words, although defined in almost every dictionary, are not terms to be used in construction documents because they alone cannot be quantified.  

There is no doubt that specifications should address workmanship, but the use of phrases such as “install in a workmanlike manner” or “provide the best workmanship” are too vague and are open to interpretation.  Workmanship requirements should be specific to that work result and establish a set of criteria that can be measured.

To flip the tables for a moment, let us assume that a design professional is awarded a project by an owner.  The owner hands the design professional a contract that states the design professional shall perform services at the “highest level of standard of care.”  The design professional then takes this contract to the design professional’s attorney and professional liability insurer for their review.  After recovering from the verbal tongue lashing and wrist slapping, the design professional approaches the owner with a revised contract that deletes “highest level.”  Design professionals who have even the slightest understanding of common professional standard of care laws would know not to sign a contract with such language.

Now, I understand that the legal system does not treat design services the same as construction services, but why would design professionals insert such language in a construction document if design professionals themselves have been indoctrinated not to sign contracts with similar verbiage?

“Highest level of workmanship” is an expectation that may vary significantly between owner, contractor, and design professional.  Additionally, it may be contrary to other requirements in the contract documents.  What if “custom” quality woodwork installation per Architectural Woodwork Standards (AWS) is specified for a project—does “highest level of workmanship” now require “premium” quality?

Quality of workmanship requirements needs to be objective.  The use of standards and tolerances are examples of establishing a level of workmanship desired and provides measurable criteria for enforcement by the owner and design professional.  The bottom line is: do not insert language in the contract documents—drawings, specifications, general conditions, supplementary conditions, etc.—that the owner or design professional cannot enforce. 

ConsensusDOCS and the Architect’s Role During Contract Administration

When doing some research for an article I was writing I read through some of the recently updated documents published by ConsensusDOCS.  Although I’ve heard rumors about how the ConsensusDOCS has changed the architect’s involvement in the construction process, I never really knew the details—until now. 

The two documents that I will focus on are the ConsensusDOCS 240, Standard Agreement Between Owner and Design Professional, and the ConsensusDOCS 200, Standard Agreement and General Conditions Between Owner and Constructor.  For brevity, I reference these documents  as “CD 240” and “CD 200,” respectively.

In the familiar AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, it states in Section 4.2.4 that “the Owner and Contractor shall endeavor to communicate with each other through the Architect.”  This is so the architect, who is responsible for construction contract administration per Section 4.2.1, is kept informed as to the issues involving the project.  However, the ConsensusDOCS documents virtually remove the architect (or “design professional” as used by ConsensusDOCS) from this intermediary role.  As a matter of fact, unlike the AIA Document A201, the CD 200 does not have an article that describes the “design professional’s” role in the administration of the construction contract—with rare exception in CD 200, the design professional’s role during construction is largely defined in CD 240, which the constructor (the term used by ConsensusDOCS in lieu of “contractor”) does not have access to unless the owner or architect provides a copy.

I’m not advocating or criticizing the ConsensusDOCS, but I just want to point out some of the differences—differences that I think actually reduce the A/E’s involvement and increase the owner’s.  Many owners are familiar with the services that architects typically provide, usually under an AIA agreement and general conditions.  However, if owners, familiar with AIA documents, use the ConsensusDOCS, they will find themselves more involved than they intended.

So, if you’re an owner and you plan to use ConsensusDOCS documents, are you willing to do the following?

• Request the contractor to uncover work so you can inspect it per CD 200, Section 3.10.1?  AIA A201, Section 12.1.2, indicates the architect may do this, which could be at the request of the owner.
• Require the contractor to uncover work that was supposed to remain visible by contract requirement for the owner’s observation per CD 200, Section 3.10.2?  AIA A201, Section 12.1.1, indicates the architect can request uncovering of work if either the architect directed the contractor to leave it uncovered for inspection or by contract requirement.
• Notify the constructor when the owner deems that any part of the work or worksite is unsafe and direct the contractor to stop work or take corrective action per CD 200, Section 3.11.6?  AIA A201 allows the owner to stop work if the contractor doesn’t conform to the requirements of the contract documents (Section 2.3), but does not mention safety-related issues.  Although CD 200 takes precautions by stating the owner may do so “without assuming responsibility for the Constructor’s safety program,” it has not been tested in court and could still add risk on the part of the owner.
• Review and approve submittals per CD 200 3.14.2?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8.1, states the design professional will review and make approvals of or recommendations about submittals to the owner within 10 days after receipt of submittals from constructor, but there is no direct response to the constructor.  Thus, the owner must return the approved submittals to the constructor with reasonable promptness (but not less than 10 days, obviously).  AIA A201, Section 4.2.7, states that the architect will “review and approve, or take other appropriate action upon,” submittals—timeframes are usually included in the specifications in Division 01.  An interesting side note is that according to CD 200, submittals shall be reviewed and approved—what if a submittal fails to comply with requirements?  AIA A201 allows the architect to “take other appropriate action,” such as returning them as “revise and resubmit” if a submittal fails to comply with requirements.
• Order changes in the work formalized in a change order per CD 200, Section 8.1.1?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8.2, indicates the design professional will assist the owner in the evaluation and processing of requests for changes, but not in the preparation of change orders, themselves.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.8 and 7.2.1 indicates the architect will prepare the change order.  Some owners already do this, so this isn’t much of a change for those owners.
• Issue written Interim Directed Changes to the constructor per CD 200, Section 8.2.1?  There are no requirements in CD 240 for the design professional to assist the owner in preparing Interim Directed Changes, other than Section 3.2.8.2 mentioned above.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.8 and 7.3.1, indicates the architect will prepare Construction Change Directives.
• Issue written orders to the constructor for incidental changes per CD 200, Section 8.5?  There are no requirements in CD 240 for the design professional to assist the owner in preparing incidental changes, other than Section 3.2.8.2 previously mentioned.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.8 and 7.4, indicates the architect has the authority to order minor changes in the work.
• Adjust or reject a pay application, or nullify a previously approved pay application and notify the constructor of such per CD 200, Section 9.3?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8.5, indicates the design professional shall assist the owner in processing pay applications, to include certifying amounts due.  What is unclear is whether the owner can adjust or reject a pay application the design professional has already certified, or if the design professional certifies a pay application only after the owner makes adjustments, if any.  AIA A201, Section 9.5.1, allows the architect to adjust or withhold a pay application and to notify the contractor; there is no provision for the architect or owner to nullify a previously approved pay application.
• Conduct an inspection of the work, after being notified by the constructor, to determine if substantial completion is achieved per CD 200, Section 9.6.1?  CD 200 states that the design professional will assist the owner in the inspection, as well as in CD 240, Section 3.2.8.8.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.9 and 9.8.3, indicates that the architect will perform the inspection to determine substantial completion.
• Prepare a list of items that need to be completed or corrected before substantial completion is achieved per CD 200, Section 9.6.1?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8.8, states that the design professional’s assistance includes compiling the list.  AIA A201, Section 9.8.3, does not require a list from the architect, but that the architect shall notify the contractor of items that need to be completed or corrected before a certificate of substantial completion can be issued.  As another side note, CD 200, Section 9.6.2, requires the constructor to prepare the certificate of substantial completion and a list of items that still need to be completed or corrected (i.e. punchlist).  There is no provision for the owner or the design professional to review this list prior to the constructor’s preparation of the certificate of substantial completion.
• Conduct an inspection of the work to determine final completion per CD 200, Section 9.8.1?  CD 200 states that the design professional will assist the owner in the inspection, as well as in CD 240, Section 3.2.8.9.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.9 and 9.10.1, indicates that the architect will perform the inspection to determine final completion.
• Provide clarifications regarding omissions and errors in the drawings and specifications per CD 200, Section 14.2.2?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8, states that the design professional will respond to the constructor requests for information, but on interpretations and clarifications of the drawings and specifications, the design professional responds to the owner, and to the constructor, if directed by the owner (What if the request for information requires an interpretation?).  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.11 and 4.2.12, states that the architect will respond to requests of interpretation by the owner or contractor and make interpretations and decisions consistent with the intent of the contract documents.  A final side note, CD 200, Section 14.2.2, also states if there is a conflict between drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern—no provision for interpretation by the design professional or the owner.  AIA A201 does not set precedence when there is a conflict between drawings and specifications.

Although the tripartite contractual arrangement described in CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide still exists with the ConsensusDOCS documents, the third-party obligations between the contractor/constructor and the architect/design professional is greatly diminished to the point where the architect/design professional is an appendage of the Owner rather than a lead in the administration of the construction contract.  As indicated above, the owner takes the lead and the architect/design professional becomes an assistant to the owner.

In my opinion, the ConsensusDOCS 200 has inconsistencies that will require correction.  AIA Document A201 has had a century of trial and error, which the ConsensusDOCS 200 lacks.  Over time I see the ConsensusDOCS 200 mutating to create a greater balance of responsibilities between all three parties, probably through its own trial and error process through the court system and personal experience.

Owner-Provided Division 01

I have come across several projects where my client’s client (i.e. the owner) has provided their own version of Division 01 to be included in the project manual rather than using my masters.  Is this a bad thing?  The best answer I can provide is:  it depends.

Division 01 does two things for the construction documents:

1. It  expands upon the requirements in the General Conditions; and,
2. It eliminates the need to repeat common requirements in each of the sections in Divisions 02 through 49.

Regarding the first, if the owner has their own version of general conditions that vary from the standard AIA or EJCDC general conditions, then owner-developed Division 01 may benefit the A/E by minimizing the A/E’s need to modify their own Division 01 to conform to the owner’s general conditions. 

However, if owner-provided Division 01 sections are used, the A/E must expect that the procedures specified may not conform to the firm’s standard methods.  For example, the A/E may have certain methods for handling submittals, such as format and review times—the owner-provided section on submittals may specify a different format and review times that are shorter.  In other words, the owner may be dictating how the A/E performs its construction contract administration services. 

The A/E should review the owner’s general conditions and Division 01 sections to see if there are any conflicts between the A/E’s third-party obligations in those documents and the A/E’s contract with the owner.  The A/E should not provide more services than what is indicated in the A/E-owner agreement.  Additionally, the A/E should look at the quality of the sections provided.  I have seen some good owner-provided sections and I have seen some bad ones—really bad ones.  If the A/E is prohibited from editing the sections, this may raise a caution flag for the A/E.

Whether the sections are well-prepared or not, it may be advisable that an A/E firm seek the advice of their attorney and liability insurer to determine if there are any potential risks using owner-provided Division 01 sections.  Design professionals that seal specifications that were not prepared by them or under their direct supervision may be violating state licensing laws.  If that is the case, then A/E’s should clearly identify those documents for which they are sealing so as not to assume the liability for errors, omissions, and ambiguities that may exist in the owner’s Division 01 sections.

So, my question to you is this:  Do you think an A/E has the right to request additional services for handling claims based solely on the content of owner-provided Division 01 sections? 

To make it easier, let’s put some objectivity to the question.  Let’s assume the owner’s section on submittals did not stipulate the timeframe in which the A/E has to review submittals and the contractor submitted a claim stating that the A/E’s review time of seven days on one particular submittal was not of “reasonable promptness” according to the general conditions and delayed the project.  The A/E, if they had prepared Division 01, would have allowed the A/E ten days to review a submittal and would have required the contractor to include additional days for a resubmittal, if not approved the first time.  Had the A/E been able to use its standard section, the issue could easily have been resolved.  Now the A/E has to evaluate this claim as well as defend his review of the submittal in question.  Should the A/E be responsible to cover the cost of this review?

Construction Administration...or is it?

I see the term used everywhere: on websites, marketing materials, correspondence, and even contracts.  The term I’m referring to is “construction administration.”  A/Es frequently use this term to describe their services during the construction phase of a project; but on closer examination, they could be identifying scope of services beyond what they are insured for and licensed to provide.

To clarify, let’s analyze what “construction administration” means. 

First, let’s take a look at the word “administration.”  Open just about any dictionary and you’ll find the word “management” included in the definition.  Even the dictionary I keep on my desk (Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary, 1984) uses “management” as a single word definition for “administration.”  Second, the word “construction” focuses on the act of constructing rather than designing.  Therefore, it doesn’t take much of a leap to go from “construction administration” to “construction management”—i.e. managing the construction of a building. 

So, for those A/Es out there that refer to their construction phase services as “construction administration,” are you really providing “construction management” services?  Probably not, but for liability purposes you probably don’t want that distinction clouding the intent of the services you were expecting to provide under your owner-A/E agreement.

Review any of the AIA owner-architect agreements, past or present—AIA Documents B141-1997 or B101-2007, for example—and you’ll find that there is no mention of “construction administration.”  Even the ConsensusDOCS 240 owner-design professional agreement doesn’t use the term; they just leave it at “construction phase services.”  Since the AIA Document B101-2007 is the most current, we’ll take a closer look at that document.  In Section 3.6.1.1 under “Construction Phase Services,” it states the “Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor” (emphasis added). 

So the administration the architect provides is not of the construction itself, but of the contract for construction.  Therefore, the construction phase services an A/E provides is more appropriately termed “contract administration.”  Further, AIA Document B201-2007, which should accompany the owner-architect agreement, is titled “Standard Form of Architect’s Services: Design and Construction Contract Administration” (emphasis added).  Although it includes the word “construction,” the title still connects it with the contract, thereby making it very specific to construction contracts.

Now, some of you may be thinking that I’m playing with semantics, and there is really no concern that an A/E provides “construction administration.”  However, to support my contention, when I attended a seminar by one of the largest professional liability insurers in the country, they specifically mentioned this “semantic” issue.  If it were not a problem, then I would doubt they’d be making a point of the difference in presentations for design professionals across the country.  An attorney's business is in the words used in documents and they'll try to use those words to defend their client, so why give them the ammunition?

There is this growing segment of construction industry professionals that call themselves “construction managers,” or CMs, which have their own professional organization called the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA).  The CMAA identifies two types of CM services: Agency CM and At-Risk CM.  For At-Risk CM, commonly referred to as CMAR, the CM is the constructor/contractor and is fully responsible for the outcome of the project—thus, the “at risk” element.  Agency CM—AIA calls it “CM as Advisor”—provides services as the owner’s representative or agent that parallel many of the A/E’s contract administration services.  However, many of the other special services provided by Agency CM go well beyond standard A/E services and clearly fall within the realm of managing or administering construction activities, such as involvement in the contractor’s safety program.  It is these special services that A/Es should avoid unless they are specifically licensed or insured to do so.

The bottom line is that A/Es provide construction contract administration—that is the way standard AIA owner-architect agreements describe A/E services during the construction phase.  A/Es should contact their liability insurers to see if using any other term for describing their construction phase services, either in contracts or other forms of communication (e.g. websites, marketing materials, etc.) is outside their coverage or is open for interpretation that may be difficult to defend.

BIM Bubble Bursts

Last week, Engineering News-Record (ENR) reported on a lawsuit centered on the use of building information modeling/management (BIM) for a university life-sciences building (ENR: A Cautionary Digital Tale).  Although construction lawsuits appear almost every day, this one has greater significance because it could well be the first case where the use of BIM was determined to be the mitigating factor that created the problem—in other words, this is new legal ground for the design and construction industry.

The facts, as they are currently made available, indicate that the design team—the architect, along with their mechanical, electrical, and plumbing consultants—used BIM to integrate the building’s systems in a plenum space under very tight tolerances.  In order to make it all fit, the contractor would need to install the systems in a specific sequence; however, the contract documents did not convey that sequence.  When the contractor attempted to install the work as indicated in the contract documents, the systems would not fit.  The contractor sued the owner and the owner sued the architect.  That’s the situation in a very tight nutshell.

There are two items that strike me as being very significant about this lawsuit: 1) the delivery method was design-bid-build, so the contractor had no involvement in the development of the model, and 2) design professionals are generally warned against specifying means and methods. 

I’ll start with the latter item.

Specifying means and methods in a set of construction contract documents puts additional risk on the preparer of the documents—the design professional—thus, the practice is usually avoided.  The theory behind that position, which is supported by many professional liability insurers, is that if the contractor follows the means and methods indicated in the contract documents, and subsequently the work fails, then the contractor is covered by the implied warranty established under the Spearin Doctrine (United States vs. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 1918).  Therefore, the contract documents typically indicate what the final results of the construction should be and leave it to the contractor to determine how to get there.

In the context of this lawsuit, the design team was working with a double-edged sword.  We know the result of not specifying the means and methods for installing the systems, but let’s assume the design team did specify the exact installation sequence.  If the contractor followed the installation as specified and it still did not work, whether great or small, then the contractor would have been covered by the Spearin Doctrine and the design team would still be responsible for the error.

Let’s step back and take a look at this from another perspective.  What if BIM was not used on the project and the design team increased the plenum depth to allow greater tolerance for installing the building’s systems?  Wouldn’t the building have to be taller, thereby adding construction cost?  Wouldn’t the increase in interior volume of the building require additional cooling and heating, thereby increasing construction and operation costs?

There are many buildings constructed that are much more complicated than a university life-sciences building.  Yet, rarely on those complex projects does the design team specify the construction sequence.  The design team’s responsibility is just that—design.  Design professionals have a basic knowledge of constructability issues; that is why owners hire contractors—contractors are supposed to know how a building goes together and in what sequence.  Why should the design team tell the contractor to “install pipe ‘A’ before duct ‘B,’ but only after installing conduit ‘C’”? 

The ENR quotes the architect’s liability insurer as saying, “If you don’t use BIM correctly, you can get into trouble.”  That could be said for any tool, whether it is CADD or the old pencil-and-paper method.  From the details presented, it appears the design team did use BIM properly; they made efficient use of space to reduce cost of the project.  What happened is the contractor failed to analyze the contract documents and coordinate the installation by consulting with the applicable subcontractors to establish the best approach for installing the work as indicated in the contract documents.  Did that coordination take place?  We don’t know.  Did the contractor attempt to communicate with the design team to discuss possible installation strategies?  Again, we don’t know.  This leads to the first item I mentioned:  the delivery method.

The best design environment for using BIM on a project is when the project is developed using a collaborative approach—when all project team members (owners, designers, contractors, and suppliers) are involved in the decision making.  The design-bid-build delivery method is definitely not a collaborative approach.  Bidders on a project are not privy to the multitude of decisions that are made during the design of a building.  They only have what’s in front of them: a set of bidding documents and a short period of time to put together a price and construction team, which most likely has never worked together before on a project.

Negotiated, design-build, CM-at-risk, and the latest, integrated project delivery (IPD), are delivery methods more suited to a collaborative approach to building design and construction.  They bring each of the project teams together early in project development.  Then, when the permits are pulled and construction begins, everyone involved understands the project in great detail with very few unknowns remaining.  The collaborative approach is even more enhanced when the contractor utilizes BIM as a tool for constructing the project, such as for shop drawing integration, scheduling, and costing.

The details on the lawsuit are few (we don’t even know the parties involved), so a true critical analysis of the lawsuit’s impact on the construction industry and BIM probably will not be coming any time soon.  In addition to the questions I mentioned earlier, there are many others that need answers in order to better formulate an honest criticism of BIM.  These questions include:

• Did the owner require the use of BIM to design the project?
• Why was the design-bid-build delivery method selected?
• Did the contractor have the capability to use the model?
• Did the design team provide any guidance to the contractor during installation?
• Were there errors in the model that would have prevented the installation of the work as indicated in the contract documents?

Until answers to these and other questions are revealed about BIM’s involvement in this lawsuit, the jury in the case of Traditional Methods vs. BIM should remain in deliberation.

11th Hour Designing

How many of you, either as an employee or consultant,  worked for, or are working for, design firms that seem to be designing their projects till the last possible moment before sending the drawings and specifications off to the printer or client?  I’m not referring to the preparation of drawings or specifications, which normally continue till the very end.  No, I’m referring to significant design decisions; decisions that could affect a project if not thoroughly researched and analyzed.

Why do architects and engineers do that?  As an architect myself (I cannot speak for engineers), it seems to be in our blood.  The title “architect” could easily be a synonym for “procrastinator.”  A fellow classmate in architecture school once stated during an all-night marathon design session that “Rome may not have been built in a day, but knowing architects, it was designed in one night.”   This “infliction” not only affects your typical design professional, but renowned designers are also known to have no immunity.

Those familiar with Frank Lloyd Wright have probably heard the story (which is fact, by the way) of his last-minute design charrette for Fallingwater.  Edgar Kaufmann, Jr., the client, was in Milwaukee on business and called Mr. Wright to see how the design was coming along for the Kaufmann’s vacation home in Bear Run, Pennsylvania.  Mr. Wright told Mr. Kaufmann that the design was done, when in fact it had not even started.  As Mr. Kaufmann drove the 140 miles from Milwaukee to Spring Green to look at the design, Mr. Wright started putting pencil to paper as apprentices handed him sharpened pencils to keep him going nonstop.  The design was completed in time and Mr. Kaufmann was none the wiser.  Miraculous as that accomplishment was, it was, nonetheless, just preliminary design drawings and not a full set of construction documents.

For years the standard design process for basic architectural services has consisted of three phases:  schematic design, design development, and construction documents.  Each phase adds further detail and refinement to the previous phase.  The schematic design (SD) phase provides preliminary information including floor plans, elevations, and some building sections, to give the client a general overview of the building’s design.  The design development (DD) phase adds more information, including integration of mechanical and electrical systems, building materials, and some details that show how it all goes together.  The construction documents (CD) phase takes the design from its preliminary status to a set of drawings and specifications from which a contractor could construct the building. 

Early in the CD phase, the design work should have stopped so attention can be placed on developing the drawings and specifications.  However, some design work may be required to address some constructability issues that arise late in the CD phase; but overall, the design should be well established by this time—including the selection of materials and finishes.  Unfortunately, from my experience, that seems to be the exception and not the rule. 

As minor as material and finish selection may seem to some people, it appears odd that some designers put off making those selections until late in the CD phase, even though they play a significant role in the visual aesthetic of the building—something that should be high on an architect’s list.  I am not talking about selection of colors or patterns, but actual product types, such as carpet versus vinyl tile, or curtain wall versus storefront.  I have on occasion received specification information from clients within 24 hours of the CD due date.  On a few rare ocassions I have received some information after the due date, which had to be handled by addendum (recently I had one project that required the deletion of one specification section to be replaced by a new section, all handled through an addendum).

It might appear that I am complaining (to some extent I am), but it goes beyond that.  Some materials and finishes have implications on the building design—not just from an aesthetic point of view, but from a performance one, as well.  To delay a decision may have unexpected consequences that create the trickle-down or domino effect.  This may require alteration of completed documents, thus wasting the design team’s time and money.

For example, a late decision to use a vapor-sensitive flooring material over a slab-on-grade may require the addition of a vapor retarder if none was previously indicated in the documents.  This would affect both the drawings and specifications.  Another example would be a change from metal roofing to clay tile.  That change would affect the drawings—architectural as well as structural (for added dead load)—plus the specifications (delete one section and add a new one).

In some cases, procrastination is not the culprit behind changes made late in the CD phase.  Some designers just cannot resist the temptation to continue tinkering with the design until the end.  But at some point the designing must stop so that the construction documents can be completed.  Another reason to stop designing early in the CD phase is that frequent changes near the completion of the CD phase may lead to errors and omissions in the documents.

Change is inevitable, but it does not have to be self-inflicted.  In this period of reduced budgets and staffing, it is irresponsible to re-do work that was essentially complete if it could have been avoided by earlier decision making.   I, too, am guilty of putting things off, but it can be managed through effective prioritization.  Although the construction documents phase is considered one of the phases of design, it does not mean you should continue to make significant design decisions till the very end.

What are your experiences and horror stories involving last minute design decisions?

Welcome to "specsandcodes - the blog"!

Welcome to my blog.  Within this forum you will find discussions on the construction industry, construction documents, and building codes.  This blog will not replace my article series, The Code Corner and Keynotes, but be a supplemental (and hopefully more frequent) source for information.

Please visit my other blog sites specifically for my article series.  These, too, will not replace the format in which readers currently find the articles, but to provide a feedback forum for readers to comment on the information covered in the articles.  You can find these blogs at the following links:

The Code Corner:  http://code-corner-blog.specsandcodes.com

Keynotes: http://keynotes-blog.specsandcodes.com

I hope you enjoy what I have to post here in the future, and I especially look forward to your comments.

Thank you,

Ron Geren