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.

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.