|
|
|
|
Liz hits the nail on the head...for us it was the extra work that we had in order to strip the files to send the out to the various sub-contractors. We used to absorb the cost because it seemed ridiculous to charge each sub a modest amount for the files. Once we figured out that the owner is benefiting from the process, by no longer paying the subs to redraw the backgrounds, we started adding a "Allowance" section to our specifications to cover the costs. We now have the GC's include a line item allowance of $500-1000 for each project. We then bill against during the construction. If we only have a few easy requests, we may only bill for a small portion of the total and the owner pays the builder who pays us, based on actual use. It is such a small amount, it never gets much attention. We spent time in discussions with the general contractors when we first began the practice, but they easily got on board and its become a non-issue. ------------------------------------------- Linda Delano Building Possibilities, Inc. Phoenix AZ -------------------------------------------
Show Original Message
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-28-2012 17:53
From: Gary Collins
Subject: CAD Design Docs
If I recall correctly, the architect's design documents are NOT, 1), a license to build, 2), instructions on how to build, 3), a directive for sequence of construction, nor 4), a list of all technical skills and knowledge necessary to build. They are, in fact, drawings illustrating, in some detail, WHAT to build, and limiting the contractor's options for willy-nilly substitution of appliances, equipment, systems, and materials. The strict liability for construction and its sequence is the contractor's to assume, not the architect's. Furthermore, it is important that states never get the idea that architects drawings are a "product" rather than a set of "instruments of service", or they may begin to charge a sales tax on the product, as California has in fact once considered doing. As a professional, I have no desire to collect a tax on behalf of the state, nor to explain why I must pass that cost onto my clients.
BIM has likely muddied the waters, my concern from the beginning, by putting the contractor and architect on the same "team", thereby reducing the "arm's length" legal distance between them. This may have tended to create an overlap and sharing of responsibility which has heretofore not existed, or was at least easily divided in court. Attorneys defending the limits of responsibility of their architect clients will not be aided by a failure of distinction between the architect's "design intent" and the contractor's responsibility under the "contract for construction". BIM may be as popular as it is because it tends to disperse liability to the benefit of the contractor. The contractor and architect can only shake hands in the areas of communication of expectations with reference to the clarity of the drawings as design documents, and their contribution to achievement of the client's budgetary expectations. An architect's drawings and specifications can never be construed to relieve the contractor of liability for the requisite specialized knowledge of means, methods, and materials, scheduling and sequencing, nor day to day management of construction trades.
Time will tell. However, if I am to assume liability similar to that of a contractor's, then I will expect both a fee and a share of the profits.
-------------------------------------------
Gary Collins AIA
Principal
Gary R. Collins, AIA
Jacksonville OR
-------------------------------------------
|
|
Be the first person to recommend this.
|