Project Delivery

I read Mr. Richert's comments with interest.  I completely agree construction documents should be "everything you really need and no bull"... but let's not throw out the baby with bathwater!  Surely Mr. Richert's exaggerates when he says, "I am very anti-architect-specbook. I think that is a liability nightmare that we should all be avoiding."  The specifications and drawings are the very essence of what we do.  It's a professional obligation, as well as a practical necessity, to communicate appropriately detailed design intentions, product selections, constructability information, and administrative requirements to the builder. 

 

The individual "master builder" with encyclopedic knowledge may be rare but she has been replaced by a team, the architectural firm, that is more than adequate to the task of creating complex buildings.  Of course a firm should avoid over-detailing (and under-detailing!) in both drawings and specifications.  If an in-house roofing "expert" creates details and specs that negate the Owner's roofing warranty...well, let's at least hope the expert and firm both learned a lesson, albeit an expensive one.  In any case, this is a mistake and not a game stopper or cause to throw out the project manual.  We can and must use our knowledge, modern management techniques, and sophisticated technology to produce better documents, not give up.

 

As for the statement, "Our specs should be much more general and performance based": it depends on many factors.  Of the various specification methods - basis-of-design, proprietary, reference standard, descriptive, performance - the last can easily become the most wordy and difficult form of specification.  Performance-based specs are an important tool in the spec writer's arsenal, not a one-size-fits-all panacea for the construction industry.

 

One suggestion:  National master guide specifications carefully avoid unnecessary verbiage that might inadvertently conflict with industry reference standards, contradict manufacturers' instructions, or interfere with Contractor's means and methods.  Many firms find that their best assurance of reduced liability is to always carefully edit the latest edition of a national guide specification.

 

In summary, I say:  meaningful details and specs...just keep doing it!

-------------------------------------------
Joseph Berchenko AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Architectural Specification Writer ARCOM
Alexandria, VA
-------------------------------------------

Thank you for your comments Mr. Berchenko and those before you.

Florida Building Departments do NOT review bound Specifications for permit submittal and review.  Therefore what it takes to get a building permit is very different from what it takes to prepare a bid tied to scope of work.  Pertinent notes and specs must be in the bound set.  During the 'boom' construction in South Florida many sets of construction documents were "light", to put it politely.  The RFI's, Change Orders and later litigation for construction defects is the responsibility of whom?  The contractor?  The subs?  The building inspectors.  Well please guess again.

Sure ......"The individual "master builder" with encyclopedic knowledge may be rare but she has been replaced by a team, the architectural firm, that is more than adequate to the task of creating complex buildings"....... 

You do not practice in Florida.  And throw the notion of encyclopedic knowledge out the window because that will not be part of the profession anytime soon.  But liability will in litigation.  It's darn difficult to lay responsibility of executed work on paper or in the field on the shoulders of the GC and subs if it was only addressed in a cursory note somewhere on the drawings, with or without a detail.  And worse if it conflicts with a note somewhere else in the set.

As the "prescriptive" codes of South Florida evolved into the state wide code of 2002, along with the merging of the performance based SSBCC used elsewhere in Florida, the docs had less detail, particularly in the exterior and building envelope where water intrusion potential was greatest.  No one files a lawsuit on a raised panel door that was left out with the wrong swing.

It's cumbersome to shoulder a complex project (your description in posted comment) but if you sign and seal it, it's yours, and not ....."the team, the firm, or any other entity....." if you want to stay in the clear.  I also understand that in the state of NY when you sign and seal the cover sheet of a set of construction docs, you are responsible for EVERY sheet and discipline in the set.  There's no shirking responsibility in our profession.  What am I not understanding in the discussion?  Other than the fact that there are greater monetary damages sought in big projects than the small single family residential? Sadly I know of more 'small' lawsuits against architects on single family residential than multi-story condominiums in FL

-------------------------------------------
Mary Graham
AR0012527  CGCO58238 CCC1328075
-------------------------------------------






Show Original Message -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-20-2011 15:33
From: Joseph Berchenko
Subject: Our Destiny - Our Choice

I read Mr. Richert's comments with interest.  I completely agree construction documents should be "everything you really need and no bull"... but let's not throw out the baby with bathwater!  Surely Mr. Richert's exaggerates when he says, "I am very anti-architect-specbook. I think that is a liability nightmare that we should all be avoiding."  The specifications and drawings are the very essence of what we do.  It's a professional obligation, as well as a practical necessity, to communicate appropriately detailed design intentions, product selections, constructability information, and administrative requirements to the builder. 

 

The individual "master builder" with encyclopedic knowledge may be rare but she has been replaced by a team, the architectural firm, that is more than adequate to the task of creating complex buildings.  Of course a firm should avoid over-detailing (and under-detailing!) in both drawings and specifications.  If an in-house roofing "expert" creates details and specs that negate the Owner's roofing warranty...well, let's at least hope the expert and firm both learned a lesson, albeit an expensive one.  In any case, this is a mistake and not a game stopper or cause to throw out the project manual.  We can and must use our knowledge, modern management techniques, and sophisticated technology to produce better documents, not give up.

 

As for the statement, "Our specs should be much more general and performance based": it depends on many factors.  Of the various specification methods - basis-of-design, proprietary, reference standard, descriptive, performance - the last can easily become the most wordy and difficult form of specification.  Performance-based specs are an important tool in the spec writer's arsenal, not a one-size-fits-all panacea for the construction industry.

 

One suggestion:  National master guide specifications carefully avoid unnecessary verbiage that might inadvertently conflict with industry reference standards, contradict manufacturers' instructions, or interfere with Contractor's means and methods.  Many firms find that their best assurance of reduced liability is to always carefully edit the latest edition of a national guide specification.

 

In summary, I say:  meaningful details and specs...just keep doing it!

-------------------------------------------
Joseph Berchenko AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Architectural Specification Writer ARCOM
Alexandria, VA
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------
Richard Fischer AIA
Architect
Richard Fischer Architects
White Bear Lake MN
-------------------------------------------
I thank everyone for all of their comments on my topic "Our Destiny - Our Choice".  However, I think you all missed my point.  When I speak of reviving the "Master Builder" I am not suggesting we return to the practice of architecture as implemented during the Renaissance.  Rather, I am referring to today's architect re-inventing himself/herself as the "leader" in the "design and build" process.  By this I mean we not only design the building but we become the lead in the actual construction process.  We need to take on more responsibility (not less) by "increasing our value" in the construction industry, and as a result, increase our financial position. 

Traditionally, architects have been somewhat hostile to design-build.  They have feared that it diminishes the design professional's role and the importance of design to the project.  There is some validity to these criticisms because architects have traditionally played a subservient role to the contractor in design-build projects.
Historically, the reverse was true.  The architect (i.e. the Master Builder) had overall responsibility for the project, both the design and construction.  However, as the legal climate became more adversarial, architects retreated from responsibility for construction, carving out the ever-narrowing niche they now occupy.

I recommend that architects redefine their role. Design professsionals have tradionally been subcontractors or joint venture partners of the contractor, presumably because of the contractor's stronger financial status.  But, it is usually the architect who develops the initial relationship with the owner and who has the owner's trust and confidence when construction begins.  I submit that it is more logical (and far more profitable), for the architect to be the prime designer and builder, subcontracting the actual construction to the contractor.

Structuring a design-build project with the architect as the prime affords the architect many advantages.  First, it enables the architect to participate in the construction profits which dwarf the profits from the design phase.  Informal research among design firms that take the lead in design-build projects indicates that the ratio of construction to design profits exceed 4:1.  There is a potential for even greater profit from construction savings when the owner-architect construction contract is for a lump sum and the architect-contractor subcontract is cost-plus with a guaranteed maximum price.

There are many other advantages, not least of which is control of the project.  An architect who is prime can control the quality of design and can ensure the construction properly implements the design.  Changes, deviations and substitutions are made only with the architect's approval.  The major risk in architect prime design-build is liability to the owner for construction defects and related problems.  But if the architect is liable to the owner, the general contractor is similarly liable to the architect.  This is the theory of flow-down contracting.  As long as the contractor is financially sound or bonded, the architect's ultimate financial risk is minimal.

The construction document phase, envolving specifications and drawings are the tools by which we convey our designs and which form the guide for the construction.  There are many formal and informal ways to present these documents.  There is no absolute correct way that has to be followed.  It is dependant upon the size and compexity of the project, and how, in the experience of the architect these ideas are presented to assure the safety, welfare, and ultimate satisfaction of the client.  Not to diminish the importance of the construction documents, but is this why we became architects?  Or, is the finished project of a beautiful and functional building standing on a site what we are all about.

Well my friends I am back to where I started.  We can continue on the track of traditional architectural practice or we can re-invent our profession and take back our place in the contruction industry.  Financial rewards do not go to the timid by ducking responsibility.  It is our destiny to become "master builders" if we have the courage to take the lead. 

Credits:
I would like to give literary credit to Mark C. Friedlander, co-chair of the Construction Law Group of Schiff Hardin & Waite in Chicago for advancing many of the thoughts I have presented.











Show Original Message -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-21-2011 01:02
From: Mary Graham
Subject: Our Destiny - Our Choice

Thank you for your comments Mr. Berchenko and those before you.

Florida Building Departments do NOT review bound Specifications for permit submittal and review.  Therefore what it takes to get a building permit is very different from what it takes to prepare a bid tied to scope of work.  Pertinent notes and specs must be in the bound set.  During the 'boom' construction in South Florida many sets of construction documents were "light", to put it politely.  The RFI's, Change Orders and later litigation for construction defects is the responsibility of whom?  The contractor?  The subs?  The building inspectors.  Well please guess again.

Sure ......"The individual "master builder" with encyclopedic knowledge may be rare but she has been replaced by a team, the architectural firm, that is more than adequate to the task of creating complex buildings"....... 

You do not practice in Florida.  And throw the notion of encyclopedic knowledge out the window because that will not be part of the profession anytime soon.  But liability will in litigation.  It's darn difficult to lay responsibility of executed work on paper or in the field on the shoulders of the GC and subs if it was only addressed in a cursory note somewhere on the drawings, with or without a detail.  And worse if it conflicts with a note somewhere else in the set.

As the "prescriptive" codes of South Florida evolved into the state wide code of 2002, along with the merging of the performance based SSBCC used elsewhere in Florida, the docs had less detail, particularly in the exterior and building envelope where water intrusion potential was greatest.  No one files a lawsuit on a raised panel door that was left out with the wrong swing.

It's cumbersome to shoulder a complex project (your description in posted comment) but if you sign and seal it, it's yours, and not ....."the team, the firm, or any other entity....." if you want to stay in the clear.  I also understand that in the state of NY when you sign and seal the cover sheet of a set of construction docs, you are responsible for EVERY sheet and discipline in the set.  There's no shirking responsibility in our profession.  What am I not understanding in the discussion?  Other than the fact that there are greater monetary damages sought in big projects than the small single family residential? Sadly I know of more 'small' lawsuits against architects on single family residential than multi-story condominiums in FL

-------------------------------------------
Mary Graham
AR0012527  CGCO58238 CCC1328075
-------------------------------------------

I believe all the advantages of the architect functioning as prime contractor can be derived from structuring the design + build joint venture to result in the same advantages. And a joint venture has greater flexibility. For example, until I have a license to work as a general contractor and a sales and marketing team, I can structure the joint venture with the general contractor as prime. But, in the meantime, I can still share in the profits and I can still provide leadership. As my practice grows, my contribution to the venture increases and my role can change.

-------------------------------------------
Sean Catherall, AIA
Herriman, UT
-------------------------------------------






Show Original Message -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-22-2011 12:21
From: Richard Fischer
Subject: Our Destiny - Our Choice



-------------------------------------------
Richard Fischer AIA
Architect
Richard Fischer Architects
White Bear Lake MN
-------------------------------------------
I thank everyone for all of their comments on my topic "Our Destiny - Our Choice".  However, I think you all missed my point.  When I speak of reviving the "Master Builder" I am not suggesting we return to the practice of architecture as implemented during the Renaissance.  Rather, I am referring to today's architect re-inventing himself/herself as the "leader" in the "design and build" process.  By this I mean we not only design the building but we become the lead in the actual construction process.  We need to take on more responsibility (not less) by "increasing our value" in the construction industry, and as a result, increase our financial position. 

Traditionally, architects have been somewhat hostile to design-build.  They have feared that it diminishes the design professional's role and the importance of design to the project.  There is some validity to these criticisms because architects have traditionally played a subservient role to the contractor in design-build projects.
Historically, the reverse was true.  The architect (i.e. the Master Builder) had overall responsibility for the project, both the design and construction.  However, as the legal climate became more adversarial, architects retreated from responsibility for construction, carving out the ever-narrowing niche they now occupy.

I recommend that architects redefine their role. Design professsionals have tradionally been subcontractors or joint venture partners of the contractor, presumably because of the contractor's stronger financial status.  But, it is usually the architect who develops the initial relationship with the owner and who has the owner's trust and confidence when construction begins.  I submit that it is more logical (and far more profitable), for the architect to be the prime designer and builder, subcontracting the actual construction to the contractor.

Structuring a design-build project with the architect as the prime affords the architect many advantages.  First, it enables the architect to participate in the construction profits which dwarf the profits from the design phase.  Informal research among design firms that take the lead in design-build projects indicates that the ratio of construction to design profits exceed 4:1.  There is a potential for even greater profit from construction savings when the owner-architect construction contract is for a lump sum and the architect-contractor subcontract is cost-plus with a guaranteed maximum price.

There are many other advantages, not least of which is control of the project.  An architect who is prime can control the quality of design and can ensure the construction properly implements the design.  Changes, deviations and substitutions are made only with the architect's approval.  The major risk in architect prime design-build is liability to the owner for construction defects and related problems.  But if the architect is liable to the owner, the general contractor is similarly liable to the architect.  This is the theory of flow-down contracting.  As long as the contractor is financially sound or bonded, the architect's ultimate financial risk is minimal.

The construction document phase, envolving specifications and drawings are the tools by which we convey our designs and which form the guide for the construction.  There are many formal and informal ways to present these documents.  There is no absolute correct way that has to be followed.  It is dependant upon the size and compexity of the project, and how, in the experience of the architect these ideas are presented to assure the safety, welfare, and ultimate satisfaction of the client.  Not to diminish the importance of the construction documents, but is this why we became architects?  Or, is the finished project of a beautiful and functional building standing on a site what we are all about.

Well my friends I am back to where I started.  We can continue on the track of traditional architectural practice or we can re-invent our profession and take back our place in the contruction industry.  Financial rewards do not go to the timid by ducking responsibility.  It is our destiny to become "master builders" if we have the courage to take the lead. 

Credits:
I would like to give literary credit to Mark C. Friedlander, co-chair of the Construction Law Group of Schiff Hardin & Waite in Chicago for advancing many of the thoughts I have presented.

Sorry Mr. Berchenko, I realize my post wasn't very specific so I will add a little more. I am certainly not suggesting that we don't need to specify things carefully. And I agree 100% on your "meaningful" comment, but we probably differ on how much is actually "meaningful". You boast that "National master guide specifications carefully avoid unnecessary verbiage that might inadvertently conflict with industry reference standards, contradict manufacturers' instructions, or interfere with Contractor's means and methods." The base problem here is that so much has been written into these specs that the conflicts could occur to begin with and the answer has been to add even more language to disclaim any conflicts that may occur. As in the old days, drawing well and playing to your audience is the better answer.

In our office, we draw well first and then we specify our projects on our drawings, not in a book. It's amazing how easy something is to build when you can see how it goes together in the drawing itself. Then specifications and notes are used to explain what is not readily apparent in the drawings. Our goal is to have to add as few notes as possible (because field guys don't like to read). 

Granted, we do not do really large projects, so I realize on really really big projects you might be forced into an actually book. Maybe the answer on a really large project is to get the information that is usefull out in the field onto the set of drawings AND have a smaller spec book for information which is useful for those in the office. I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but I KNOW there's a better way. I realize it's hard to think of a different way to do things when you've been writing specs the same way for 25 years and your own organization tells you that this is the way to do it, but it can be done.

When was the last time you saw a mason or an HVAC installer or a roofer walking around with one of your 300 page spec books along with their set of plans? I have NEVER seen it happen. When you create things full of lengthy verbage and bind it in book format and hand it to a blue collar worker in the field, it's going to sit in a truck (if not the garbage can) never to be seen or heard from again. Nobody in the field wants to actually use it because it has become more of a burden than an aid, so have you really done anyone a service? If you can take the time however to understand what is valuable to someone actually doing the work in the field (or in the office) and get that information into the the proper format for the person who is using it, they will love you forever. 

This is our philosophy. This is how we do things. It has never caused us conflict and we have never been involved in a lawsuit. Our subs like us because we "get it". Our owners like us because our subs don't stand around complaining about us. It's really a win-win.

The problem with traditional architecture firms is that the kids doing the drawings are generally at the front end of their careers and don't really draw all that well in terms of relating the important construction information to the field. The drawings are then supplemented with details from a standard CADD library. At the end of the process, there is a senior spec writer who probably really understands how a building goes together. To make up for what is lacking in the drawings, he is expected to write an incredibly detailed book of how the building is supposed to go together that supercedes even the information in the drawings.

If you can't see how this system is corrupted and getting worse as time goes on, then I am at a loss for the direction of our profession.

I know that technology is leaping ahead and that is straining our older management types. The good news is that the same kids that are strugging with the drawings and how to put a building together properly, are really good with technology. There is a give-take relationship between the older and younger generations which can be beneficial to everyone involved if tapped into properly. Architects need to stop being afraid of change. We should be using this slow period in architecture to address these needs and make some changes to the way we have long been doing business. We will be more valued if we can show the world why we are valuable ... but that is not going to happen maintaining the status quo.

-------------------------------------------
John Richert AIA
Owner
Crossroads Design, Inc.
Lake Forest IL
-------------------------------------------






Show Original Message -------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-20-2011 15:33
From: Joseph Berchenko
Subject: Our Destiny - Our Choice

I read Mr. Richert's comments with interest.  I completely agree construction documents should be "everything you really need and no bull"... but let's not throw out the baby with bathwater!  Surely Mr. Richert's exaggerates when he says, "I am very anti-architect-specbook. I think that is a liability nightmare that we should all be avoiding."  The specifications and drawings are the very essence of what we do.  It's a professional obligation, as well as a practical necessity, to communicate appropriately detailed design intentions, product selections, constructability information, and administrative requirements to the builder. 

 

The individual "master builder" with encyclopedic knowledge may be rare but she has been replaced by a team, the architectural firm, that is more than adequate to the task of creating complex buildings.  Of course a firm should avoid over-detailing (and under-detailing!) in both drawings and specifications.  If an in-house roofing "expert" creates details and specs that negate the Owner's roofing warranty...well, let's at least hope the expert and firm both learned a lesson, albeit an expensive one.  In any case, this is a mistake and not a game stopper or cause to throw out the project manual.  We can and must use our knowledge, modern management techniques, and sophisticated technology to produce better documents, not give up.

 

As for the statement, "Our specs should be much more general and performance based": it depends on many factors.  Of the various specification methods - basis-of-design, proprietary, reference standard, descriptive, performance - the last can easily become the most wordy and difficult form of specification.  Performance-based specs are an important tool in the spec writer's arsenal, not a one-size-fits-all panacea for the construction industry.

 

One suggestion:  National master guide specifications carefully avoid unnecessary verbiage that might inadvertently conflict with industry reference standards, contradict manufacturers' instructions, or interfere with Contractor's means and methods.  Many firms find that their best assurance of reduced liability is to always carefully edit the latest edition of a national guide specification.

 

In summary, I say:  meaningful details and specs...just keep doing it!

-------------------------------------------
Joseph Berchenko AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Architectural Specification Writer ARCOM
Alexandria, VA
-------------------------------------------