I commend the responses to this issue that suggest teamwork between the architect and the contractor verses an 'us' and 'them' dialogue. I have witnessed the issue of multiple CA-phase RFI from an architect serving as the project representative, and as the site architect from a design-build entity, and for the past 5 years as the owner for higher-education renovations and new construction. In competitive bid environments, low-balling contractors will take advantage of loosely defined project manual (drawings and specs) in order to realize change orders as much as 30 percent over the bid.
Elimination of RFI and Change Orders is certainly not the expectation. However, recognizing the teams' shortfalls and the effort it may take to resolve issues during the implementation will ultimately create a better experience for the owner and all that are involved. If you have not budgeted the 18 to 23% of fee for this phase, don't expect the owner to be willing to compensate for additional time. Yes, I agree that some RFI are quite clearly answered with a knowledge of the bidding documents; yet many RFI (especially when it comes to MEP coordination) are a result of lacking or conflicting documentation - no matter how small - that means extra work not anticipated by a trade.
In the spirit of teamwork, I believe the best means to change a 'software-based gun-happy RFI' environment is to write a good construction spec to revert back to a culture of face-to-face resolution of RFI rather than the digital RFI to change-order process that is transforming the industry. Face-to-face resolution is not always black-and-white, and often involves compromise. Avoid putting the Owner in the position of being the arbitrator of RFI's; and seek early win-win-win resolutions.
Once a culture of face-to-face review and resolution is reinstated (either via phone call or phone conversation), the vested time involved from all parties for extraneous RFI may become a deterrent for repeated / related / or document-identified RFI.... as nobody (architect. contractor, or owner) to create more work for themselves.
------------------------------
David Moehring, AIA, NCARB
Senior Capital Planner
University of Washington Bothell
and
AIA Chicago PMKC Past-Chair
Original Message:
Sent: 06-28-2016 18:28
From: John Thompson
Subject: Excessive time spent during CA
Regarding RFI's, we've included language requiring the contractor to propose an answer to the RFI for us to evaluate, and language that if they don't propose an answer, and the answer is plainly obvious or reasonably inferred from the documents, that the Architect and Owner reserve the right to charge the contractor's retainage for time spent providing responses.
For submittals, we include similar language that the original submittal and the first resubmittal will be reviewed without prejudice, and beginning with the second resubmittal we reserve the right to charge the contractor for time spent reviewing submittals.
With that language in place, I recommend that any office (regardless of the early project climate) establish a billing code for "unanticipated construction administration time" for these topics at teh beginning of construction, and ANY time an item comes up, log it to that category. If all goes well, you won't need to make a claim for it - but if you wait and give the contractor repeated warnings to up their game, and they don't, you'll wish you had all that time spent (retroactively) identified and billable.
Once all that is in place, provide some counseling to the Owner about the value (no pun intended) of the Liquidated Damages clause in the contract, and not to give that up. A lot of owners (I guess) see it as an affront to the contractor, and would rather forgive them for schedule slippage in the name of "cooperation", rather than NOT moving the Date of Substantial Completion "just because they're not keeping up". LD's could pay for a lot of added design team services when things go bad. .
Contractors increasingly seem to expect the design team to perform field coordination for them in the form of submittals and RFI's. When it smells like that, we often will call the bluff and don't waste inordinant amounts of time trying to check other submittals for coordination to do their job for them, and send them back with a directive to coordinate the work. It's sometimes a fine line, but as a profession we need to push that type of coordination back on the contractor and avoid taking on the risk of answers that might reflect the design condition but not the field conditions.
------------------------------
John Thompson Assoc. AIA
Production Coordinator
Dore & Whittier Architects, Inc.
Burlington VT
Original Message:
Sent: 06-24-2016 18:52
From: Gary Congdon
Subject: Excessive time spent during CA
We are seeing a surge in the amount of time being spent on normal construction administration. Typically, we review submittals (shop drawings and product data), and make monthly visits to the site (on simple projects). Lately, as contractors have added sophisticated software to their project Managers and Superintendents, we are receiving daily RFI's and questions. It appears that much of this is geared toward creating change orders, and/or the contractor covering his liability. Many of the answers are clearly located in the drawings and /or specs.
Has anyone developed an effective way to :
A. Charge additional for this added work?
B. Limit the number of RFI's or submittals
Thanks,
Gary E. Congdon AIA, LEED ap
President
LEE & SAKAHARA ARCHITECTS, AIA Inc.
6280 S. Valley View, Ste. 116, Las Vegas, NV 89118
ph: (702) 270-6600
16842 Von Karman Ave., Ste. 125, Irvine, CA 92606
ph: (949) 261-1100 | www.leesak.com