Construction Contract Administration

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

Agree with you both. sort of. 

1. Procore's project database and thus, its records and reports, aren't owned by the GC. They can't manipulate your entries. Else they'd never have come this far. 

2. Trust.. but verify. Beware the project database thats hosted by any one party to the project. My arch/cm firm represented HKS on a verrrry large project, with a large and famous GC a bit ago. Said GC had their own homebrew version of a project database. We never trusted it, so saved PDFs of all RFIs etc. Mid-project, we found out they had access to, could, and had gone into and changed an architect's RFI answer on another project. The CA rep caught it and the stuff hit the fan. We immediately moved our project to Procore. 

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

So Bruce to your point, we do save a pdf of every RFI response as well as submittals to our own "database" as well as our company server. Same with field reports, extract a pdf from Procore and that gets distributed.

Agree with you both. sort of. 

1. Procore's project database and thus, its records and reports, aren't owned by the GC. They can't manipulate your entries. Else they'd never have come this far. 

2. Trust.. but verify. Beware the project database thats hosted by any one party to the project. My arch/cm firm represented HKS on a verrrry large project, with a large and famous GC a bit ago. Said GC had their own homebrew version of a project database. We never trusted it, so saved PDFs of all RFIs etc. Mid-project, we found out they had access to, could, and had gone into and changed an architect's RFI answer on another project. The CA rep caught it and the stuff hit the fan. We immediately moved our project to Procore. 

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

In this day/age, its not about a GC changing your answer or submittal markings. IMHO its just so easy to save out a pdf of docs and logs since the states we work in have 10-year statutes of repose and too many lawyers per capita.. and corporate ransom data hacks too common. Im a fan, but Procore is now a very large, lucrative  target and, again, PDFs are too easy to save out for the archives. 

So Bruce to your point, we do save a pdf of every RFI response as well as submittals to our own "database" as well as our company server. Same with field reports, extract a pdf from Procore and that gets distributed.

Agree with you both. sort of. 

1. Procore's project database and thus, its records and reports, aren't owned by the GC. They can't manipulate your entries. Else they'd never have come this far. 

2. Trust.. but verify. Beware the project database thats hosted by any one party to the project. My arch/cm firm represented HKS on a verrrry large project, with a large and famous GC a bit ago. Said GC had their own homebrew version of a project database. We never trusted it, so saved PDFs of all RFIs etc. Mid-project, we found out they had access to, could, and had gone into and changed an architect's RFI answer on another project. The CA rep caught it and the stuff hit the fan. We immediately moved our project to Procore. 

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

In this day/age, its not about a GC changing your answer or submittal markings. IMHO its just so easy to save out a pdf of docs and logs since the states we work in have 10-year statutes of repose and too many lawyers per capita.. and corporate ransom data hacks too common. Im a fan, but Procore is now a very large, lucrative  target and, again, PDFs are too easy to save out for the archives. 

So Bruce to your point, we do save a pdf of every RFI response as well as submittals to our own "database" as well as our company server. Same with field reports, extract a pdf from Procore and that gets distributed.

Agree with you both. sort of. 

1. Procore's project database and thus, its records and reports, aren't owned by the GC. They can't manipulate your entries. Else they'd never have come this far. 

2. Trust.. but verify. Beware the project database thats hosted by any one party to the project. My arch/cm firm represented HKS on a verrrry large project, with a large and famous GC a bit ago. Said GC had their own homebrew version of a project database. We never trusted it, so saved PDFs of all RFIs etc. Mid-project, we found out they had access to, could, and had gone into and changed an architect's RFI answer on another project. The CA rep caught it and the stuff hit the fan. We immediately moved our project to Procore. 

While I don't necessarily disagree with your premise with respect to RFIs and submittals which is why we run our own software which is cloud based.  But for AFORs, Procore is superior to anything I have run across.  With the setup we run, Newforma, I think it is called Constructware now, the field report module is sub standard in my opinion.  In Procore, I go into the plans on my iPad, drop a pin, create my line item, snap pictures for reference.  When I am back at my construction office, it is there on the computer for the final edits, publish the pins, extract the report which has plan snippets for each line item.  Much more efficient and simpler.  My days of fighting with field reports in Word are hopefully gone.

I have begun to do my field observation reports in Procore, which is the contractors setup.  It works really well as then, I do not have to be the keeper of a list as it is just something else I have to keep up with. The items in question remain open until I close them and they are there for everyone to see.  My next to last item in my AFOR is "See open items list in Procore".  Keeps it very simple.  Simple is good these complicated days.

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?

Recording and publishing a Field Observation Report... the black box of the construction process ( per Michael Plottel, FAIA). What does this group think about the practice of having an "Initial Observation", then on subsequent visits we then have "subsequent observations" for that original observation.

Example - A building is being framed and Architect notices the 4" conc curb under a section of wall was omitted and the Field Observation Report notes this construction omission. Here are  2 possible  options 

1) The Report is issued/ distributed. The GC issues an RFI with a solution to the observation. Architect reviews. Report is updated to note that an RFI was issued. 

or

2) The Report is issued/ distributed. Crickets... No one brings up the issue at next site meeting (2 weeks later). Does the architect note a subsequent observation? and thus keep a running notation of any "fix" which may have been done? and hope the GC eventually responds ?

Personally I'd prefer to just make the observation and if warranted, the "observation" is elevated to the OAC site meeting (meaning it's put on the agenda to be discussed and dealt with) rather than languishing in a report.

Anyone have any similar situations? How do you deal with these "on-going" issues?