Practice Management Member Conversations

 View Only

Community HTML

Clouds

Quick Links

Who we are

The Practice Management Knowledge Community (PMKC) identifies and develops information on the business of architecture for use by the profession to maintain and improve the quality of the professional and business environment.  The PMKC initiates programs, provides content and serves as a resource to other knowledge communities, and acts as experts on AIA Institute programs and policies that pertain to a wide variety of business practices and trends.

    

  • 1.  Change Management during CA

    Posted 06-23-2016 09:51 AM

    In lieu of AIA forms G710 (Architect's Supplemental Instructions) and G709 (Work Changes Proposal Request), is anyone using a "combination" form would avoid the need for the architect to "pre-determine" whether a proposed change will result in additional cost?  Such a form would provide for the contractor to respond with EITHER 1) an acceptance of the change with zero change to cost or time; OR 2) a proposal for a change in cost and/or time.  Use of a single form would seemingly provide for simplified tracking of changes. 

    Thoughts?   

    ------------------------------
    Mike Leinback AIA
    Senior Project Manager
    Dewberry
    Dallas TX
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Change Management during CA

    Posted 06-24-2016 07:24 PM

    I don't mean to dodge the question or the issue, but we have found that our pre-determination (cost or credit) has little impact on the contractor's opinion. Thus, our efforts go to managing the expectations of everyone on the project team.

    As such, even if we think that an ASI has a cost or time impact, we leave that open to the contractor to determine, BUT we add this sentence to all of our ASI's, RFI's and CCD's:

     

    This RFI/ASI response shall not be considered or construed as approval for a Change Order or Construction Change Directive.

     

    We have found that this insists on the application of the General Conditions clauses regarding Change Orders.

     

     

    Rich Wagner | FAIA

    Senior Principal

     

    BaylisEmailLogo125

     

    10801 Main Street, # 110 | Bellevue, WA 98004

    1904 Third Avenue, # 330 | Seattle, WA 98101

    T: 425.454.0566

    C: 425.894.4646

    www.BaylisArchitects.com






  • 3.  RE: Change Management during CA

    Posted 06-28-2016 10:58 AM

    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



  • 4.  RE: Change Management during CA

    Posted 06-28-2016 11:00 AM

    Huh - apologies. this response posted to the wrong thread somehow. Was supposed to go to the discussion re excessive time during construction administration.

    ------------------------------
    John Thompson Assoc. AIA
    Production Coordinator
    Dore & Whittier Architects, Inc.
    Burlington VT



  • 5.  RE: Change Management during CA

    Posted 06-25-2016 07:32 PM

    I think from an industry standard practice standpoint, this approach represents quite a paradigm shift that needs buy-in from all the players.

    There are two things at play here:  First, the ASI, which is one of the enumerated contract document modifications, per A201;  and the PR, which is not.  Combining these two actionable approaches into one document tends to muddy the contractual water, I think.  Probably best to keep them segregated.  Keep in mind - the Owner (not the Architect) determines the appropriate form of agreement between them and the Contractor, and, correspondingly, the General Conditions [of that contract].  Since the approach in question would require the Owner (or their legal counsel) to first - use A201 to begin with, which they are certainly not obligated to do;  and second - alter the language in A201 to address the Architect's preference / practice, which - again - they are in no way obligated to do (aside from it being beyond the industry norm).  On a similar note, what does the Owner-Architect Agreement say?  Does it mention the contract document modification process explicitly, or does it defer to A201?  If this new approach is not addressed in either, then the Architect will require buy-in from the owner to get it implemented into the CA process (which may be a hard sell).  Even if you can sell it, it will still require buy-in from the Contractor.  From my readings of the typical AIA O-A agreement forms, and A201, I see no language that suggest the Architect has the latitude to unilaterally implement this approach.

    Second (and here's where I get blunt), the Architect/CCA should darn well know if something they are issuing (the ASI) or responding to (the RFI) will have the consequence of potentially adding cost to the project.  I think most Owners (and contractors) will expect the Architect to have a reasonable grasp of such matters.  There are few things that can compromise an architect's credibility (in the eyes of both the Owner and Contractor) more than to broadcast via a written instrument "we have no idea if this is a cost change or not, so Mr. Contractor you get to choose" - especially if there are no provisions in the various executed agreements that explicitly codify its use.

    ------------------------------
    David R. Combs, Assoc. AIA, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP
    Associate Principal, Director of Operations
    Perkins + Will
    Dallas TXDavidAssoc. AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP



  • 6.  RE: Change Management during CA

    Posted 06-26-2016 10:20 AM

    I'm with David Combs and "blunt" on this one!

    ------------------------------
    Thomas Zimmerman FAIA
    Architect/Consultant
    Z2 Architecture, PLLC
    Canandaigua NY



  • 7.  RE: Change Management during CA

    Posted 06-26-2016 06:01 PM

    I agree with the sentiments express thus far.  Unfortunately, too many architects have abused the ASI form by implicating that a particular change should be a no-cost item without regard to the GC's procurement schedule.  The PR gives you the flexibility to request a change proposal for a credit, a no-cost change, or a legitimate add to the contract.  The owner is not obligate to any additional cost or schedule extention until the contractor's proposal is approved and incorporated into a Change Order.  If the architect has a good reason to believe that a proposed change is a no-cost change or a credit, they can explain why in the narrative of the PR.  However, it is critical that all parties agree to a time period for the GC to complete their proposal.  If you wait long enough, any proposed change will be an add to the contract.

    ------------------------------
    Timothy Pellowski AIA, LEED AP
    Principal
    STG Design
    Austin TX



  • 8.  RE: Change Management during CA

    Posted 06-27-2016 03:36 PM

    Mike-

     

    At Leo A Daly we address the cost/time impact problem on projects that are open-book CM at-Risk by including the following language on the ASI form:

     

    "Note: if the following information is deemed to have an impact on Contract Price or Time, submit a proposal for Owner

    approval before proceeding with this ASI.  If approved by Owner, the resulting contract change will be incorporated in the

    next formal Change Order."

     

    --Dale

     

    Dale L. Munhall, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP

    Senior Associate, Director of Construction Phase Services

     

    8600 Indian Hills Drive,  Omaha, NE 68114-4039

    T 402.391.8111    F 402.391.8564    D 402.390.4482    C 402.670.2078

     

    PLANNING   ARCHITECTURE   ENGINEERING   INTERIORS

     

      




    CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This email communication, including any and all attachments, (collectively, this "Communication"), is intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. This Communication may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary. Any unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this Communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this Communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy any and all copies of this Communication.