Abdicating Responsibility, part 4

as architects have given up basic services, others have taken the opportunity to fill the void

avoiding responsibility

assigning responsibility

abdicating responsibility
part 1

abdicating responsibility
part 2

abdicating responsibility
part 3

abdicating responsibility
part 4

abdicating responsibility,
part 5

Last time we looked at estimating and complete design, certainly things that an owner should be able to expect from an architect. But when things go wrong, there is usually enough blame to be shared by other members of the construction team.

Site Services

Architects do not bear complete responsibility for the problems that plague construction projects. Owners, like all of us, want the most bang for their bucks; they often make poor decisions, sacrificing long-term considerations for immediate gratification. Looking for the "best deal" not only in construction costs, but in design costs as well, they encourage architects to cut fees and services in a bidding war. The result is less time for design, virtual elimination of quality assurance, and reduced time at the site. On-site observation is considered too expensive, and its frequency has been reduced to occasional visits to the site.

A lot can go wrong in a few days, and many problems are concealed by following work. Poor connections, lack of concealed supports, improper materials, and a host of other defective work may go unnoticed for years. And when problems are detected, owners often accept deficient work. Sure, they might get a credit, but is that adequate compensation?

Example from hell: To avoid a delayed opening date, an owner accepts exterior insulating glass units without the specified low-e coating. The supplier admits that the correct glass was not delivered, but claims that, since low-e coatings are the "normal" product, glass without a low-e coating is a special order item and actually costs more. What is the proper amount for the change order? If the product supplied costs less than that specified, there is no net cost benefit to the owner. Should it be a no-cost change order? Should it be the increased energy costs for twenty or more years?

Saving the cost of site observation is false economy, and design professionals should not quickly give up this unique opportunity to make sure that their own interests, as well as those of the owner, are protected. The funny thing is that many owners now hire independent representatives and testing agencies to oversee their projects, probably paying more to than they would if that work were included in the owner-architect agreement. As architects have given up this basic service, others have taken the opportunity to fill the void.

Construction Management

Architects aren't the only ones who have given up some of their traditional duties. Construction managers have done an excellent job of carving out their own niche, taking over the juicy parts of the prime contractor while leaving the architect and contractor responsible for whatever goes wrong. Any firm that is given control of both estimating and awarding contracts should be able to show - on paper - that it has saved the owner ten percent. Another great deal - for the construction manager - is an agreement that awards the CM a percentage of the money "saved". "Hmmmm, if I come up with high estimates early on, then choose contractors with the lowest bids…"

I recently saw a project in which the owner hired an architect to design the project; a construction manager to provide estimates and value engineering during development of the construction documents, and to oversee construction; and an independent estimator to verify the construction administrator's estimates.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with construction management. With CM, owners can benefit from early involvement of someone with knowledge of construction processes, comparative costs of various systems and products, and current market conditions. On the other hand, owners can be fooled when CM stacks the deck, especially when the CM gets a percentage of money "saved" by changes made during construction.

© 2002 Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA

Material from CSI Chapter newsletters used with permission.