Orders of Precedence in Construction Contracts, and the conflict between architects and contractors

duking it outA few years back, we discussed the Orders of Precedence clause in Construction Contracts.  I wrote a post talking about how having such a clause in a contract can help the parties navigate in the grey areas where specifications and drawings may disagree.

My post generated a follow up guest post from Phil Kabza, a MasterSpec specialist, on what he saw as the problems with an order of precedence clause in truly protecting all parties to the contract.

This week, Phil’s guest post generated a new, and thought-provoking (flame-provoking?) comment from “Joe GC”.  Joe writes:

It is another very typical situation of the Architect and Engineer doing a poor job and then trying to seek relief of their error at the contractors expense. Phil’s comments are based on the fact that all contractors are not ethical, which is simply not true. If the subcontractor is the expert, then why are the drawings and specifications prepared by Architect’s and Engineer?

This is exactly why Design Build delivery methods are becoming more popular by the day.   Single source responsibility from someone who really is an expert, not someone who has a lot of education and therefore purports to be an expert.

In otherwords in laymen’s terms “If I have to verify everything you draw and specify Mr. Architect, then why do I need you in the process at all”? If you are not responsible for the review of the submittals then why do I need to send them to you? No more “approved” stamps just “reviewed” stamps; it’s becoming a joke!

When will the Design Community wake up? That is why so many Architects and Engineers are now finding themselves working for contractors.  You are responsible for the Design Mr. Architect, it is cut and dry, simple as that, not rocket science and you do not need to be AIA or P.E. to understand it.

AIA needs to do more training, especially when it comes to spending time in the field. They need to understand what they are designing, just as the contractor needs to understand what he is building.  They have never seen it that way because they think they are above the contractor or smarter than the contractor.

Until they learn they are not better or smarter because of classroom education things will not be improving and the lawyers will continue to be the most successful.

 

Interesting perspective as to why Design Build is becoming more popular.  I think Joe is correct that Design Build is more popular now, but I think it has less to do with concerns about design professionals avoiding liability and more to do with the economic value in having the “buck stopping” at one single entity.

Is there a perception that designers are classroom educated but not field trained?  Is it a fair one?  Share YOUR thoughts with Joe and me, below.

 

Of Bridges, Biofuels, and Buildings (Engineering Excellence Awards)

As I noted earlier this week, the ACEC of North Carolina’s Engineering Excellence Awards gala was held last month. 13 amazing projects were awarded recognition, including projects involving environmental and coastal issues, higher education facilities, and government projects.

Each project was important, unique, or challenging in some manner. In my next post, I will highlight one of the most unusual– the Swine Farm Biogas project by Withers & Ravenel.  In the meantime, here are all of the winners, which I’ve loosely sorted into categories:

Mingo Creek Trail Bridge

Mingo Creek Trail Bridge

Coastal & Environmental projects

The Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center, Surf City, NC (Cavanaugh & Associates)

Sea Bright to Manasquan Profile Survey, NJ (McKim & Creed)

American Tobacco Trail Pedestrian Bridge, Durham, NC (Parsons Brinckerhoff)

Mingo Creek Trail, Knightdale, NC (Stewart)

Town of Hillsborough Riverwalk, Hillsborough, NC (Summit Design and Engineering Services)

Swine Farms Biogas Renewable Energy Project, Bladenboro, NC (Withers & Ravenel)

 

Marsico Hall at UNC

Marsico Hall at UNC

Campus & Higher Education projects

South Halls Renovation, Penn State, University Park, PA (Clark Nexsen)

Science & Technology Building, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC (McKim & Creed)

Marsico Hall, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC (Mulkey Engineers & Consultants)

Military, Municipal, & Highway projects

Infantry Squad Battle Course, Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, NC (Catlin Engineers and Scientists)

Carolina Field of Honor War Memorial, Kernersville, NC (Woolpert)

Broad Avenue Bus Terminal, High Point, NC (Mulkey Engineers & Consultants)

NC DOT Land Application of Concrete Byproducts, NC (S&ME)

The diversity of the award-winning projects was very clear, as even a cursory review of the projects demonstrates.  I recommend you follow the links to the specific projects to see some great photos and hear more about the projects in detail.

In the meantime, tell me what project you would have given the “best in show” award to if you were the judge.  Or, was a project left out of the awards that you thought superior to some of these?  Share your thoughts about both these projects, and any others that you think should have made the cut, in the comments section.

Photo credits:  Mingo Creek Bridge by James Willamor; Marsico Hall by Bbfd

Is your design professional construction contract too friendly? (law note)

not friendlyMy husband often travels the back roads between Chapel Hill and Fuquay Varina to visit friends.  En route (a circuitous route that goes past Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, among other places), he passes by the “Friendly Grocery”.  For those who haven’t had the pleasure, here is a photo of the side of the building in all its glory.

In case you cannot read the list of forbidden activities, I’m re-printed them here (complete with spelling error):

not friendly sign

I’m not sure which is the “friendly” part of that sign.  In fact, the sign seems to be the antithesis of friendly.

What does this have to do with your construction contracts?  Sometimes, in an effort to please the client and/or secure the project, architects and engineers have the habit of being too friendly in their contract language.  That is, you make promises or proposals that may promise too much of a good thing for the client.  This can cause big problems.  Bigger than being towed away from a rural grocery store in the middle of nowhere.  You could be putting your insurance coverage at risk.

Have you ever promised to use “best efforts” in your design or plans?  Promised to design to a specific LEED standard?  Guaranteed 100% satisfaction?  You might be putting your errors & omission coverage at issue.  By warrantying or guaranteeing something, you are assuming a level of liability well beyond the standard of care required by law.  By law, you only need to conform to the standard of care, and your insurance will only provide coverage up to that standard of care.  In other words, if you make guarantees or promise “best efforts,” you are contracting to something that will *not* be insured.  If something goes wrong, you will be without the benefit of your professional liability coverage.

Instead, make sure that your contracts, and proposals, are not too friendly to the client.  Sure, agree to work in accordance with the standard of care of professional architects/engineers.   But don’t make guarantees, or promise “best” efforts.  In fact, you might want to educate your client on why you cannot make such guarantees, and why anyone who does (i.e., your competition) is putting their insurance coverage at risk.  Owners want and need you to stay within the bounds of your coverage.  You need to, also.  Maybe the owner of the Friendly Grocery was on to something there.

Your turn.  Have you ever used language that jeopardized your insurance protection?  Uncertain if you have?  Drop me a line and we can talk.

Photo (c) Melissa Brumback  Creative Commons License

Adding an “Additional Insured” in the Professional Services Agreement: an exercise in futility! (law note)

As an architect or engineer,  you may be asked to sign a contract that has a requirement of adding the Owner (or Contractor, in a design-build project) to your own insurance as an “additional insured”.  This is usually a fall out of the fact that the Owner is treating you like a contractor and using “stock” contract language.  It is not appropriate, nor sometimes even possible, to add the Owner to your professional liability policy.

This is beacuse professional liability insurance only provides coverage for “professional services”.  That is, if it is even possible to buy such coverage, it won’t work to avoid any risks the Owner is seeking to avoid, because the Owner is not providing licensed architectural or engineering services on the Project.

In fact, because of the way professional liability policies are generally written, naming the project Owner as an additional insured essentially voids any coverage for the owner for your Firm’s design errors & omissions.

What should you do with a stubborn Owner who insists he wants to be an additional insured under your E&O policy?  Explain the facts to him, and point out he is risking voiding coverage all together.  Tell him to call me, or point out this post to him.  Also, several insurance brokers, agents, and companies have simple one or two page information sheets that you can provide to the Owner to help with his education.

Remember, having an “Additional Insured” in an Errors & Omissions policy is a true exercise in futility.  It may not be what the Owner wants to hear, but such is life!not want to hear

 

Question time:  have you ever been asked to add an Owner to your E&O insurance?  How did you handle it?  Share in the comments section, below. 

And if you haven’t already, be sure to download your free white paper on the 7 Critical Mistakes that Architects & Engineers make– it’s in the box on the top right hand side of the blog.

 

Photo credit.

What Architects & Engineers Need to Know about the New Lien Law

engineering plansI have previously discussed the ABCs of Lien Laws for those making claims on a project (that is, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers) and the 123s of Lien Laws for project owners.  Now, time to learn some new tricks:  enter, the Lien Agent.

In case you’ve been hiding in your man-cave waiting for warmer weather to arrive and missed all the hoopla, as of April 1, 2013, North Carolina has a new lien law act.  Essentially, for *most* construction projects [there are a few limited exceptions for low dollar work or single family, owner occupied residences],  owners will need to file a notice of an entity to be their “Lien Agent”, and contractors will file notices within a short window of starting work.  If done correctly, it should keep everyone aware of who is on the project, who is doing what work, and who may have a lien.

The most pertinent part that affects architects and engineers?  This:

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 44A‑11.2

(h)        When a lien agent is not identified in a contract for improvements to real property subject to G.S. 44A‑11.1 entered into between an owner and a design professional, the design professional will be deemed to have met the requirement of notice under subsections (l) and (m) of this section on the date of the lien agent’s receipt of the owner’s designation of the lien agent. The owner shall provide written notice to the lien agent containing the information pertaining to the design professional required in a notice to lien agent pursuant to subdivisions (1) through (3) of subsection (i) of this section, by any method of delivery authorized in subsection (f) of this section. The lien agent shall include the design professional in its response to any persons requesting information relating to persons who have given notice to the lien agent pursuant to this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term “design professional” shall mean any architects, engineers, land surveyors, and landscape architects registered under Chapter 83A, 89A, or 89C of the General Statutes.

In other words, if the owner designates a lien agent up front, you follow the process and note your involvement for the record.

What if the owner does NOT designate a lien agent up front? You are covered by default, once he does so.  And he will do so, as  before the owner can get a building permit, he will be forced to designate a lien agent.  Nice, right?  You have built in protections, and you don’t need to worry about filing a lien and damaging a relationship with an owner if they are slow to pay.

The on-line system for selecting Lien Agents (for owners) and notifying Agents of your work (for everyone else) on a project is LiensNC.  A helpful tip sheet  produced by the Title Insurance industry walks you through the process.

Many other fine folks have weighed in on the nuts & bolts of how the new system works, so I will not repeat it all here.  Instead, let me direct you to a few of these resources (apologies in advance for anyone I may have slighted):

Bryan Scott:  A good place to start for a broad overview of what you need to know

For the designer’s perspective, from Matthew Bouchard:

I’m a design professional providing services prior to the execution of a contract for construction.  What if there’s no lien agent in placing during my pre-construction performance?

That depends on whether your contract is with the owner or with another design professional.  If you are in direct contractual privity with the owner and your contract does not include the lien agent information, the owner is responsible for providing your contact information to its lien agent upon the owner’s appointment of same.  If you are a design subcontractor, you should make a written request to the owner for the lien agent’s contact information.  By statute, you will have no obligation to comply with the preliminary notice requirements until you receive the contact information you have requested.

I believe that the new lien law will help design professionals, as you no longer have to worry about alienating the owner by filing a lien or risk losing your lien priority.  Instead, the lien agent will be as common as a building permit.  You will be protected from the beginning with little effort, and without even having to depend on the owner.   What do you think?

Comments? Questions?  Share you thoughts in the comments box, below.  

Photo (c) Seattle Municipal Archives.

 

 

Copyright © All Rights Reserved · Green Hope Theme by Sivan & schiy · Proudly powered by WordPress