Tag Archives: construction

Being the Bearer of Bad News (Sounding the Alarm on construction issues early and often) (law note)

Posted on by

Our recent look into termination brings up another issue important to architects and engineers–  how to sound the alarm about construction or building code violations.  Sometimes, a project owner may be so focused on project completion that they want to overlook the sub-par work that may be occurring in an effort to get project open “on time”.  In such cases, only if a life safety violation is reported to the authority having jurisdiction will the owner finally terminate a faulty contractor from a construction project.

Bad News

They kill the bearer of bad news sometimes, don’t they?

Even if the work is not a life/safety issue, it is important that when delivering bad news about the quality of work that your notice be early, loud, and frequent.  Basically, everyone involved should be aware, through written communications, that there is an issue that needs to be addressed on site, the contractor is messing up the construction, and what needs to be done to fix the issue(s).  If the owner is willing to live with the faulty work (and it is not a life/safety matter), then at least you’ve provided notice and warned them of the issue.

Even then, you could get dragged into litigation later on.  That’s right– even if you state, in writing, that something is happening which you do not approve of, and you limit your own further involvement in the project, you can be sued.  So if the issue is significant enough– you may have to walk off the job yourself.  

Think of the recent Titan tragedy.  One OceanGate employee has claimed that he was  fired after he raised safety concerns.  Despite warnings some several other experts that the submersible was not properly designed and safe for the underwater exploration, the company went ahead with the ill-fated trip.

As a design professional, you cannot always help owners help themselves, but you must try to do so.  You must document the issues, multiple times, multiple ways, to multiple individuals.  Even if that means losing out on a job.  As you watch others (but not your own Firm) get dragged into litigation over construction issues that you previously warned the owner about, your future self will thank you.

Your turn:  have you ever had to deliver very bad news about a project to the owner?  How did you do it? Did the owner take action?  Share below in the comments, or drop me an email.  

Photo (c) Bad by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images

 

Expect the Unexpected (your design contracts in a post-COVID world)

Posted on by

Have you adapted your post-COVID practice to better plan for the “unexpected” ?  In particular, have you looked at–and revised– your professional services contracts to give yourself a little more breathing room for unaccounted issues that may arise?  If not, no time like the present.

Don’t like that saying?  How about ” a stitch in time saves nine?”  No?  Still nothing?  What about a picture of something so completely unexpected it shocks you– say, a fireman commuting home, in fire-fighting regalia, on a tricycle?  Okay, here you go…

Fireman-bikerNow that I have your attention– you should make it a practice to regularly review and update your professional services agreements, and you should consider issues such as:

  1.  Does your agreement provide for extra compensation if you have to spend more time or a longer period providing construction administration services for material delays or labor shortages?  If not, it should.
  2. Does your agreement have a well-written “act of God” provision– one that includes pandemic/epidemics as part of the “act of God” conditions in which a term may become void?  If not, add it now!
  3. Have you considered whether you want arbitration instead of litigation if a lawsuit does arise?  And if you want to arbitrate, does your contract give specifics, like how many arbitrators will decide the case?  These things can be added now with little effort, or you can pay your lawyer to negotiate them down the line.  Guess which is cheaper?

You *do* have a good, solid contract to begin with, correct?  If not, I’ve previously given examples of how to craft helpful scopes of services and how to add the protection of a well-crafted exclusion to your scope of services.   Check them out, and be ready for the next biker-fireman surprise in your future.

Photo (c) MelissaBrumbackCreative Commons License

Are we having fun yet? Construction in a post-COVID world (law note)

Posted on by

Remember how I said to never assume?  Yeah, about that……   even when you plan for failures, mistakes, and other problems, sometimes things get so outside the realm of what you considered that it can leave your construction project spinning.  Take, as a random example, a world-wide pandemic that shuts down supply chains, shuts down job sites, and limits the labor pool.  Just as an example.

What does construction law say about pandemics?  They fall under an “Act of God” that you may have read about in your contracts, or in the contracts of the contractors working your projects.  An “Act of God” is an event that is not foreseeable, and as such not something the parties could have anticipated when they drafted the contract.  Acts of God generally excuse a party’s failure– for example, a contractor’s failure to complete the project on time can be excused when an “act of God” has occurred. 

By now, you’ve dealt with the practical fall out, one way or another.  Many projects no longer made financial sense for your clients.  Others may have been modified, reduced in scope, or had substitute materials put in place.

What do you, as an architect or engineer, do now, faced with the potential for further shut downs, supply chain issues, and other COVID variants?  The short answer is to give yourself options and assume changes will be needed to your own scope of work on each project.  Consider:

  1.  If the project needs to be re-designed to account for shortages, can that be an additional service that you get paid for?
  2. If the project requires substitute products, how many of those are part of your basic service, or is there a point at which you should get paid hourly for researching, reviewing, and approving substitutes?
  3. If the project takes a lot longer than anticipated to complete, whether due to government shut downs, labor issues, or supply chain problems– can you get paid increased contract administration fees?  And, is there a contract provision that allows you to increase your hourly rate after X number of months, to reflect inflation?

These are some of the ways that you, as a designer, can protect yourselves from ongoing delays, and make sure you are not tied to a project without a way to recoup your extra costs.

Thoughts?  Questions?   Share what’s worked for you or what you’d like to learn more about in the comment section below.

 

 

Changes to your Scope of Services on the Construction Project (law note)

Posted on by

change!Our office is in the middle of a large renovation.  It’s been several months of drilling, sawing, painting, carpeting– you name it.  I’m proud to say that we have had not one change to the scope of work during that time.  <insert maniacal laughter here>.  Okay, that’s simply not true.  Change–like death, taxes, and bodily functions–happens.

In the same way that incoming wave will soon destroy that sand-written “change” sign in the picture that accompanies this post, change will happen in all parts of a construction project.

As the architect or engineer of record, you undoubtedly have a thoughtful, well-written contract or proposal.  Ideally, your contract states exactly what is, and is not, included.  But inevitably, something will slip through the cracks.  A likely scenario: the owner asks for “just a small change over here,” “one more quick site visit” over there, and hey, what’s a few extra months of contract administration among friends, right?

Whenever you experience such “scope creep”, document it.  Ask how compensation will be handled up front.  Even a quick email to the owner, stating that you’d be happy to make that extra site visit and will invoice per the contract, will make the owner aware that you expect compensation.   Have the discussion before the work is done.  When they are likely to say “great- how soon can you do it?”.  Or, if they don’t expect to pay you for your extra services, they’ll tell you that.  Either way, you’ll know what the expectations are for payment.  And, should you not get the payment later on, you have a nice piece of written evidence to show a judge or jury.

Your turn.  Have you experienced “scope creep” on a project?  How did you handle it?  Comment below, or drop me a line.  New readers: Check out the white paper on 7 Critical Mistakes that Design Professionals Make, available for free download on the right hand side of the page.

 

Photo “Change in the Sand” (c) Melissa Brumback. Creative Commons License

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

Posted on by

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.