Noisy Lessons (Part 1)

Reading an article on acoustics in the July 2012 issue of The Construction Specifier reminded me of a number of useful lessons learned in the process of designing and administering public school construction projects. Here is one:

Basic Acoustical Treatment for a School Gymnasium: Although acoustical treatment on walls and ceilings is commonly omitted or is eliminated through value engineering, it is typically crucial for a gymnasium. Some basic guidelines provided by an acoustical consultant on a school project 20+ years ago have proven helpful on several other projects. The guidelines related to a gym with a single basketball competition court, a substantial bleacher area, and a clear height of approximately 25 feet to the underside of the roof structure. The guidelines were simple: Cover approximately 15% of the wall area and 50% of the overhead (roof/ceiling) area with a well distributed array of acoustical panels. The panels were the equivalent of 1.5-inch thick wood fiber (Tectum) mounted on furring and backed by a layer of batt insulation. The distribution of the panels is important in order to adequately reduce sound reflection in the large space. We utilized a checkerboard pattern of panels on the upper half of all walls, and we covered every second joist bay of the underside of metal roof deck.

In practice, the 15+50 surface applied acoustical treatments described above have generally been more successful than "built-in" alternatives like acoustical concrete masonry units (e.g., "SoundBlox") and acoustical metal decks (including (1) those with perforated flute walls and laid-in fiberglass strips and (2) cellular acoustic deck with a perforated bottom plate and internal insulation).

The 15+50 surface applied acoustical treatments described above have also proven to be acceptable "fixes" for existing or newly constructed gyms of similar size that suffered echo chamber effects and were considered too noisy for normal use.

(It should be noted that the basic guidelines described above will not be effective in every situation, and larger or different spaces are likely to need different percentages and/or different types of acoustical treatment. In addition to acoustical consultant resources, there are good published resources available to architects; one such publication is Architectural Acoustics - Principles and Practice (available as an NCARB monograph).)

Who Should Answer This Question?

Architects are faced with questions all the time. Clients ask questions. Consultants ask questions. Contractors and subcontractors ask questions. The list goes on. Architects generally want to be helpful, they like to be asked questions, and they want to have the answers - ideally, all the answers - at the ready. But, they don't always have the answers. Instead, they may know more about where to get the answer and who is the most appropriate person or entity to provide the answer. If they don't know on first thought, they may be able to figure out who should answer the question. Although the persons who ask the questions usually want a direct answer and may even be suspicious of a suggestion that another party may have the answer, that suggestion may in fact be the best answer the architect can offer.

Architects visiting a construction site are likely to be asked questions by subcontractors that should be answered by the General Contractor (G.C.). For example, the architect may want to answer a question about sequence, but there is a risk that the architect's best answer will contradict the General Contractor's plan of attack for the project. Knowing that the G.C. is responsible for deciding sequence, the architect should refer the subcontractor to the G.C. Even if the subcontractor's question appears to be about the content of plans or specifications, the architect should only answer it in the presence of the G.C. and should address the answer to the G.C. This may seem overly formal or "stiff", but the architect must respect the G.C.'s authority on the job site. This approach allows the G.C. to answer the subcontractor's question.

Another kind of question that an architect might be asked is one that should actually be answered by an owner. The question might relate to use of a particular space, and the architect's information about the use of the space may not be complete enough to answer the question. In that case, the owner must be consulted for the answer.

It's healthy for the architect to recognize questions, whether they are actually asked or simply appear as decisions or choices to be made in the design process, and to consider who should answer the questions or make the decisions or choices. In some instances, the questions will be best answered after consultation with more than one party.

We hear architects talk about "getting into trouble", and it is often the answers they offer or recommendations they make that get them into trouble. One way to minimize the "trouble" is to consider who should answer a question before offering an answer.

Interdisciplinary Coordination of Construction Documents

Gaps between design disciplines are a common cause of construction change orders. In some cases, the consulting disciplines' standard practices may generate a gap. For example, the electrical engineer may establish an electrical scope of work that "stops" 10 feet outside the building, while the site civil engineer may expect (and indicate on the site drawings) that the electrical contractor will provide power to a sewage lift station that is 15 feet outside the building. Unfortunately, it is quite possible that neither the electrical engineer nor the civil engineer will become aware of this gap in electrical service until the contractor submits an RFI.

Similar gaps can occur between plumbing and site trades, between mechanical and general building trades, between structural steel and miscellaneous metals trades, and between other trades. In most cases, proactive coordination by the project architect during the construction documents phase can help to minimize these gaps."Proactive" coordination means getting involved in finding and highlighting possible gaps and managing document revisions to eliminate the gaps by conferring with the related disciplines, considering applicable trade practices and regulations, and assigning responsibility to the most appropriate party. (It's usually not enough (and not really proactive) to simply tell the consultants to work it out between themselves.)

Change Orders: Making the Architect's Call on Contractor Claims

When construction contracts are based on drawings and specifications prepared by architects, the need for changes during construction raises questions about the completeness, correctness, and coordination of the architect’s drawings and specifications – in short, questions about the architect’s performance. Of course, change orders may also be precipitated by changes that are beyond the control of the architect, like changes in the project owner’s criteria for the project, or some changes in codes and regulations, or other conditions that were not foreseen or perhaps could not have been foreseen by either the owner or the architect.

Regardless of the actual causes of change orders, architects are commonly judged on the basis of “how many” change orders are executed on their projects. Simply quantifying the number of change orders on a project can be very misleading when it comes to gauging an architect’s performance. Given the possible sources of change orders cited above and also the fact that the architect does not have control over the number of change order requests or claims that a contractor may submit or the number of changes that a project owner may request or direct, it is easy to understand that the quantity of change orders is not an accurate way to measure an architect’s performance. Instead, it may be fairer – though still possibly an oversimplification - to consider the resulting cost of change orders that are related to errors, inconsistencies, and omissions in the drawings and specifications prepared by the architect and to compare the change order costs as a percentage of construction cost to those related to other architects’ drawings and specifications on similar projects that are designed and constructed under similar circumstances (i.e., measuring architects against their peers).

Considering the architect’s decisions in response to contractor claims, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) A-201 General Conditions (2007) include the following provision:

§ 4.2.12 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect will be consistent with the intent of, and reasonably inferable from, the Contract Documents and will be in writing or in the form of drawings. When making such interpretations and decisions, the Architect will endeavor to secure faithful performance by both Owner and Contractor, will not show partiality to either and will not be liable for results of interpretations or decisions rendered in good faith.

This requirement for impartiality is also found in AIA standard owner-architect agreements and in various professional regulations and codes of conduct. Yet, given that the architect is typically under contract with the owner and paid by the owner, the architect faces a de facto conflict of interest in evaluating a contractor’s claim for extra cost. Contractor claims are typically related to items of construction that are found to be needed but are not, at least in the contractor’s opinion, apparent on the drawings or in the specifications (“the contract documents”). The challenge for the architect faced with such a claim is to determine whether the needed item is “reasonably inferable” from the contract documents. If the architect determines that the item is required by the contract documents and denies the contractor’s claim, the owner may not have to pay an extra cost for the item, and the owner may be satisfied with the performance of the architect in terms of both the contract documents prepared by the architect and the construction administration services provided by the architect. If, on the other hand, the architect agrees with the contractor’s claim, then the owner may be dissatisfied with the architect on both counts. It takes a different owner attitude to appreciate the integrity that is necessary for the architect to acknowledge an imperfection in the contract documents.

There is no single rule of rightness that applies in every case. Sometimes one party is in the right, and sometimes the other party is in the right, and it is difficult to outline a simple rule for governing these situations beyond the provision of “impartiality” that is established in the General Conditions.

Drawings and specifications may never be perfect, and some would say they never can be perfect. However, drawings and specifications that are complete, consistent, coordinated, and are clear and readable to the extent possible leave less to interpretation; so there is less need for determinations of reasonable inference. With those goals in mind, change orders related strictly to imperfections in drawings and specifications can be minimized.

Another way to consider what is “reasonably inferable” is to ask what a bidder would see (or could reasonably be expected to see) in the contract documents as the basis of a bid (or sub-bid). The question of “inconsistencies” is interesting, because it is not clear that a bidder would actually see inconsistencies in the drawings and specifications that might become apparent to the architect when reviewing a contractor claim. The contractor may have developed a bid based on an interpretation (a complete “picture” of the project, if you will) that considers all of the differing provisions of the drawings and specifications in a consistent way. It is not unusual for the architect to be the one who is befuddled in this responsive review of the drawings and specifications, discovering “inconsistencies” that must now be interpreted in a way that would allow for compliance with a design intent that may not have been clearly conveyed. If it is necessary in the architect’s response to a contractor’s claim to explain numerous contradictions and take exceptions to numerous drawing and specification provisions in order to reach a conclusion that matches the designer’s intent, then the requirement is not reasonably inferable. A less troublesome approach for the architect would be to develop the necessary consistency in the drawings and specifications before they are issued for bidding.

Planning for Concealed Site Conditions

Discovery of concealed site conditions can raise havoc with a project, possibly disrupting the construction schedule and adversely impacting the project budget. Here's a link to an article I wrote a few years ago to share some of my experience with concealed site conditions: Planning for Concealed Site Conditions

Value Engineering

Any discussion of value engineering (V.E.) is likely to produce a rush of criticisms of the process if you work in an architecture or engineering practice. The architects and engineers are likely to recall bad experiences when V.E. was started late, approaching or following the completion of construction documents, at a time when the project schedule did not allow sufficient time to fully consider consequences and implement V.E. changes in a comprehensive and well coordinated manner. They are likely to complain that "V.E. stripped the value out of the project."

A better approach to V.E. is to start it earlier, when material and system decisions are being formulated and before a lot of time is invested in developing applicable details and specifications.

The Whole Building Design Guide (http://www.wbdg.org/resources/value_engineering.php) offers an excellent synopsis of V.E. and a clear picture of the advantages of doing it earlier in the life of a project.

"By Others" and "N.I.C."

The terms "By Others" and "Not In Contract" (or "N.I.C.") can add confusion to construction documents if the intent of the terms is not well established within the documents. The note "By Others" on a drawing may be intended to indicate that an item is to be provided by a different trade under the same overall construction contract, and "N.I.C." may be intended similarly to indicate an item that is to be provided by a different trade. However, these notes may have different meanings for different readers. Without further clarification, a general contractor seeing a note "By Others" or "N.I.C." may take it at face value to mean the item is not part of the general contractor's scope at all, even if the intent of the note was to indicate its exclusion only from the work of a particular trade or subtrade or a particular bid package. It is better to develop and use terms that convey the intent more precisely. For example, if an item shown on a site plan is intended to be provided by an electrical contractor whose work scope is also established on other drawings, it may be appropriate for the site plan to include the term "By Electrical Contractor" in a note relating to the item. Alternatively, it may be practical for all items that are not intended to be part of the site work to be noted "Not by Site Work Contractor", provided the term does not contradict a general contractor's contractual authority to assign such work. Drawings which are specifically intended to describe the work of a particular trade or subtrade can benefit from a List of Abbreviations or a List of Terms which clarify the meaning of such notes in order to minimize confusion.

Reviewing the Contractor's Application for Payment

On most public construction projects, the Architect reviews the Contractor's monthly Applications for Payment (a.k.a. "Requisitions") and certifies the amount to be paid to the Contractor for that month. If the Application is made on AIA Document G702, the front page includes the names of the Project, the Owner, the Contractor, and the Architect, an Application number, date(s) indicating the period covered by the Application, an overview accounting of the monetary status of the construction project, starting with the original contract sum and including a calculation of the Current Payment Due, considering change orders, the total amount completed and stored to date, Retainage to be withheld, and previous certificates for payment. The front page also includes a Change Order Summary, certification by the Contractor, conditions (terms) of certification by the Architect, and the amount certified. Continuation sheets should break down the contract sum and progress according to the approved Schedule of Values (see The Schedule of Values deserves close attention) and also include a detailed accounting of the status of work on approved Change Orders.

The Architect should review even the basic information on the front page before looking at the detailed information on the continuation sheets. It helps to have a copy of the previous month's Application in hand for comparison. Once you determine that the current month's Application is for the appropriate project (seriously), check the Original Contract Sum. In more than one instance, a contractor has changed the Original Contract Sum on an Application for Payment, resulting in an increase in payment without an approved Change Order. The Original Contract Sum should remain the same for the life of the Contract. Before turning to the continuation sheets, the Architect should apply the same scrutiny to the rest of the front page calculations and the wording of the certification. Different certification language may carry different liability.

Detailed information on the continuation sheets is typically generated as part of a "pencil requisition" process and in anticipation of work to be completed by the end of the month. The Architect needs to consider whether the final Application for the month represents work that was actually accomplished by the end of the month. If the Architect is aware that an anticipated material delivery did not occur, then the Architect should not certify payment for that. Likewise, if the Architect is aware that a specific work item was not completed, then the Architect should not certifiy payment as if the item had been completed. Necessary adjustments to the continuation sheets must be carried over to the front page and to the overall amount certified by the Architect for the period covered by the Application. It may be practical for the Contractor to make the necessary adjustments and then resubmit a corrected Application for the Architect's certification. If timely payment is an overriding concern, then the Architect may need to make the adjustments by annotating the Application, certifying a reduced amount, and notifying both the Owner and the Contractor of the reasons for the adjustments. (See also It takes timely money to make a project go )

Shop Drawing Review Comments

While it can be frustrating for an architect to review shop drawing submittals that appear to lack adequate preparation or attention to contract requirements, it is still important for the architect to maintain professional decorum in the review comments. This is equally true for the review of resubmitted shop drawings that do not include corrections noted by the architect on a previous submittal. An inadequate resubmittal may warrant separate correspondence from the architect to the contractor noting the repeated deficiencies and, if applicable, the possibility of adverse effects on the project schedule; but the review comments and correspondence should communicate clearly and without sarcasm or accusations. For example, "Why can't you get it?" is not a proper architect review comment on a shop drawing submittal.

The Architect's role at the construction site

As construction began on a building, the architect's field representative was approached by the electrical subcontractor. The subcontractor wanted the architect's approval to install all distribution conduit at a specific level and prior to construction of interior partitions and mechanical distribution systems. It sounded like a great idea, a really clean and efficient installation for the electrical subcontractor that also appeared to offer post-construction advantages for the owner. However, it did not consider other construction and schedule needs. Had the architect given the nod to the electrical subcontractor, it would have interfered with the general contractor's responsibility and authority for scheduling and coordinating the work of the subcontractors, and it would have interfered directly with the work of other sub-trades. Further, the owner had no interest in the advantages proposed by the electrical subcontractor. At best, it was a good idea for some other project.

An architect visiting a construction site can feel a rush of power as construction personnel approach with questions. "Finally," you may hear them exclaim, "someone with answers!" This is an opportunity to show your knowledge of construction, the project, and the construction documents, and it is also an opportunity to make a complete fool of yourself. You have to be careful to stay within the limits of your contractual role*, which is normally to observe construction for consistency with the construction documents and to communicate with the contractor's superintendent. This can be challenging when workers are gushing with excitement to hear your opinion about what should or could be done. A question may be valid and may warrant a prompt response, but the architect's reply should be consistent with the requirements of the construction documents, and it should be made through proper channels. You have to observe construction, but you should do what you can to avoid a claim or the appearance that you personally directed a worker or subcontractor to make a change. One subcontractor can sound very convincing when presenting a question or a dilemma, but there may be other factors, interests, and requirements to consider.

[*The architect's contractual role during construction is typically established by the General Conditions of the Contract such as AIA Document A-201 or by similar documents and/or amendments thereto.]

Masonry Design: Not-Quite-Through-Wall Flashing

Through-wall flashing is a common water management feature of masonry cavity wall and veneer construction. It is most effective if its outer edge is beyond the outer face of the wall and is turned down to form a drip edge and help water fall away from the joint under the flashing. It can be ineffective and result in leaks into a building if the outer edge of the flashing is concealed within the wall. In at least one case, a leak was attributed to flashing that stopped above the core holes of extruded brick. The design relied on the through-wall flashing to protect the building interior, but water which was intended to be conveyed out of the wall by the through-wall flashing was instead allowed to re-enter the wall and subsequently find its way to the building interior. Apparently, someone did not want to see the edge of the flashing coming out through the wall. At the time of construction it was common for the flashing to be coated with asphalt, and the asphalt coating - not especially attractive in any case - would melt under sunlight and over time it would drip and stain the face of the wall below. More attractive materials are widely used today, including drip edges of proprietary compositions or even stainless steel. The more attractive materials are likely to be more expensive. However, stopping the flashing within the wall may be the most expensive option of all, considering the possible costs of leak remediation.

It takes timely money to make a project go

A project owner was feeling frustrated that the contractor, who was doing work of good quality, was not going fast enough. Considering the contractor's monthly application for payment, the owner decided to not pay the contractor for the previous month's work in the hopes that the decision would cause the contractor to work faster. Instead, the contractor's work slowed to a crawl as the contractor's employees and subcontractors stayed away from the project. Subsequently, the contractor submitted a delay claim against the owner. The owner also heard that work on another project in the area had sped up during the same period of time.

A different owner on a different project was not satisfied with the quality of part of the work done by the project's contractor, but chose to pay the contractor for that work anyway, hoping the contractor would correct it. Instead, the contractor proceeded with other work, making correction of the unsatisfactory work less practical and more costly. When the owner complained to the contractor about the contractor's failure to correct the unsatisfactory work, the contractor pointed out that the owner had paid for it, so the contractor considered it complete and thought the owner did, too. The following month, the owner withheld part of the contractor's payment to cover the cost of correcting the previous unsatisfactory work. Then construction progress was slowed by a delay in delivery of materials of approximately the same value as the payment amount withheld by the owner. The material supplier had furnished similar materials for several other projects done by the same contractor, and delivery for this project was contingent on the supplier's receipt of payment for a previous project.

During a very busy construction boom, a project owner decided to make advance payment to the project's contractor as an incentive to get construction started on his project. Then several weeks passed without any construction activity on the project. When the owner complained about the situation to a friend who had been a project owner during a previous recession, the friend told him he had done the same thing to help a contractor get that project started during the recession - and the result was the same.

It takes money to make a project go, but payment at the wrong time can be counterproductive.

So, you want to count trucks?

It seems there is always a lively discussion about how to quantify additional earthwork on a project. While established standards may stipulate that payment will be based on compacted, 'in place' volume determined by survey, someone always wants to use a different method for determining quantities of material removed or imported, loose or compacted - and it seems there is always someone who wants to count truckloads.

There are several problems with counting truckloads. First, of course, someone has to be present whenever the trucks are coming and going in order to count them ("Hey! No bathroom breaks!"). Then, the counter needs to be able to differentiate between a truck he has just seen and another one that is in the same vicinity ("Hey! That looks like the same truck. The driver just went around behind the building and came out again. That's cheating!"). In some cases the counter may need to determine how to consider material that is transferred from one truck to another truck or trucks ("Dude! That truck dumped its load on a pile over there, and the material was picked up and taken away by two other trucks. I counted 3. Should that really be 1? 2?"). Next come the questions about how much material is in the truck: "Is this a 7-yarder or a 10-yarder? Did you fill it even with the top of the dump box? Are the corners filled?" And, oh yeah, "How loose is the material? How should I determine a 'legitimate' cubic yard when I see all these spaces between the chunks in the truck?" What is the actual 'fluff' factor? And, finally, "This hole looks like it should have taken ten truckloads to remove the material, but I counted fifty! And it's looking like it will take 42 to fill it in."

These truck counting problems may be some of the reasons why authorities who establish such standards prefer to use 'in place' volume measurement to determine quantities.

But, hey, go ahead and count the trucks, if you want to. Don't forget to count that blue one over there. Is that coming or going?

The Schedule of Values deserves close attention

On public building construction projects (and, possibly, on most private building projects) the contractor develops a Schedule of Values that forms the basis for monthly applications for payment (also known as "requisitions") that will be submitted as construction proceeds. The Schedule of Values is typically submitted for architect and owner review at the beginning of the construction project and well before the first regular application for payment will be submitted. When reviewing the contractor's proposed Schedule of Values, it is important to consider the meaning of the specific line item descriptions on the schedule and to also consider the architect's and owner's ability to assess progress on those discrete parts of the project as applications for payment are submitted by the contractor.

The meanings of the line items may seem simple enough at first glance, but they have been known to be interpreted differently by subcontractors, contractors, architects, engineers, and owners as construction proceeds. Site work items seem to be uniquely subject to varying interpretation. The intent of terms like "Excavation", "Cuts and Fills", "Fill", and others are good agenda items for a meeting to discuss a proposed Schedule of Values. For the architect and owner who will be assessing the value of periodic progress on a given item, it is especially important to understand what is included in the line item and what is not included - in part to avoid a possible disagreement as construction proceeds. "I think the owner already paid for that in this item," says the architect. "Oh, no," says the contractor or the sub. "That was never in that item. It was in this other item."

The architect's and owner's ability to assess progress on the listed work items also depends on the monetary amount of the particular item. It is common to require a contractor to break down items that are too large (e.g., Site Work $2,000,000) into smaller items (e.g., Rough Grade south yard: $15,000, Fine Grade west field: $7,500, etc.) that are more easily assessed and add up to the total value of site work. For some, the rule has been to break down the schedule into items no greater than $20,000 in value. That may not be a practical rule to follow in every case, but it is important to consider the ability of the observer to assess progress that is claimed on a given application for payment while avoiding confusion with other work that may be similar or within the same trade. Contractors and subcontractors are usually quite interested in receiving prompt payment for completed work, so it follows that they should be willing to invest time in the beginning of a project to establish a common understanding of the items in the Schedule of Values.

Another rule, sometimes challenged, is that once the Schedule of Values is established, it should not be changed. That's a good rule (with a notable exception that sometimes a more detailed breakdown of an established item may become necessary in order to assess progress and determine appropriate payment). And there are other rules....

Monitoring construction progress

One effective way to monitor progress on a construction project is to consider cumulative payments to the contractor or claimed percent complete against an estimated payment schedule that should be established at the start of the project. In most cases the estimated schedule of cumulative payments or percent complete should look like an 'S' curve, similar to the one in the diagram above. It is likely to be relatively flat at start-up, due in part to the limited number of trades that can work on the project at first. As the project advances, progress allows the addition of trades (and workforce), indicated by the steeper line in the middle of the 'S' curve. The flatter tail end of the project represents a reduced workforce, fewer trades, finishing details, and punch-list work.

If actual progress looks much different than the 'S', the project may be headed for trouble. For example, a prolonged flat period at the beginning (or a shallower slope on the steeper part of the 'S' as shown by a dashed tangent line above) may forecast a late project completion. Alternatively, if requested payments suggest a steeper curve earlier in the project, the requested payments could be exaggerating actual progress, and one bad result could be releasing too much money too early and not holding enough funds to complete the project. The 'S' curve should not be considered an absolute measure of progress, but it can be an effective tool for comparison and forecasting.

[Note that a similar approach can be used for looking at design progress. See Staffing a design project.]