"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 )

Manage Design Costs with Early Project Overtime

One of Mike's PM tips for managing design costs on a project: "If you know you are going to have to work overtime on a project," he said, "do it in the beginning. It costs less to do overtime when there are only one or two people working on a project." (See Purposeful chaos (the 2-minute design offense))

This makes a lot of sense when considering a project on a compressed time line. If you're trying to figure out how to get all the work done in a short period of time, the least attractive alternative is having an army of designers and drafters burning the midnight oil and generating design questions as the completion deadline approaches. Eleventh hour overtime can quickly burn through budgeted hours and fee dollars, and too many new or unanswered questions at that stage can lead to unplanned chaos.

It's also interesting to consider how this principle of early overtime might benefit progress and labor costs on a construction site. Early trades - like earthwork, concrete, and steel - set the stage for a larger work force, and trades can multiply as the project becomes ready for their work.

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.

Construction Documents Coordination Matrix

It may look a little "geeky", but this matrix can be an effective tool for considering interdisciplinary coordination needs. The design disciplines for a project are listed across the top and down one side. The intersection points represent coordination between disciplines (e.g., between Civil/Site and Electrical). Seeing the possibilities in this format can help to minimize coordination gaps. On a given project, the extent and specifics of coordination will differ from point to point, and the design displines may also differ. Still, seeing an intersection point can prompt thoughts about needed coordination between any two disciplines. For example, where Civil/Site meets Foodservice, it may bring to mind the need to coordinate the locations of exterior condensing units with site work. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Looking at this coordination matrix, it is also easy to see how extensive coordination really is (and must be) on an architectural project. On some complex projects, coordination can be seen as a full time job in itself, from the coordination of consulting agreement scopes of work to the coordination of sub-trade scopes of work and the dotting of i's and crossing of t's in construction documents.

Construction Documents Peer Review

Joe Iano (see Iano's backfill ) shared with me an approach to quality review of construction documents that is used by a prominent firm where he is employed in Seattle (see the AIA 2009 Honor Award Firm of the Year Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen Architects in the May 2009 issue of Architectural Record). Joe said the firm has senior non-project staff review construction documents together with staff who developed the documents for a given project. The issues, concerns, and comments that are raised during the review can go a long way toward mentoring less experienced staff.

A similar approach could work in utilizing the services of an independent peer review architect who can review the construction documents together with the staff who developed the documents. Compared to a "redline only" mark-up of drawings and specifications, the interactive review process can include a substantive conversation that carries longer term value for the firm, while taking advantage of review expertise outside the firm.

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.]