About



Publications




Search Construction Advisor Today


  • constructionadvisortoday.com


Bookmark and Share

« National Center for Healthy Housing Helps Launch EnergyPlusHealth | Main

03/03/2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bruce, I think it depends. Being an architect, we've seen several instances of contractors low-bidding with what was a thinly veiled intention of change-ordering the project for every bolt that wasn't specified in an attempt to re-balance their fee to the levels consistent with the rest of the bids. Shouldn't the history of firms like that be taken into account? Also, as an architect, we've seen projects that had to accept a low bid, no matter what, with personnel who clearly were not qualified to do the work. Our workload was substantially increased, yet owners are reluctant to pay us for the increased amount of time working with a sub-standard contractor entails. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration though? I agree that the situation you described can be abused, but is there any proof in the situation above that the claim alone was the reason? Otherwise, it sounds like you're advocating for taking the low-bid, no questions asked. Not a position I could possibly defend.

Bruce, in Georgia school work most counties are pre-qualifying there bidders. This seems to take care of this problem on the front end.

As a contractor, I see the issue slightly differently than the last response. AE firms fee's have been reduced over the years, as such the quality of their documents have declined. With that said most hard bid projects are bound to have some percentage of change orders. Contractors, in order to be competitive cannot make assumptions or corrections that add money to a project. Maybe these owners will run out of contractors to do their work, or the fee's will go up.

Over the past 5-6 years, Engineers and Architects have to work with low ball budgets and frankly turn out plans and specs that are so defective they are ambiguious from the start.
Of course the Owner thinks he has paid the Engineer/Architect to protect him and the Contractor depended on the plans and specs to bid the project and naturally, there is a conflict.
Our company does about $70 million per year and performs about 75-80 different projects.
We see the contractors who are afraid to challenge the Owner or Designers when plans and specs are defective are no longer around. They are broke!
For a municipality to disqualify a Contractor for filing a claim that is reasonable, is like a Dictator getting rid of his opponents. That should be fought with all the legislative muscle and public opinion muscle one can muster.

From the architect's point of view, there are certainly contractors that are known to repeatedly make claims in cases where the design intent is abundantly clear, but take advantage of minor inconsistencies in the documents. In addition, the competition for work has prompted more than one contractor to "Go in low and make it up in change orders". No matter how small the percentage of contractors who fit this description, it affects the perception of all contractors and, therefore, owners have taken steps to protect themselves from the unnecessary costs associated with addressing unwarranted claims.

From the contractor's point of view, architects as a result of increased competition have negotiated fees that do not address providing properly detailed drawings. As a result, some less qualified architects provide drawings that represent "pictures" of what the construction should look like, but do not provide sufficient details to properly bid the documents. These architects improperly rely on the AIA contract wording that the drawings need only provide "design intent" with the understanding that the contractor should be able to "fill in the blanks".

It starts with the Owner, though. Owners must be educated to understand the obligations of the design professional under the contract and realistic associated costs with providing those services. Owners who understand and demand an appropriate level of service for reasonable fees encourage qualified firms and act as an agent of "natural selection" to limit firms that do not meet their professional obligation.

In the same way, public owners have a right to protect the public from unscrupulous and irresponsible bidders and have resorted to a variety of methods to restrict competition to eliminate frivilously litigious contractors such as prequalification and qualification base selection methods like CM/GC. They have not always accepted their responsibility for creating the environment by not recognizing that the level of competition for work forces contractors to eliminate contigencies to cover the "little extras" that may not be spelled out in the contract that Owners have up to now taken for granted.

Unfortunately like anything else, the process may be abused. Owners should not be allowed to punitively restrict, as a personal vendetta, contractors who have successfully submitted reasonable claims. Nor should they be allowed to re-establish the "Good Ol' Boy" method of contracting.

The rights and responsibilities of owners, architects and contractors are a dynamic that is evolving every day with the introduction of new concepts like Integrated Project Delivery. In our society, it falls to the judicial process to decide where to draw the line. Therefore, the construction community will need to maintain vigilance over the processes of government in order to maintain the checks and balances of the design and construction process.

As an owner, architect, and former building contractor with substantial public work experience, I recognize the issue from both sides. A contractor has the right to expect clear documentation of the qualitative, quantitative and design intent. But owners and architects also have a right to rely on a builder's construction, trade and management expertise....for the benefit of the project.

I have encountered many public bid contractors who clearly were out to game the system. The public deserves some means of protection from predatory construction practices. A public agency shouldn't be able to deny a bid because of one bad claim experience, but the totality of a bidder's claim history should be an accessible public record, and should be an allowable factor in considering public bids.

I agree that if the only factor considered regarding the claim was that it was settled at 90% of face value, then the low bidder was treated unfairly. We all know that a 90% settlement is pretty much a slam dunk the contractor was right and the owner wrong.

On the other hand, chances are there was more to the story. This is the part we don't know and would need more information to say for sure if this was a bad decision for everyone.

I think it points to an area that everyone should think about and that is the technical review process that typically asks the bidder for his entire claims history and what exactly, is the criteria used to evaluate that claim history. In my experience as an Owner's Agent, we don't hold one or two claims against a contractor, or even a couple dozen if the construction firm is very large with offices all over the country, but ... you can distinguish when a contractor is claimed oriented when he has a lot of claims in his local market as a percentage of his work.

I have encountered many drawings on publicly funded projects that were for the most part symbol plans.

An earlier comment stated that contractors were taking advantage of "minor inconsistencies". One man's minor inconsistency is another man's profit and overhead. It seems that these days many "design professionals" expect the contractors to be responsible for the vetting of their documents.

If an owner wishes a contractor to take into account their "design intent"; then perhaps another method of award than publicly bid plan/spec is appropriate.

As for the original article, if the contractor in question was awarded 90% of their claim... well to me it is fairly obvious who was at fault.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment