a super long post about contractor domination

[mskin]

There has been a lot of discussion of BIM and whether it is good or bad for the architectural industry. There are lots of pros and cons, I have maintained that while there is some greatness in the idea, the long term outcome of this method of documentation will ultimately weaken the architectural profession.

 

Reminiscing of the days of “do not scale the drawings” and “the architectural drawings express the design intent…” I find myself in a world of producing documents that provide infinite detail and what’s sole purpose is to provide a contractor with absolute quantitative data to price a project. What’s happening is that the contractor’s role of studying drawings, examining field conditions and determining material quantities is being replaced by our obligation to provide a complete BIM, ultimately laying the responsibility of absolute quantification on the architect. Any deviation from the BIM and we will be presented with a change order to justify. As the BIM method develops, our role as defining design intent will be replaced with a role of absolute quantification, and more and more blame for project over runs will be placed on the architect, diminishing our credibility and role in the construction process.

 

Today, the shift from Design, Bid, Build has undoubtedly been replaced by Design, Build. Owners seek a Contractor, or CM, prior to choosing an architect. The CM educates clients on how to interview architects, and the designer’s artistic influence on an owner is all but gone. Nowadays, the CM runs the show. Rather than an architect leading a building council along the path of design, than seeking competitively bid prices from contractors, the CM determines a price and steers the architect to design within their predetermined scope - value engineering at all phases. That’s where we are.

 

Lately, I have been looking into developing a database driven method of tracking all RFI’s, SK’s, Transmittals, AIA documents, etc…. that pass through our office. While at first the idea was welcomed with great excitement, what I discovered is that the big contractors are already implementing this sort of project based organization. The CM, as they embrace their client, the owner, have them write into the contract that the chosen architectural firm must agree to use their DB driven tracking system in order acquire the project. Rather than keeping my own logs and tracking my own documents, the contractor will assume this role. This seams like a great idea to those of us who haven’t experienced any sort of project related litigation…. “Why not have the contractor perform these roles, it takes work load and burden off of me”, but at the same time, we have lost complete control over the data being logged by these contractor run and owned systems. This is a trend. And now, I only see the big time construction companies using it, but in time it will become commonplace and expected of the CM to perform this role. I have dealt with many CMs of lesser standing than those larger ones, and Contract Administration has been an absolute nightmare of RFIs, Sketches and change Orders. I see my ability to effectively argue and win these conflicts diminish as the control of information shifts into the hands of the contractor. I see our role as service providers loosing credibility as CMs convince owners that major fault lies on the architect and not on the contractor. I wonder if our role as architects, to argue with CMs over contract related discrepancies and to provide the checks and balances required to complete “QUALTIY” projects on time will disappear and the design portion of a project will ultimately become an additional service provided by the CM…. Architects employed by contractors as a norm….. kind of like police officers working for criminals ( o.k., maybe I take it a little too far). But it isn’t that hard to imagine and that is where I think the industry is going. Meanwhile, we all seam to embrace it as a great thing. Whats going on here?

[Ernest Burden III]

Interesting.

 

I'm actually working on a big project where the CM as you call it has a master website where all docs go. I was directed there to find CAD files I need, and poking around I see there are folders for meeting minutes, site photos, etc. Everything.

 

I guess architects should maintain their own data backups, a shadow system, to feel protected for liability.

 

I'm less convinced of your argument that BIM is BAD. I don't want to spend my days counting door hinges, either. But isn't that just an added responsibilty for the design firm (meaning more billable hours) rather than a replacement of design docs as your primary work product?

[mskin]

Sure, i can keep a redundant log of everyting.... but it is that... redundant, and twice the work. and meanwhile, we're plugging in all sorts of information into the CMs database... turn-a-around times that may be misleading for instance etc... i know i'm not alone in saying that i've seen data manipulated in all sorts of different ways.

 

We have gone from contracting with building owners to contracting with CMs and i do think we will some day be employeed by them. They want that control, and it is enticing to us... im sure the pay and benifets will be better, but the disciplin will dissapear to all but a few big leagers. Some of the larger contractors already have in house design teams (some smarter architects are developing construction management). Don't forget that its a relatively young profession that was merely a hobby for some prior to 90 years ago.

 

In these databases, we select "reviewed", "rejected", etc... and still we pysically stamp our shop drawings approved. but soon (as a colleague of mine brought up), that physical stamping will be gone and forgetten.... and what about the leagal jargon that relinquishes us of some responsibility in terms of field verification or "these drawings have been reviewed only to confirm that they conform to the design intent...". will that protection still exist? Where is the AIA on this? Hawaii?

 

as for BIM, it can be easier for us. But in years to come soon... rather than issueing a set of documents, we will be submitting a digital file comprised of our BIM. 5 year ago we could barely dream of sending a contracter a CAD file for they would just regurgetate the infrmation that was already in the dwg for thier shops, not relying on verifying field conditions etc... or facilitating thier creation of shop drawings while still billing for them. furthermore, 10 years ago - we (and maybe not everybody) insisted on MEPs redrawing base plans, tracing them, so they had a better understanding of the buiding. not anymore, and in my experience, i need to spoon feed the geometry to them.

[ikinman]

Contractors are willing to take more risk on a job than architects. It's been happening more and more like this over the past generation (at least in the US) - developers have started working more with those who are willing to risk more. The next time someone talks about assuming risk in the architectural profession, they should take a look at the standard AIA contract and then talk to a contractor.

 

When you eliminate risk, you eliminate responsibility - architects can't have it both ways. And, yeah, focusing all of your visualization marketing efforts on architects has been a sucker's game for years.

[mskin]

i think thats a great point.

[Greg Steckler]

And, yeah, focusing all of your visualization marketing efforts on architects has been a sucker's game for years.

 

Exactly what do you mean, if you don't mind?

[apprentice3d]

i disag=hree ont he third paragraph however your views are point takened but slight aniacle and exxentric bruva but nice post if youi got the time...