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Today, the shift from Design, Bid, Build has undoubtedly been replaced by Design, Build.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 “QUALiTIY” 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?

[jvlive]

I haven't looked at it that way before, but your post has opened my eyes. Its been a long time since I last worked in an architectural firm but I have always been wondering (like a splinter in my mind) why we've always needed to produce documents of "infinite detail" . Look at design and build interior design (where I am at now), the designers are under the total control of the sales guys producing options like crazy just to squeeze in the profit. It is very sad to think that architecture being such a noble role would be perverted like this. But power still lies with those who have the money, so if the client decides that the contractor is more trustworthy then what can we do. i guess that is just evolution. The world wants to get rid of architects. They are already at it:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/16/business/realestate/main2487598.shtml

 

...or will that revive the architect's role? pros and cons....

[William Alexander]

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.

 

Playing devils advocate.....

 

Building has become a team game to the nth degree. The Architect's "learned" sense that they are something greater than any of the indivual components on the team...is problematic. The CM really controls the process, they are the nexus. Architects are simply another component of the building process a required evil and in some circumstances a royal pain because of this lofty noble sense of self exisitance. Honestly view the general sense of "architecture" as nothing much more than a 'stamp' and the machinery that creates the legal construction documents...the instructions by which to build from. With the BIM content as a CM the need for heavily detialed time consuming take-offs is minimized. The architect if BIM capable should be able to produce the required data and detial. However the reality of that is really illusive.

 

The proffession of architecture is searching for a real and tangible identity in many ways. There will always be duality of "design" vs "legal documentation"...everyone/many want to be a great designer but 98% of the job is the legal documentation, basically detialed clerical work in some ways. The integrity and the sense of the proffessional being minimilized is really coming from the CAD Monkeys, those wanna be great architects and the new technology. Talked with an owner of a very large hardware/door supplier here in Dallas a while back....he basically stated that CAD has been the undoing of an architects integrity. The CAD Jockeys cause them un-ending grief of wrong swings, sizes ect, even though CAD is supposed to imrpove the process...so why not put the liability upon those who create the legal documents???? Worked as a carpenter way back....he screwed up how he drafted a bay window dormer roof. Did it the way it was drawn knowing it wouldn't work-by force of the expeditor-The architect ended up paying for my extra time.....

 

It's about team work and opening-maintianing lines of communication to circumvent the errors to minimize the change orders, extras, overuns...I don't ever see this actually happening with technology like BIM, CAD Monkeys and the general burn out heavy load that is required to run an Arch Firm yet alone manage the building process. The process is becoming much more finite and legal and "mechanical". It will take a new breed of Architect-Draftsman-...

who is humble and very diligent in excicuting the given tasks as required by the CM, Client and legal constraints.

 

The whole sense of the building process adn teh Architect has become a bit of a quagmire as to where the Architect's role really is. Yes the stamp and the few "truley" great architects will always remain, but the day to day life is changing fast and becoming more of a 'subcontract' - subordinant role to the CM. If quantitative data is requested by the CM and the role of the architect is legal construction documentation and the CM is writting the check....you do what you have to do, I guess. The CM is and it's all about the green and not the 'green process', LOL unless there's a higher margin in building green.

 

May not address specifics of the initial post...but expresses the stink of the quagmire that many Architects find themselves, me tinks

 

WDA

[Tommy L]

William, I really hope you are playing devils advocate!

 

Architecture is a noble role for a reason. The design of buildings has a profound role on every humans experiential existence. Good architecture improves the lives of everyone it comes into contact with, be that on a domestic level or your work environment or a place of relaxation, everywhere.

 

Bad architecture is evil, it can ruin lives on a mass scale. Sounds over-dramatic, it isnt, its true.

 

The world will always need designers and engineers and the people in the process that make it happen, the physical realizers in construction, if you will.

 

No matter how 'slimmed down' the role becomes, it is still the kernel of every project.

[mskin]

I would agree that the “perception” of building construction as a team sport is believed by more now than in the past. A large marketing success for the CM in my view – but I disagree it is the true case. I can understand your description of the arrogant architect who imposes his authority because he can; I work with a few of those and believe they are partially responsible for our declining credibility.

 

When BIM methodology reaches the point of providing estimators with the tools to effortlessly quantify the project, who will realize the cost savings? Certainly not the owner. An interesting observation I’ve made is that construction estimates are much higher when an owner first seeks a CM rather than an architect.

 

If some guy draws a bay window, tell you to build it, you say it wont work, he tells you to pound sand and construct…. You are right - he should eat the cost. He should have listened to you. That’s a bad architect. I believe it is important to listen to the contractors I work with, accept their experience in construction and work with them. The pricing of these issues is a completely different matter however and without the checking and balancing a good architect provides, cost overruns are inevitable. I had to change a 24 foot long CMU wall to GWB with 3-5/8 mtl studs once and the contractor tried to fly a $14,000 CO. Sure the owner had deep pockets and wouldn’t have blinked an eye at it, but a lot of the projects funding came from city funding…. I was there to argue and made it a zero add, but it should have been a deduct.

 

Aside from providing good design, fulfilling a clients programmatic needs, and ensuring code compliance – an architects role is to ensure that an owner gets what they pay for. We keep contractors honest (or try our best to). We review requisitions and change orders and provide the necessary balance that prevents contractors from billing owners ungodly amounts for small changes in scope. I love the line “the CM is writing the check” because it is so far from that… the owner is signing the check to the CM in turn takes his twenty percent and passes the rest onto the architect.

 

In some respects, your response is truly frightening because it is written from a contractor’s perspective and the line “The CM is and it's all about the green and not the 'green process', LOL unless there's a higher margin in building green.” Accurately depicts the CMs role. Its about pocketing the green and the building process – including design – is nothing more than a mechanism to move the green. Building design is suffering and more of the green is being controlled and funneled through the contractor.

[bricklyne]

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.

 

 

Wow.....

 

I really can't disagree with you more strongly on virtually every single point you made. I mean, just wow, where to begin?

But I'll limit my response to the two most fallacious aspects of your post; the premise - that BIM is responsible for the diminishing role and credibility of the architect in the Industry and ".......will ultimately weaken the architectural profession." -

 

and secondly, the argument and reasons you provide to support this flawed premise, and which funnily enough have little to do with justifying your premise other than to, oddly enough, convolutely support the opposing view.

 

 

.....when you say....

 

.........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.

 

 

......so let me get this straight; you're basically saying that the greater degree of detail, accuracy and information that's typically provided by a well-integrated and implemented BIM workflow, along with the documentation produced by a process of this nature, is ultimately a bad thing, in the sense that it eliminates or diminishes the need for cross-checking, re-checking and re-quantifying by the Contractor ( not to mention eliminating the ambiguity of unclear information which would presumably be over-charged from the CM's end); and that by reducing the Contractor's unnecessarily redundant tasks ( and one would imagine and hope, his fees in the overall project budget, as well), the architect loses his ".....credibility and role in the construction process", ostensibly by assuming responsibility for information and cost accuracy and integrity in process by virtue of producing accurate drawings. Yeah, that makes sense to me too. Right.

 

Because as we all know, in architecture, we just LOVE to shirk responsibility for anything that could potentially result in liability claims, and lob it off to the Contractor instead. Oh wait, my poor attempt at sarcasm, IS actually the point you were making. Forget the fact, that by our unwillingness to take on these responsibilities and handing them off to other ancillary colleagues in the field such as the Contractors, we also hand them the power, sense of importance and role of significance in the design process, along with it. Is it therefore any surprise that more and more clients nowadays shop for the Contractor first before looking for an architect when starting a project and even go as far as seeking the Contractor's guidance in the choice of architect? Well that's what happens when you reduce yourself from a Design Chief virtually in charge of the entire process from paper to construction to a

pencil pusher and glorified draftsman at best and to a Building code-checker approval Stamp at a minimum.

 

 

So it rings as strange when, you then turn to blame BIM, - a really incipient and recent concept in the Architectural and Construction (not so much) industries, that has only been around for the last fifteen or so years, and barely gaining a firm footing in the Industry during that period - for a problem that had been fomenting for the better and major part of the last century. Even more strange is the fact that the BIM concept, was imported from other design fields and Industries that have been design and building their products this way, using the virtual integrated model, since the 70's and essentially for the better part of the same period when Architects were still struggling to hold on to hand-drafting as a "noble" way of designing in the face of the encroachment of CAD into the field. Again, forget the fact that BIM was introduced into the industry was precisely to address the very same problems that you seem to want to blame it for now; i.e. re-capturing the lost role, responsibility and "credibility" as you put it, that has slowly been percolating to other Construction partners and colleagues, by our refusal or inability to handle and assume the required responsibility and liability.

 

 

And I really must have missed the part when, the need to covey design intent became mutually exclusive with technically and factually accurate and detailed drawings and information. While a certain degree of flexibility is inherently appreciated and even necessary early in the design process during the concept development stage, once the intent is sold to the client and the final design is approved, how then does a BIM-enabled accurate documentation process become a thorn in the process of realizing that intent in the most efficient, and certainly cost-efficient way possible?

 

Unfortunately the rest of your post has less to little, if anything to do with BIM and its role or rather, its fault in your premise of the Architect's diminishing role in the AEC Industry, It seems really more of a rant against Contractors for the current state of affairs based on your own unpleasant experiences, with scant attempt to elucidate or connect how BIM exacerbates the entire situation. While I commiserate with your sore feelings against Contractors and their increasing role in the design process with the client, it befuddles the mind to wonder why one would blame a process and concept that's certainly proven its worth with the world's most famous and successful architects and one that's essentially used to design essentially everything else in other Industries; from shoes to race cars to giant Cruise chips to Jumbo jets and Space shuttles. A process that would oddly enough save you some of the very same grief......if well implemented.

[Chris Johnson]

William, I really hope you are playing devils advocate!

...

Bad architecture is evil, it can ruin lives on a mass scale. Sounds over-dramatic, it isnt, its true.

...

...

 

I totally agree with that statement. Bad architecture, and bad buildings can totally depress spirits, with their darkness, their prison like appearance, their prison like feel, and their poor design.

 

Greed manifests itself in buildings with small windows that shut out spirit infreshing daylight, it manifests itself in buildings with no windows, in buildings with no windows packed so close together than the leftover space is worthless, and degrades to the literal hell on earth we all avoid: dirty alleys.

 

I went to New York once and spent a week. All I could see out side the windows in the place where we stayed was a brick wall that was 30 stories tall. It looked like a castle in Morder or something, only this was worse because it was someones home.

[mskin]

Clarence, out of curiosity, how many years of construction administration experience do you have? How many Change Orders have you reviewed and how many Requests for information have you read that could have been answered by looking at the CDs. More information is better? A lot of these guys aren’t looking at the drawings we’re giving them now – and you want to give them more?

 

Its my experience that the design intent should be clear. I’m not sure how you gather from my post that I believe poorly detailed and coordinated drawings are a good thing. You accuse me of claiming that contractors aren’t worthy of a descent set of documents, and any overruns caused by those drawings should be absorbed by the contractor. I suspect that your lack of experience accompanied by a hair the size of a garden hose across your nethers is the cause for your naïve and unnecessarily personally insulting response.

 

However, I am a huge fan of BIM. I think it is a great tool. So far, I have seen remedial tasks such as scheduling accomplished effortlessly and flawlessly. I enjoy the increased efficiency in which I am able to produce documents. My basic concern is how the BIM is to be used in the future. With CMs gaining control over the design process and dictating contract language to owners and mandating that we use their proprietary database tracking systems – how far away are we from being told that in order to win a contract we must provide the BIM to the contractor? - small potatoes relative to the big picture however.

 

CMs hired by a town to provide a cost estimate on a project prior to engaging a design team, and void of any competitively bid environment have complete control over the cost and design direction of a project. Oh, and the CM walks the town through the architectural interviewing process, the town chooses the architect, but the architect is contracted by the CM. If you don’t see the conflict of interest here than maybe its not a garden hose strapped across your nethers, but your head stuck up your five hole.

 

If your still reading, here is a case:

 

1. 80,000sf renovation of existing 4 story stone building. Complete gut of existing structure to be replaced by new steel. Design Bid Build…. 13 months 11M

2. 60,000sf tenant fit out. VCT everywhere…. Existing ceilings to remain…. Design Build….. 12M estimate by CM

 

this is my recent experience…. Project 1 was as stated design bid build. Project 2 is Design Build. CM hired by town, us – chosen by town hired by architect. No review of costs or even the ability to discuss the incredibly inflated price provided by the contractor with the town.

 

But you are right, it probably will be a smoothly administered project with few change orders and limited cost overruns… and everyone will be happy.

[bricklyne]

Clarence, out of curiosity, how many years of construction administration experience do you have? ............. I suspect that your lack of experience accompanied by a hair the size of a garden hose across your nethers is the cause for your naïve and unnecessarily personally insulting response..

 

 

hhmm...

 

 

That probably has to be one of the most tonally interesting responses I've read in quite a while. Seeing as you've already decided for me that I am of limited to no experience in the field of architecture (oh wait, that's construction administration), I guess there's no point in answering your first question regarding my years of experience. Other than to say, that you know you're losing grasp of the argument and discussion when you start comparing resumes and challenging the other party to compare "...years of experience" particularly when you know next to nothing about the other person, their work history nor context of experience, or anything about them, for that matter, outside of a few controlled lines of response to a post in an internet forum.

 

It's also interesting to note that you gleaned some level of personal insult from my post which, in and of itself, says more about you and your current emotional and psychological state of mind, than it does anything about the post in question. Most rational people would seek a clarification first before jumping to the nearest convenient and ASSumed conclusion and then responding with a insult, or rather insults, in kind. But I suppose one needs to have more "years of experience" and longer hairs than "the size of a garden hose across their nethers" (whatever the hell that means) to realize and appreciate the maturity in your chosen method of response. Real mature.

Need I remind you that you were the person who started the thread by inviting a discussion on the impact of BIM in architecture. Jumping on the respondents and the responses after perceiving whatever insult you want or think, from them is like I said, real mature.

 

I'm pretty certain that buried somewhere deep deep inside all that talk about garden hoses, nethers, hairs and heads stuck up five holes, there's a point you were trying to make......or probably did or at least believe you did. And as much as I would love to figure it out or dig it out and respond to it - at the risk of more accusations of personal insults and the like - I figure the "mature" thing to do would be to bow out at this point and leave the discussion forum for other people who will provide you with serene responses more to your personal liking and emotional acceptability.

 

All the best in your future dealings with contractors and CMs.....

[leoA4D]

IMHO, mskin was presenting his observation of the changing state of the profession and speculating on BIM's contribution to the direction of architectural practice. Forget about the rights/wrongs of the details, in a broader sense, mskin is right.

 

Ford introduced mass production early in the 20th C. with the Model T, so why have we not gone to an all mass-produced building scenario? That may appear to be a non sequitur but the answer helps define the heretofore relevance of architecture.

 

The architect is formally identified, amongst the cast of characters of a project, more frequently as a "consultant" nowadays, or as noted in a client-generated O/A agreement with our office, an employee of the Client. In contractor led D/B projects, the architect does not have to be mentioned at all. Many clients hire architects only because they are required for building dept. filings, code compliance and liability. Clients that hire contractors to lead the team end up with work that probably violates the laws, places all team members at risk of serious legal complications and endangers the public. (Speaking from personal experience.) Bottom line, and what the "team" has worked for: the design and construction quality is ______ (expletive deleted), epitomizing "garbage in, garbage out".

 

The profession is responsible for what architecture is now/becoming (marginalized and dumbed down) since happily ignoring the nasty and ugly nuts and bolts of the building process in favor of design only. Our profession helped create the opening for CMs and PMs.

 

I believe most people still think "architects make blueprints" and not that they are expected to be experts in design, cultural functions and norms, engineering, construction, materials and processes, building law, etc., which begins to explain what I love about architecture.

 

My apologies for this insufficient but necessarily brief response. I don't want to be argumentative or play devil's advocate but to say that I agree the great profession of architecture is in a state of change that will diminish it.

[William Alexander]

The profession is responsible for what architecture is now/becoming (marginalized and dumbed down) since happily ignoring the nasty and ugly nuts and bolts of the building process in favor of design only. Our profession helped create the opening for CMs and PMs.

 

 

That pretty much, unfortunately, sums up my views. It has created an 'Us and Them' adversarial relationship waaay to often bewteen the Arch Proffession and construction side in general. Always felt and will continue to feel that niether side has the definitive answer/s. Only collectively and in harmony can the best solution/s be reached. No nobility in that sorry, just humility to the 'best' solution.

 

Put money and seeking security in that equation.....rat's butt chance in hell of it working. The people with the real power and knowledge of the process will always rule to thier benefit...CM well and the legal proffession envolved of course LOL

 

WDA

[mskin]

I understand the Us vs. Them attitude and find it unfortunate. I think its funny when I see someone embark on their first CA project and they take the attitude of developing a team spirit. I know that within weeks they’ll be loathing their construction counterpart. It is unfortunate. Tons of reasons for this… bad contractors, arrogant architects, poorly estimated projects, poor drawings. I mean, the fault is everywhere.

 

I have had great relationships with contractors. They took fault for their actions, and I for mine. We both made errors and understood that that was part of the process. We negotiated changeorders that may have been over priced, and because of our relationship I pointed out things that he may have missed as added costs.

 

I think at the end of the day, a system has been set up that places two professions at complete odds with each other. And while it may suck for both of us who are down in the trenches…. The ideal outcome should be a well balanced project sympathetic to both design and cost. If either one of the two professions were to gain too much power, the pendulum swings and something suffers…. In the cases I am talking about design has been pushed aside and costs are inflated.

 

I talked about BIM, I understand and appreciate its improvement in efficiency. I think a little bit of apprehension on how it may be used in the future is well deserved by the architectural community.

I have recently become aware of the new trend…. CMs contractually insisting that architects use their tracking database systems, inputting information into contractor owned databases but only maintaining access to particular reports (logs) – while the contractor has the ability to manipulate this information to his choosing. Instead of declining and developing our own systems of tracking, we oblige without question.

And the other trend…. CMs being hired prior to an architect and gaining more control over contractual language.

 

And Clarence, im not talking about the bus stop and tree fort projects you probably work on, but substantial projects with a bit of size and complexity to them.

 

Anyway, im not saying its not deserved – but it is happening and its either OK or its not OK - I don’t think its OK. Clarence appears to like it.

[bricklyne]

..........

 

And Clarence, im not talking about the bus stop and tree fort projects you probably work on, but substantial projects with a bit of size and complexity to them

 

..........I don’t think its OK. Clarence appears to like it.

 

..........you seem to know soooo much about me and what I do for a living - or at least think you do. Either that or you just enjoy making broad stroke silly ASSumptions about the people you have brief encounters with, based on insufficient information you get from them. I'd hate to see what opinions you form or have about minorities, members of the opposite gender or even foreigners (oops too late) in general.

 

A little bit less pre-judiciousness and half-baked opinions and tad bit more of the use of discretion and along a more charitable and extended use of the space between your ears would help you a massive deal ; even in your dealings with CM's, who seem to be a major source of all the stress and bitterness you can't help yourself from conveying.

 

 

 

..........unless, of course, I'm mistaken and those last few lines you wrote about me were nothing more than a lame attempt at baiting and trolling, or just a puerile schoolyard dig, then my bad - the joke's on me for over-estimating the seriousness and intellect of my interlocutor.