10 of the World's Most Expensive Megaprojects
From the Top Down: Ending Sexual Harassment in the Construction Industry
Spending Up for the Month, Down for the Year
Friday Funny: "Raising the Roof"
Tracking Technology Helps Construction Companies Save Money, Improve Safety
What The ‘Tech’ Just Happened to Meetings?
Weekly Grind: The Future of Construction Technology Across the Country
Friday Funny: It's Just Ergonomics
By Missy England
March 29, 2016
During the construction of an IMAX movie theater, the general contractor hired Wilson Iron Works, Inc. for structural steel and roof decking, including joists and joist girders.
The architect intended to have HVAC pass through openings in the joist girders, but instead of using the proper labeling for the nonstandard joist girders–SP–(as designated by the industry standard, Steel Joist Institute Manual) the architect used his own demarcation of a dashed line in the shape of an hourglass on top of the joist girder with the word “opening” to show where ductwork was to pass through the girders.
Because this symbol held no meaning to Wilson Iron, they ignored the mark and submitted shop and erection drawings requesting standard joist girders. The general contractor and architect approved the drawings and a subcontractor to Wilson Iron fabricated standard.
When the first set of joists was delivered to the project site, the architect informed Wilson Iron the girders were supposed to have nonstandard openings. Wilson Iron requested the project to be shut down until a resolution was reached, but the general contractor and the architect decided the project should proceed. Since the girders didn’t have the required opening for the HVAC installation, the HVAC sub, Fostcorp, was delayed.
This cascade of events led to non payments, and both Wilson Iron and Fostcorp filed mechanic’s liens against the project. Over a few years, the case spawned a series of suits and countersuits until a trials court ruled the hourglass marks were meaningless. The Court of Appeals agreed saying the symbol was not industry standard, was not included anywhere in the contract documents, and was not referenced in a legend to the drawings. They also noted the absence of elevation drawings showing a cross section or side view to illustrate a special joist girder.
Finally, the court absolved Wilson Iron of having to notify the general contractor of the ambiguity in the drawings, saying that as a steel contractor, there was no reason they should know the meaning of the hourglass symbol.
There are many pieces of documentation that support drawings and Requests for Information (RFIs) and submittals exist to address ambiguities within drawings, or delineate specific materials and processes. However, many times, these documents aren’t acted upon promptly––either because of poor document processing systems or bottlenecks in decision-making and review.
Other times, especially in the case of RFIs, the original purpose of the documentation is sidetracked in favor of another purpose. This happens when project participants start finding too many instances of faulty, ambiguous, incomplete, or conflicting design in the drawings. Therefore, instead of supporting the process of addressing design issues, RFIs become a process to justify claims or to guard against claims.
When you start seeing RFIs submitted for problems that should have been identified before bidding or an RFI for a large number of items that support a claim, you know there’s more going on than just the desire to get a clearer understanding of design.
This quickly escalates to a lack of trust among participants, which becomes especially evident when the owner and designer begin to reply late, or worse, never reply at all. At this point, it becomes more likely a dispute will emerge that will require a legal solution.
Because RFIs are such a contentious aspect of construction documents and drawings, the Construction Institute’s Claims Avoidance and Resolution Committee released a guide to help project stakeholders manage the RFI process efficiently.
Submittals too, often cause disagreements and long-term project ramifications. These documents add to the project drawings by specifying more clearly what material or process to use. Major problems with this documentation include slow response times and incomplete or unfinished responses.
Construction drawings and other supporting documents are only as good as the intentions of the parties who create and use them. Having clearly defined instructions is vital to reducing errors, disputes, and rework.
6 General Requirements that Can Bust Your Estimate
That master strategist Sun Tzu knew a thing or two about out-thinking the competition. Turns out his focus on strategy over strength can be applied to gaining an edge in the construction industry. ... Read More
If you're a construction worker, you're most likely working physical labor and it can get hot if you're working under the sun. Here's a guide for h... Read More
As an architectural statement, the campus is a monument both to Apple’s corporate success and centrality to the global tech culture. At 176 acres, ... Read More
August 8, 2016
"Some of the cool things that we're doing on job sites today are with Rovers and the alive platform. Alive is that software platform that glues to... Read More
The National Association of Women in Construction has a new executive vice president. This change marks a “brand new day and brand new way” for the... Read More
Every construction business owner can learn a lot from competitors. But merely copying them won't do. You will just always stay one step behind. So... Read More
We've selected eight women from all walks of life to ask them one common question: what advice would you give women who want to enter the construct... Read More