Company Culture and Architects’ Contractual Obligations

December 5, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Architecture firm principals, managing partners, anyone who signs Contracts or Agreements: Always give a copy of your Owner-Architect Agreement to your project architects, project managers and job captains at the beginning of the Schematic Design Phase. If your construction contract administration team is made up of different people, give that team copies of your Owner-Architect Agreement at the beginning of the Construction Phase, at the very latest. Give your team copies of your Architect-Consultant Agreements, too. (If your firm keeps fee info confidential from employees, obscure those numbers. But give them the documents!)

When you give them the documents, tell them to read them! Tell the construction contract administration team to read the Owner-Contractor Agreement, and the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, as well as the Owner-Architect Agreement and Architect-Consultant Agreements.

All of these documents spell out some of the Architect’s obligations. Many emerging professionals are not familiar with all of the Architect’s typical obligations. Those who haven’t yet begun the process of studying for their architectural registration exams may have no idea what’s contained in an Owner-Architect Agreement or in the General Conditions of the Contract. But when these Agreements get executed, the Architect becomes legally responsible for performing the activities required by these Agreements. If you have unlicensed people managing projects, you have to be especially explicit about the requirement that project managers are familiar with these documents, because they may have no way of knowing, except through your guidance. (Remember, they’re interns, working under your direct supervision, learning how to be the architects of the future.)

If you don’t demonstrate to your employees the importance of these documents, some of them may never understand that they are contractually obligated to perform the exercises required by these documents!

Attitudes about the importance of following through on contractual obligations come from the top. The attitudes of the principals shape the company culture of the firm. Do you want your firm to be known for following through on obligations? Or do you want your firm to be known for having employees who aren’t sure what the firm’s obligations actually are?

Value Engineering? Not After Docs Are in for Permit!

December 3, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Many of us in the construction industry refer to any exercise that reduces the costs of construction as “value engineering.” But, as Dave Metzger pointed out in a discussion forum today, actual value engineering begins in the early design phases of Schematic Design and Design Development. We are misusing the term “value engineering” when we use it to describe just any cost-cutting exercises, especially those that don’t begin until after bids have been received and construction documents are in for permit review!

Actual value engineering takes into account the life cycle costs, as well as the initial costs, of the building. The earlier in the schedule the value engineering exercises begin, the more value they provide to the project.

The Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences, has a good piece about value engineering: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/value_engineering.php

Here’s an excerpt from the Whole Building Design Guide:

“Value Engineering (VE) is not a design/peer review or a cost-cutting exercise. VE is a creative, organized effort, which analyzes the requirements of a project for the purpose of achieving the essential functions at the lowest total costs (capital, staffing, energy, maintenance) over the life of the project.” – The Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences

The more we call things what they truly are, the better our industry will be. We shouldn’t be using euphemisms in construction, especially when the substituted word actually has a related meaning! Beginning the process of trimming the construction budget after the bids are in isn’t value engineering, it’s plain old cost-cutting.

Thanks, Dave Metzger, for the reminder.

There’s a Place for That!

December 1, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I’ve been so busy, I’m weeks late with following up on a post my colleague and I put together and published on the blog of the firm she works for! Busy is good, but work can be SO distracting.

Morayma Salas, a client, personal friend, former coworker, and fellow Denver Chapter CSI member, came up with the idea for this article and did most of the surveying of construction professionals, and then I wrote it.

Here’s the ending of our article: “Architects are often extremely creative people who like to do things their own way. However, following the rules about placement of information doesn’t take creativity away from the design process. Following the rules actually frees up more time to be creative with the things that should be part of the design process. So don’t waste your time getting creative with naming parts of your specs or placement of information! Follow CSI’s standards for locating information and apply the time you save to the design your projects.”

Here’s a link to the whole post, “Architects, There’s a Place for That: SectionFormat & PageFormat,” on the Hutton Architecture Studio Blog: http://huttonarch.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/architects-there%e2%80%99s-a-place-for-that-sectionformat-pageformat/

Architects, Let’s Get on the Same Page

November 11, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Tara Imani’s excellent, passionately-written blog post, “Architecture – A Profession at War with Itself,” inspired me to comment, and then to take my comment and turn it into this blog post.

Tara asks “Do you think it is important for Architects to be on the same page in order to take our profession to the next level? If so, why? And, on which issues must we find consensus?” The post then goes on to identify a number of areas where architects disagree. http://www.indigoarchitect.com/2011/11/10/architecture-a-profession-at-war-with-itself

Disagreement is a wonderful thing, which can test and temper individuals’ own arguments, and then shape a group’s stronger argument. When a few members of a group disagree and argue and write and rant, the failings and weaknesses in the individual members’ arguments get exposed and culled out, and the main points get sharpened, and the group can bring a stronger argument to the table.

Ultimately, architects do need to be on the same page about many things, so that our profession can be strengthened instead of being fragmented.

I feel the same sense of urgency to help strengthen our profession that Tara feels, and I know that many, many other architects do, too. But not enough architects realize that we have a problem in the profession.

Tara included a fantastic “Starter List” of issues that architects disagree about. The following is the area that I, personally, feel called to act on:

“Learning how buildings go together” vs “Continuing to be the brunt of behind-your-back jokes as you leave the construction site or hang up the phone after a CM calls you for clarification of a detail.”

This is the one issue that I feel that architects really, really need to be all on the same page about – we need to dedicate ourselves to learning how buildings go together, and we need to dedicate ourselves to teaching emerging professionals how buildings go together. We shouldn’t need to argue among ourselves about this particular issue to get on the same page. I think that the disagreements, or the different placement of priorities, about this issue (understanding construction technology), stem from a place of ignorance, rather than strong opinions.

I come to this strong feeling (my unbending opinion that architects all need to agree that architects need to understand construction technology) from a place of not having known how buildings go together, and recognizing that as a weakness in myself. I had this weakness not just before architecture school, not just after architecture school, but even after a number of years of working in architecture. I had a lot of questions, and didn’t know where to go to find the answers. I knew there were things I didn’t even know enough about to know what my questions were. Now I write project specifications as a consultant to other architects, and I know way more about how buildings go together than I used to, and I know how to go about finding the answers to the questions I have.

What many, many architects don’t seem to fully recognize is that architects are part of the construction industry. The construction of buildings is the execution of our designs. Our job, the job that we’re licensed to do as architects, is to prepare Construction Documents and to Administer the Contract for Construction. Yes, we design, also. And that’s the first step. And it’s a very, very important step. But the biggest portions of our fees on typical projects come from the Construction Documents phase and the Construction Contract Administration phase. Schematic Design and Design Development are practically all we learn about in architecture school, and some people think that’s all that architects do… even some architects think that.

I am answering this call to action. I will continue to strive to educate other architects about the importance of understanding construction technology, and the importance of the huge part of our job as architects that requires us to document our design intent through technical construction details in the Construction Documents phase. I will also continue to strive to encourage other architects to pass on the message of the importance of this understanding to emerging professionals.

A Note on “C.A.” – Administration of the Contract

November 3, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

We architects throw around the acronym C.A. pretty casually. We all know it means the work that we do during construction of the building we designed. But some of us think it means “Construction Administration.” I used to think that, until I started paying better attention to contracts.

AIA A201-2007 General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, refers to these services as “Administration of the Contract.” The services architects provide during construction constitute “Construction Contract Administration.” So, really, C.A. stands for “Contract Administration,” NOT “Construction Administration.” As Ron Geren pointed out in an excellent blog post a few months ago, http://specsandcodes.typepad.com/specsandcodes/2011/06/construction-administrationor-is-it.html the term “Construction Administration” really could be interpreted as meaning something more like “Construction Management” than “Administration of the Contract.”

Melissa Brumback’s post this morning prompted me to respond. Except for the use of the term “Construction Administration,” her article is good, and has good advice for architects. Check it out: http://constructionlawnc.com/2011/11/03/construction-administration/

Architecture’s Identity Problem? Nope. (More on the Importance of Licensure)

October 29, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

There’s an article out there that keeps popping up on my radar screen (ok, on my Twitter feed). It’s about “Architecture’s Identity Problem.” The article is by John Cary, and is published by GOOD.¹

John Cary says that “the profession and the public are measurably worse off because of “the fact that “more than half of architecture school graduates don’t enter the profession” and “fewer still get licensed.” I disagree. In fact, I think that the profession and the public are bad off enough because of how many people are out there designing and working in architecture firms without demonstrating, through examination, that they’re qualified enough to be licensed architects.²

John Cary seems to suggest that people who graduate from architecture school should be able to be architects without having to endure an internship or the Architect Registration Examination. As part of his protest against the long internships and examination requirements that architects have to undergo before being able to call themselves architects, the article compares architectural internships to medical residencies. This is not a good comparison.

The article points out that medical school graduates are legitimately called doctors before completing their residencies. That’s true. Medical students graduate from medical schools as M.D.’s, medical doctors. However, first they graduate from undergrad. They they apply to, and have to be admitted to, med school. They take their first round of national board exams after their second year of medical school, then during the last 2 years of their 4 year medical school programs, their training is all clinical, in hospitals, under the direct supervision of doctors. Then they take their second round of national board exams. Then they graduate. Then they do their internships (the first year of their residencies) and take their third round of national board exams. Then, finally, they’re allowed to practice without having to be supervised by other doctors. And then they go on to finish their residencies. And take more board exams. Then many do fellowships, again learning from other doctors. So it’s not as if medical students just go to school, sit in classrooms for 4 years, and graduate as medical doctors. They are thoroughly tested, by national exams, 2 different times before graduation, and they also have 2 years of practical experience before they graduate from medical school. (And then most continue their training.)

But the biggest difference between medical school and architecture school is that med students are taught by doctors – licensed doctors. And the students are practicing clinical medical work, in hospitals, during the last half of med school. They are observing and helping doctors treat patients, before they graduate as M.D.’s. And when they go on to practice medicine unsupervised, they are regulated and licensed by the states they practice in. NOT EVEN HALF of the professors teaching in accredited architecture schools are LICENSED anywhere in the U.S. In a 2009 study by the NAAB, only 34% of faculty at NAAB-accredited schools of architecture were licensed architects.³

Therefore, architecture students are barely being taught by actual architects. And, very little of what is actually taught to these students is information about “making sure buildings don’t fall down.” School curricula are very heavy on theory and design and very light on building technology – the stuff architects need to know to make sure their designs don’t fall down.

Another important thing to consider is that many architecture students never work in architecture offices before they graduate from architecture school.

These are very good reasons for the fact that, as John Cary says “Earning a diploma from architecture school isn’t enough to be awarded the title of ‘architect.'” The heavy focus on theory and design in school is the reason the architectural profession has the requirement for an internship (apprenticeship) period. In some states, you can still sit for your exams and get licensed after a certain number of years of practice under the direct supervision of a licensed architect, even if you don’t have a degree of any type.⁴ This demonstrates the importance that regulatory agencies place on experience and demonstration through examination over schooling. I personally believe that, more than a degree in architecture, the combination of practical experience and successful completion of the examinations is a better indicator of a person’s being properly qualified to design buildings that will not fall down.

Not everyone makes it through all those steps that medical students have to undergo, and not everyone makes it through all the steps that architectural interns have to undergo. These applications, exams, and grueling hours weed some people out. Think about it – do you want the guy who didn’t pass those national exams, and who doesn’t have malpractice insurance, operating on YOU? No, you want the guy who had the intelligence and the perseverance to get through all these barriers to being a doctor.

Do you want the person who didn’t feel like taking the Architect Registration Examination designing your office building? You shouldn’t – and your lender, your insurer and your attorney don’t – because that designer doesn’t have professional liability insurance because he doesn’t have a license to practice architecture.⁵

John Cary wrote, “It’s a long, arduous road that many in the field are either unable or simply unwilling to travel.” It is. But why would you want those without the ability or the willingness to travel this road taking the professional responsibility for preparing the construction documents for YOUR buildings?

We need more architectural interns pursuing licensure. In these very troubled times for our profession, we need to be pushing to raise the bar of professionalism, not to lower it. As John Cary says, many people do “have a romantic view of the architecture world.” That’s fine, but it’s not reality. And it’s time for those of us IN the architecture world to WAKE UP to reality, and push for more quality, not less, in our profession.

_________________________________________________________

1. Here’s the link to the article: http://www.good.is/post/why-architecture-s-identity-problem-should-matter-to-the-rest-of-us/

2. With such high unemployment levels among architects right now, how could the profession and the public possibly be better served if everyone who wants to be an architect is legally allowed to just say that he is an architect? We have too many unemployed licensed architects, who, generally, are more qualified to practice architecture than all the unemployed unlicensed architectural designers.

3. This 34% figure includes professors, associate professors, and assistant professors. Only 31% of actual professors are licensed. Here’s a link to the website NAAB: http://www.naab.org/news/view.aspx?newsID=52 where you can get the report.

4. In Colorado, that period is 10 years.

5. In Colorado, you can’t get errors and omissions insurance if you aren’t licensed in the state. Sophisticated clients will not hire an architect who doesn’t have this professional liability insurance.

Architects, CSI Is Not Just About Specs

October 28, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Fellow architects, solutions offered by the Construction Specifications Institute take the brain damage out of communication in many phases of design and construction. Also, taking advantage of the educational opportunities CSI offers can help you be a better architect.

The Construction Specifications Institute is not just about specs. CSI offers formats and processes for the project team to use for many phases of a building’s design and construction, from Preliminary Project Description through Punch List. (You don’t have to reinvent these things for your practice.) CSI also offers educational programs about technical topics from building envelope performance to daylighting.

It’s fun, and fulfilling, to design. It’s a great accomplishment to listen to a client’s needs and put solutions on paper in the form of a building design. My favorite phase of design, when I worked as an architect, was design development. The inefficient (in my eyes) schematic design process was out of the way, and the complicated construction documents phase was yet to come. In DD, I didn’t have to detail things, and the client’s needs had already been taken into account in schematic design. I could just focus on the big picture of the building itself, and coordinate and refine plans, elevations, and sections. Fun!

But the practice of architecture is not all about fun with drawings. Fellow architects, we are part of the construction industry. Most of us don’t design “unbuilt work” on purpose. Most of us are designing buildings for the purpose of getting them constructed. When we produce construction documents, the end users of those documents aren’t our clients, and they aren’t magazine readers, they’re the people who are supposed to build a building from those documents.

The technical information that the contractor needs to know (in order to build your design) doesn’t all reside in that big book called the Project Manual. An awful lot of the technical stuff needs to be drawn, in detail, on your drawings. Architects (not just spec writers) need to understand the technical details of construction.

It’s great to have a good-looking rendering. But it’s better to have a design that gets executed really, really well in construction. A building that lasts and looks good as it ages speaks well of its architect.

Here’s how you get a great building, a great execution of your design: First have good construction documents that clearly communicate to the contractor the technical details of your design intent. Second, have excellent communication with the contractor throughout the construction phase.

CSI has solutions that help tremendously with construction documents and construction phase communication. You don’t need to be a CSI member to take advantage of some of the things CSI offers, such as education, standards and formats, webinars, and construction industry news. But membership opens the door to more benefits, such as networking opportunities and member discounts on the things I mentioned above.

If you’re considering joining CSI, this weekend is a good time to do so. Right now, today through Monday, you get 20% off national membership dues. (If you want to join your local chapter in addition, which you should to get the full benefit of CSI, that separate membership is still at the normal price.) Here’s the scoop from CSI:

Join CSI by October 31 and pay only $192 for national dues — a 20% savings.

1.    Visit www.csinet.org/joincsi
2.    Select “Join Now”, and then click “Sign Up as a New Member”
3.    Enter Promotion Code 1220ARCH when prompted
4.    Click the “Add Discount” button

We recommend you also join a chapter, where you can attend local education sessions and networking opportunities (chapter dues are not included in this promotional offer).

“Architect” Magazine Actually Asks “Does Licensure Matter?”

October 22, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I got my “Architect” magazine in the mail today (you know, “The Magazine of the American Institute of Architects”). There’s an article called “The Problem with Licensure” or “The 50-Year-Old-Intern” that is all about “… a decline in registered professionals… And should we care?”

Outrageous.

Here’s a link to the article: http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/the-50-year-old-intern.aspx It’s about the so-called “philosophical debate” about whether licensure matters. It matters.

Without licensure and regulation by the states, the public has nothing reassuring them that people practicing architecture are qualified to do so. The Colorado Revised Statutes state that the regulatory authority of the Colorado state board of licensure for architects “is necessary to safeguard the life, health, property, and public welfare of the people of this state and to protect them against unauthorized, unqualified, and improper practice of architecture.”

Without architects’ professional liability insurance, their clients don’t have much recourse in the case of errors and omissions by an architect. When I obtained my architect’s professional liability insurance in the state of Colorado, the first question my agent asked me was whether I was a registered architect in Colorado. I told him that I am, and he said, good, because you can’t get insurance without being licensed.

This is telling. The stuff that floats to the top when the lawyers and the insurance companies get involved tells us that licensure matters to the public, licensure matters to the governments, licensure matters to the courts, licensure matters to the insurers, and licensure matters to sophisticated clients. And it should matter.

Ron Geren’s recent blog post, “Towards a More Irrelevant Architect” http://specsandcodes.typepad.com/specsandcodes/2011/10/towards-a-more-irrelevant-architect.html touches on this issue when he says:

“In an effort to protect its members, and the profession in general, from undue risk, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) inadvertently reduced the influence of the architect by minimizing the liability to which the architect may be subject. This shirked risk was quickly snatched up by other members of the construction industry—namely by contractors and members of the growing construction management profession.” – Ron Geren

Risk is often carried by the people who are willing to be grownups, and risk is often shirked by those who are less willing to step up and take responsibility for their own actions (like, well, children). Remember that whole risk-reward thing? When architects are willing to take more responsibility for their own actions, they’ll have more freedom, and will earn more respect.

Architects, we need to protect ourselves. But we don’t do it by ducking responsibility, and we don’t do it by having the magazine that is the so-called voice of our primary professional organization practically condoning design professionals’ remaining unlicensed.

First, architects need to have very good agreements. Don’t sign Owner-Architect agreements that have the potential to screw you over.

Second, architects need to have very good construction documents. Don’t issue bad documents. Have good drawings, have good specs, have coordinated documents. If you have interns doing most of your drawing production, review carefully before those documents go out with YOUR stamp on them.

Third, architects need to have very good insurance. (Oh, yeah, and you need to be LICENSED to get that.)

Then work hard. Do your best. And encourage your employees to follow in your footsteps and get licensed. Maybe you can’t give them raises for getting licensed, but at least give them verbal encouragement to take their exams, and praise them when they pass all of their exams. We are in this thing together, and the interns are the future of our profession. And interns need to be on a path to licensure!!

Specifying Masonry

October 16, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Last Wednesday, I was part of a panel discussion at the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute (RMMI). We discussed “Specifying Masonry.”

I was there to be the “put the info in the right place” person on the panel, and I learned a lot from the other panel members: Diane Travis of the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute, David Eatherton of Eatherton Masonry, Jay Retzko of Boral Best Block, and Brad Olson of Acme Brick.

Here’s the link to download a copy of my “Specifying Masonry” reminders hand out: http://www.lizosullivanarch.com/uploads/LizOSullivanSpecifyingMasonry.pdf

One of the things that I stressed in this panel discussion is that when architects need information on the masonry products that they’re designing with, they should contact the technical reps for those products. The reps know more about their products than anyone else could be expected to know.

And for technical assistance beyond the masonry products themselves, architects can contact RMMI’s technical director Diane Travis at dianet@rmmi.org.

Architects can get AIA continuing education credits for attending the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute Take-Out Talks, which are at 11:30 a.m. on the first and second Wednesday of each month, at RMMI, 686 Mariposa Street, in Denver. Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute’s website is www.rmmi.org.

Hey, Architects, When It’s in the Specs, It’s in YOUR Contract, Too!

September 19, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Architects, if your agreement with the Owner includes construction phase services, you are contractually obligated to administer the contract for construction according to the procedures defined in the agreements, the conditions of the contract for construction, and the specifications!

A commonly used Owner-Architect Agreement, AIA Document B201-2007, Standard Form of Architect’s Services: Design and Construction Contract Administration, states,

“The Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor as set forth below and in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction.” – from Article 2 of AIA Document B201-2007

So that leads us to look at AIA Document A201-2007, which states,

“The Architect will provide administration of the Contract as described in the Contract Documents…” – from Article 4 of AIA Document A201-2007

Remember:

“The Contract Documents…consist of the Agreement, Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary and other Conditions), Drawings, Specifications…” – from Article 1 of AIA Document A201-2007

So, you know all those sections in Division 01 that say things like “Architect will review each submittal…” “Architect will review each RFI…” “Architect will request additional information or documentation for evaluation within one week…” Those are things that you are contractually obligated to do, because they’re part of your contract with the Owner.

If things get really bad on a project, and you end up in litigation, the lawyers will ask YOU, the Architect, “Did you request this? Did you review this?” etc. If you didn’t do the things that the specifications indicated that you would do, you could be in trouble. The attorneys working to protect the interests of the General Contractor will do everything they can to shift blame away from the General Contractor. That’s their job. Don’t make it any easier for them than it needs to be!

Know, understand, and follow through on your obligations for procedural and administrative processes during construction contract administration. Start by reading the agreements, the conditions of the contract, and the specifications!

Comments From a Spec Writer

Liz O'Sullivan's Blog

Category Archives: Practicing Architecture