Author: Morris Schneps

Morris Schneps

The sub-contractor installed different types of sprinkler heads on each floor in a three-story office building. The sub-contractor should have followed the drawings. It is discovered during the punch list, only two weeks before a turnover. The general contractor should also have caught it. The fire inspection remains. If the sprinkler system still works properly and the reason it was changed was for aesthetic reasons, then it will still pass the fire inspection. If the sprinklers have different patterns, do not spray the required amount of water,  or have other issues than they will fail the fire inspection. In this case the sub-contractor would have to pay to replace the sprinklers. This issue should have been prevented. The general contractor should have supervised the sub-contractor better.

Morris Schneps

Case 26: Historic Restoration

There are many issues with this case study. First off, the architect brings her toddler to meetings with owners, contractors, and suppliers. This is highly unprofessional. The architect suggests a general contractor to the owner that does not have a documented resume or brochure. There is no evidence that the general contractor has the experience or ability to perform the tasks. The architect is not specific with what exactly needs to be done with the historic restoration. There are no drawings or specifications. It is unclear, as she writes “if needed”, “as necessary”, and “if requested by the owner”. The one-page budget is handwritten and neither party initials the revisions. The revised budget is not dated nor attached to the contract. The contractor has not obtained an outside subcontractor or supplier input or perform any analysis to find the detailed cost. In this case study, there is a lack of documentation and a lack of professionalism that is expected.