Professional Practice: Case study: 24&26
In the case study no. 24: Budget or Bid, there was a conflict between the contractor,architect and the owner. From the beginning the owner believed the budget and the bid would be the same as discussed between the owner and contractor. There was miscommunication and misinterpretation between the owner and the contractor. The owner believed the budget would be a lump sum of $3 million. Later on the owner and the city had to make several changes because of new documents due to building codes. The contractor knew that this would result in changes in the contract but he considered the project to be a time and materials project. None of the changes or budget changes were written down in the contract. By the time the project was almost completed the estimated cost went up an extra $500,000. The owners lack of understanding and the miscommunication between both sides led to law suits against one another. The owner did not want to pay the extra money and the contractor would not continue work if he wasn’t paid either.

In case study no.26: Historical Restoration, the problem began with the unprofessional ways of handling things between architect and owner. The architect was unprofessional in bringing her toddler to meetings with the owner, contractor, suppliers and the city. I believe this is a big distraction not just to the architect but the rest of the professionals present. The next problems came when the architect provides the list of work that “may be needed.” Nothing is set in stone, there are only estimates there are no drawings or specifications. The list isn’t even attached or referenced in the contract. Then the are revisions made without initials, no dates and neither included with the contract. Projects should always be well documented, organized and explained or written down with the contract to avoid conflicts and have a a better architect to owner communication.