In this case study, there is only 2 weeks left to turnover the building and a lot of the inspections have been completed and passed. As the work was being done they realize that the subcontractor has been installing different sprinkler heads on every floor for the three floors of the building. Since there is only two weeks left till completion, the two options I came up with is either they convince the owner that the sprinkler heads are up to code and will get the job done even though it is not the ones that were initially picked. The other option is that the Contractor and sub contractor comes together to figure out who is going to redo all the sprinkler heads, which will take more time and money to complete. This error falls on the GC because its the general contractors job to make sure the job is running smooth and correctly. If the GC hires a sub contractor to do the job, it is his/her responsibility to check on the subs work. So the owner should not have to pay for any changes if the work was clarified in the drawings.
Category: Posts
Case Study 54: Fire Protection Heads-Yocelyne Portillo
Yocelyne Portillo
Professional Practice: Case study: 54
In case study no. 54: Fire Protection Heads, there were several issues about miscommunication and keeping track of what needs to be done. In this case the problem begins with the installation of different types of sprinkler heads, each floor has a different sprinkler head. There are only two weeks left for turnover of a three-story building and many of the city inspections are complete and a certificate of occupancy can be obtained on time. It seems that in this case the general contractor was at fault for not guaranteeing that everything was being done properly. It is the general contractors obligation to supervise that the subcontractor was making the right choices and installing the right sprinkler head type. Although the owner is upset about the different sprinkler head types, it is only an aesthetic problem. If the sprinkler heads do not function properly or the same, in this case they must be changed. However, this would delay the turnover and cost more money and time to do. If the general contractor had the knowledge about this discrepancy, before the installation then it is the contractors fault.
Case no. 54: Fire Protection
To prevent this type of mistake from happening the subcontracted should have made it his first instinct to get in contact with the General contractor and inform him about the sprinkler heads on the fire protection system. The subcontractor should of followed the punch-list as stated. One thing to take into consideration is that the project is in the phase of substantial completion and is suited to be three story office building. The subcontractor is responsible for the mistakes made and will have to pay money to replace each of the heads. Also the contractor should have been there to view what is going on during the time of installation to make sure no problems occur and everything is being followed accordingly to the drawings. This is an example of poor supervision that was conducted by the general contractor. The General Contractor should of look over the fire protection drawings to see if there were any questions about what is shown and should also notify the architect as well. On the architects part, he or she should have indicated which type of system will be used and the type of heads that are to be installed if not noted on the drawings or if it was the architects fault.
Case 54: Fire Protection Head
Case 54: Fire Protection Head
This case starts at the substantial completion part of a three-story build-to-suit office building project. The situation is that the building completed many city inspections and has achieved a certificate of occupancy (C of O) that is obtained on time. But the only problem is that the fire protection and life safety inspections remain, and the sub-contractor has placed the wrong sprinkler head throughout each of the three floors, but the function of the sprinkler head is perfectly fine. So, in this case we concluded that the general contractor (GC) who oversees checking up on his sub-contractor takes the fall for this mistake. Plus, due to the timing of this scenery there is no point in changing the sprinkler head if it is an aesthetic problem since there is clearly no problem with the function and it will pass inspection. The GC should have been paying close attention to the assembly of this part of fire protection sprinkler head but it comes down to a lack of supervision by the General Contractor to the sub-contractor for not asking ahead to an Architect or Engineer for a detail on this problem and noticing a little earlier.
Case 51: Concrete walls
Case 51: Concrete walls
In this case we have a General contractor who was commissioned to build a 10-story office building. One of the main problems happening in this project is the lack of communication and professionalism. The Contractor decides to hire a sub-contractor to do the concrete form-work of the project. When the General Contractor sends out the documents for bidding the bidder did not referenced any of the drawings from the documents in his bid. In the Interview between the General Contractor and the sub-contractor the General Contractor took the sub-contractor’s word about getting all the work done instead of making an agreement on paper. This leads to walls not being installed in the project and the sub-contractor refuses to install the walls. The walls are worth $50,000 and there’s is no budget to install the walls. In this case the General Contractor is the one to blame for this problem because he should’ve never agreed to the bid knowing that the bid made by the subcontractor was low and because the subcontractor did not reference his bid to any drawings in the list.
Case Study #26
While reading the case 26: Historic Restoration, I encounter a lot of problems. The first problem is bringing a child to your meetings with clients . I personally believe this is unprofessional , It clearly shows that you don’t take your job seriously. Bringing your child creates a distraction when your with your client.The second problem is having the architect recommend contractors with no documented resume or any type of brochure that shows he is qualified for the job. It’s really important to have proof of resume and previous work completed. It will help contractors attract more clients in the future. The third problem is there are no drawings or specification to what the owner specifically needs. Some of the terms used in the case are “if needed”, “as necessary” ” if requested by owner”. If you are not specific to what you need done ,then the restoration job will not be completed as you wish. The last problem found in this case is that the budget figures are estimated, the contractor didn’t take his time to ask supplier for a exact cost. It also says that neither the contractor and the owner signed the revised budget, to top it off , the revised budget wasn’t attached to the contract. In the end, this can cause a huge legal issue between both parties. Contractors should always find out the exact cost from suppliers because you want to meet the owners budget.
Case Study
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.
Case Study 24-Francis Kwok
Francis Kwok
Arch 4861- Professional Practice
February 26, 2019
There are many problems with this case. First off, no one should be bringing a child to any meeting as it will be a disturbance and distraction to many. This can lead to missing information which would be very important especially for documenting for the whole project. The fact that the architect told the owner to engage a general contractor whose job should be the architect’s. Another thing is the owner doesn’t really have any education in this field as he is a medical doctor. The fact that they even hired this general contractor who does even have a documented resume as well as a portfolio of some sort which shows us how good their work and experience are. There was really no communication at all with the contractor and architect on this project which created a conflict with the owner who has a set budget and the fact that there isn’t much information on the project like drawings or documentation of any sort. None of these were documented in the contract as well so there is no proof. The last problem is that the contractor did not acquire any outside sub-contractor or supplier to get a precise cost of the project rather than an estimate
Case Study 24
Case 24: Budget or Bid
During a career of an architect you’re bound to face problems between the owner, contractor and architect. This case study to keep things brief is about just that involving a situation in which the owner refuses to pay more to the contractor due to the owner not becoming aware of some information. In my opinion this case was interesting because this can actually happen to owners. Now somethings that went wrong to lead up to this conflict was for one the owner had a lack of experience when talking to the contractor in which some cases the owner would keep the architect by their side to help out with problems like this. In addition, there was miscommunication of information in that the contractor and owner should document this verbal talks as an example of email, etc. Also since this was an estimated budget construction the owner should always be aware that costs and time will make prices increase in the end. Throughout the case communication, documentation and lack of experience between the owner and contractor to make sure this doesn’t happen in a project.
Case Study
Historic Restoration
There are numerous alarming problems with this case study. Starting off the architect brings their child to meetings. What’s wrong with this is that she probably will not be giving her full attention in the meeting, additionally it is not professional. Moving forward the architect is recommending aa contractor to the client that has no proof that they can perform this work. To add on, she only recommended one contractor where she should be supplying client with multiple options. Furthermore, the architect supplied one page of work that may be needed. There are no working drawings, specs or even signed contracts. On the general contractor’s end, they created an invoice of $700,000 without getting quotes for materials from suppliers or even doing a take-off. To put the cherry moreover the invoice the GC provided was hand written with pencil and not referenced in contracts or signed. I hope this was all a made-up situation strictly for learning purposes because this is not how work should be performed.
