Uncategorized – Page 2 – ARCH 4861 Professional Practice 2019 Spring Mishara

Case Study

Cellia Ait-Ouaret

ARCH4861

02.26.2019

Case 26: Historic Restoration

Working on a historic restoration case requires a different kind of detailed attention and careful, thoughtful planning than a typical renovation. If things go wrong this goes into the jurisdiction of a mayoral agency known as the Landmarks Preservation Commission. This is an enforcement agency that is responsible for protecting historic districts and landmarks on the historic register. The architect is seemingly incautious to the significance of the project considering she is the only architect working on it and decides to bring her child to professional meetings with her, which is not only a distraction to her but to everyone around her attending the meeting. She recommended a general contractor who is reported to have worked on similar projects without any documented proof of work.

In addition to this, she provided a one-page list of work that “may” need to be performed during the restoration without producing any working drawings or specifications, this list is not referenced or attached to the contract. By using ambiguous terminology such as “if needed” and “if requested by the owner” she leaves a lot to the imagination, specifically because her client is a medical doctor with no prior knowledge in the architectural field. Therefore, it is her job as the sole architect on the project to communicate with her client and make sure he remains well informed throughout the process.

Once the general contractor submits the final budget to the owner, from a list of work provided by the architect that is subject to change, the owner reports that the figure is over budget. The owner, and general contractor set themselves up for legal issues by making hand revisions directly on the budget sheet without dating the revision, initialing from either party, or attaching it to the contract.

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 & 36 – Yocelyne Portillo

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.

Case study

Case 26: Historic Restoration

This case study tends to surprise me more and more as I read. One of the most shocking things is the lack of professionalism between the Owner and the Architect. The first thing that caught my eye was the fact that the Architect brings her child to the meetings with the owner which is totally unprofessional because she isn’t giving the client the attention that he deserves for he services. Another thing that is specified in the reading is the fact that the Architect recommended a Contractor from San Fransisco without showing the client any prove of previous work nor portfolio. In this case a recommendation without any solid documentation isn’t a good way to get the client to trust your input in the project. Another big red flag is that the Architect isn’t specifying the contractor with drawings or specifications on the whole project and she’s using “if needed” or “if necessary”. This isn’t a good way to give client the service he deserves because the Architect should be able to specify the materials and do the best for the customer to be satisfy. The last and worst thing in this whole situation is that they are working with an estimated budget which is not good because that could make the cost of the project higher than it needs to be and those number figures are not in contract. I think this must be one of the worst contracts ever written there is lack of professionalism and communication which is a big problem in any serious legal document.

Case Study Review

According to recent case studies discussed and reviewed in both class and during free time, there are many problems and incorrect ways of processing information. One of the first case studies looked at was Case Study no. 26: Historic Restoration. This case study has so many problems and very unprofessional ways of doing tasks. As you should know bringing children too meetings can be very distracting to other employees. Also, there were no contracts signed, estimations were not based on actual prices, no detail list, no documentation based on any changes made, and most importantly there were no dates on the work. There were no follow ups with the GC and nor the client. As a note to self, although there are going to be many cases like this that are done incorrect and have similar problems you should always have a good relationship with your clients, employees, and other people, have good communication skills, always have your updated work, reviewed, signed and dated.

Category: Uncategorized