Xhulja Ponari
Arch 4861 Professional Practice
Prof. Mishara
Case study #1 Discrepancy in Concrete Mixture
After reading and analyzing the situation of Case Study #1, it is obvious that communication and understanding from all parties is the main problem that occurs. There is an intended lack of communication between the owner, the superintendent of construction, and the architect. On the other hand, the owner seems to be blinded by the money savings, so he does not see or understand the future consequences of the action that he is attempting to take. Legally, the architect should be the interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and the judge of the performance of both the owner and the superintendent. What makes a successful outcome is a careful inspection, testing, and evaluation of the project from the architect.
In this case, the architect knows that other parties involved in the project have been cheating on the cement content of the concrete and that the concrete will not come up to the strength by the specifications and by the local building code.
In my opinion, the solution to this problem is for the architect to take the responsibilities that come with his professional title, to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the public. The first step that the architect should take is not signing/approving the contractor’s requisition. After that, the architect has ethical and professional responsibility to report the problem to his superiors, DOB, and their lawyers too. This way all the superior parties are aware of this problem and the architect is not responsible for any personal or public future consequences.
