# Design team errors and omissions



## Krummholz (Feb 9, 2011)

How do y'all address the issue of architect errors and omissions on your projects or in your proposals?

I'm absolutely adamant that I won't be held responsible, financially or otherwise for architect's errors or omissions - but general contractors seem to believe they can't modify the standard AIA contract (where architects have it written in as standard language that they aren't responsible for their mistakes) and so won't permit us electrical contractors to exclude that in our contracts to them.

Example: we did an office tenant finish last year that had a conference room. The electrical plan showed no cove lighting in the room (or switching for same). But the architect's reflected ceiling plan had a small, almost illegible dotted line he said represented cove lights. There were no notations, no labels, etc. indicating the dotted line represented anything - let alone cove lighting. The GC said it was our responsibility to furnish cove lighting. We said uh uh, no way. GC was adamant we were responsible for it. We said "ok" - and we went to Home Depot and bought some cheap 1-lamp utility strips and set them up in the cove. The architect came through at punch list and gigged us for the lights not working. We just laughed - "oh, you want them wired too? Would you like them switched somehow? How about power? Do you want us to bring power to them too?" Architect about had a cow - but we'd made our point. GC still wanted us to pay for everything once we had all those answers, claiming "all the drawings are your responsibility."

I think you see the point and issue. This is an actual case - and it's become a bone of contention between a number of electrical contractors in our area and GCs.

Your thoughts?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I no longer bid on jobs that architects design. Now if a set of plans is not a simple draftsman prepared one, I skip it entirely. My goal is to streamline all the b.s. headaches out of my operation and draftsmen draw simplified house plans. As far as commercial tenant buildouts go, I hardly ever tackle same any more. For me its "keep it simple stupid" as my motto. I could go on for probably ten chapters dissi'n architects but I won't do it, live and let live.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

I'm like Mike, I just don't bid those types of jobs anymore. 

To comment on what you posted though, I think you hurt your case when you installed the lights. By installing them you may have conceded it is your responsibility. Maybe, I'm not an attorney.

It's my understanding on something like this the best course of action is to do the work with written documentation of your position and then take it to court. If it's a bonded job, file a claim against the bond.

I've got a friend in Raleigh that goes through this stuff on an almost every job basis. He has become very calloused and emotionless about this kind of stuff. I, with my Italian heritage don't handle this stuff very well.

I would advise to either consult a construction law attorney or just do it and suck it up.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

If it was on the fixture schedule I think you would be responsible but if it wasn't no way and fight it all the way.


----------



## goose134 (Nov 12, 2007)

If it's seen on a punch list, I'm not sure what would come of it. If you catch it, RFI with a mention of no circuit provisions, and so on. Was there a lighting submittal? Someone had to approve the submittals, so it might be on them if they were not in there.


----------



## Krummholz (Feb 9, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> I no longer bid on jobs that architects design. Now if a set of plans is not a simple draftsman prepared one, I skip it entirely. My goal is to streamline all the b.s. headaches out of my operation and draftsmen draw simplified house plans. As far as commercial tenant buildouts go, I hardly ever tackle same any more. For me its "keep it simple stupid" as my motto. I could go on for probably ten chapters dissi'n architects but I won't do it, live and let live.


I like this  :thumbsup:

As a part of their degree, architects ought to be required to do apprentice internships in electrical, mechanical, plumbing and framing before they can graduate. Most of 'em don't know the first thing about the constructability of the buildings they draw - let ALONE the basics of what's required code-wise for the various trades. They're good at drawing squares, circles, and perspectives. Beyond that, I've little respect for most. I exaggerate, but not that much...


----------



## Krummholz (Feb 9, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> I'm like Mike, I just don't bid those types of jobs anymore.
> 
> To comment on what you posted though, I think you hurt your case when you installed the lights. By installing them you may have conceded it is your responsibility. Maybe, I'm not an attorney.
> 
> ...


I know what you're saying, but it wasn't really a legal issue as much as it was a philosophical one in that case; everyone knew the architect made a mistake - including the architect - and the GC. In the end, we got our change order, no harm no foul.

Same architect, same engineer, same GC, different project:

Architect specified, by catalog number, a custom fixture for an office. We got it quoted with that catalog number, won the project, SUBMITTED on that catalog number - architect approved it, engineer approved it. We purchased the fixture using that catalog number - it arrived late into the job (came from Germany). It was the wrong fixture - was supposed to be a wall mount, the catalog number was for a ceiling mount fixture. No way to make the ceiling mount a wall mount - no conversion mounts, etc. Furthermore, the manufacturer said they wouldn't take the fixture back; we had to purchase a new one if we wanted the wall mount.

Whose fault? Who do you think paid for the fixture and the OT labor to get it installed after the tenant had moved in?


----------



## Krummholz (Feb 9, 2011)

sbrn33 said:


> If it was on the fixture schedule I think you would be responsible but if it wasn't no way and fight it all the way.


Actually, it wasn't on the fixture schedule; but it wouldn't matter is my argument. There was absolutely no way to identify the lightly dashed line on the RCP as anything - no notes, no references to conference room cove lighting. 

Now, it was a big project - 51,000 Sqft. Normally, I'll review the RCP for ambiguities like that, but in this case, I missed it. Regardless, it's not my fault I didn't "catch" the architect's mistake. Heck, there's no way to know whether the architect intended the dashed line to be there or not. They might have eliminated cove lighting during design, which is why the engineer didn't put it on his plans, switch it, circuit it, load calc it, etc. A junior designer might have been told to remove it and forgot. I don't know - not my problem. If he DID intend it to be there, why no fixture in the fixture schedule? Why didn't the engineer know about it? Did the engineer "forget" to include it? Why no notes/references, etc. on the architecturals what that lightly dashed line meant? I don't know - NOT my problem. KWIM?



goose134 said:


> If it's seen on a punch list, I'm not sure what would come of it. If you catch it, RFI with a mention of no circuit provisions, and so on. Was there a lighting submittal? Someone had to approve the submittals, so it might be on them if they were not in there.


It was caught during a punch list walk-through. Had I any inkling the lightly dashed line meant something (and caught it prior to bid), I would've RFI'd it. But it wasn't listed on the fixture schedule, wasn't caught by the architect during submittal review - or by the engineer - or by the GC. 

The whole point is that they think it's ok to shed their responsibility for their own errors and / or omissions onto the various subcontractors like us. I say no; not our problem to be responsible for stuff we have virtually no means of divining.


----------



## goose134 (Nov 12, 2007)

Krummholz said:


> But it wasn't listed on the fixture schedule, wasn't caught by the architect during submittal review - or by the engineer - or by the GC.
> 
> The whole point is that they think it's ok to shed their responsibility for their own errors and / or omissions onto the various subcontractors like us. I say no; not our problem to be responsible for stuff we have virtually no means of divining.


I agree. You said it yourself. It wasn't on the submittal, so what are you to install? Architects hire engineers to deflect responsibility and they, in turn, write language to protect themselves. You acted accordingly. Fixture here. Show me where to feed and with what circuit.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Krummholz said:


> The whole point is that they think it's ok to shed their responsibility for their own errors and / or omissions onto the various subcontractors like us. I say no; not our problem to be responsible for stuff we have virtually no means of divining.


I'm on your side.


----------



## kevmanTA (Jul 20, 2010)

Had a job where the engineer mapped out ridiculous disconnects for the 200A main service, he wanted a 400A for the main, 100A for the transformer feed (where it should've only been a 60A) blah blah blah..
Told the owner he could save a ton of money, and he called the engineer and changed it, that's the way to go.


----------



## jculber (Apr 22, 2008)

Here is an example we had this last summer. 

Doing a new clinic. Putting in devices (switches, dimmers, receptacles, etc.) and ordered all devices according to what was in the Spec. book, what was on the submittal, and what was approved by everyone. All receptacles white hospital grade with white plastic covers. All switches are O.C. sensors, white, and Leviton brand. All of the plugmold was Spec'd to be with a gray enamel finish. Get to the end of the job and the punch list comes out.  

"E.C. installed all devices wrong color. All devices to be Ivory in color with Stainless Steel device plates."

"E.C. installed wrong brand of Occupancy Sensor. Hubbell was approved brand instead Leviton was installed."

"E.C. installed plugmold with gray enamel finish. Plugmold to be of Ivory color."

Are you kidding me? There were 250+ devices that they were expecting us to change out. After fighting about it for a while, finally got it across to them that THEY approved the colors and types of devices we put in. After they realized that and that they were going to have to cough up the money for us to change them all the Architects and Designers were able to convince the customer to accept the colors we had installed.


----------



## Krummholz (Feb 9, 2011)

kevmanTA said:


> Had a job where the engineer mapped out ridiculous disconnects for the 200A main service, he wanted a 400A for the main, 100A for the transformer feed (where it should've only been a 60A) blah blah blah..
> Told the owner he could save a ton of money, and he called the engineer and changed it, that's the way to go.




I'll diss an architect before I'll diss an engineer. We do have some good ones around here; but we have a few rubes too. Real morons.

I was fighting one about their canned spec which called for minimum 3/4" conduit everywhere - "No 1/2" conduit allowed on the project." In a pre-con meeting I asked why. He said because it was necessary. I asked why. He said because the spec called for it...

I noted he wanted us to put $to switches on the bathroom fart fans. I asked why. He cited code for disconnecting means. I asked him if he'd ever replaced his own bathroom fart fan and he said 'no.' I said he should do it sometime then looked over to the mechanical contractor and asked if he had a cut sheet for the fans they were providing. He did. I pointed out the motor's cord inside the housing - then asked if there was really a need for the minimum 3/4" conduit spec.


----------



## jusme123 (Dec 27, 2010)

*S. H.*

Shawn Hannity is...........?


----------

