©2020, Ontario Association of Architects (OAA). Lessons Learned may be reproduced and distributed, with appropriate credit included, for non-commercial use only. Commercial use requires prior written permission from the OAA. The OAA reserves all other rights.
Context
The architect has had a long relationship with a commercial & industrial contractor including different types of construction contracts including design-bid-build, design-build and construction management. The contractor introduced the architect to one of their commercial clients to provide design services for their private residence with the understanding that they would build it.
Meetings were held, the design was developed, including structural drawings by an engineer due to the size and complexity of the house. Permits were obtained, construction was underway. Lacking wood frame residential experience, the contractor was relying heavily on the expertise of their framing sub-contractor.
The Lesson
At the request of the contractor, the architect visited the site to review the work in progress. The framing sub-contractor had installed lintels and supporting cripples at door openings that were not shown on structural drawings, because “that’s how they always did it”. They pointed out that this made the wall at one corner shorter (in plan) and the posts between the door openings wider and would impact the interior millwork, i.e. the cabinets that abutted the shorter wall and the trim between the doors. Reworking the framing as per the architectural and structural drawings would take time and they were already behind schedule. The architect took some measurements and advised that the installed conditions could probably be worked with.
The architect reviewed the impact on the millwork with the interior designer and concluded that the design was not compromised. Meanwhile, sheathing was being applied, doors and windows were being installed. The architect issued sketches to the contractor suggesting how to accommodate the different framing. During this process it became clear that the framing as built didn’t work. The problem was at another corner, not pointed out by the framing contractor at the original site visit. The contractor rejected all the architect’s proposed accommodations and advised their opinion that the architect’s site review constituted an approval of the condition at the other corner and that the architect should therefore pay for any costs to rework the framing to what was shown on the drawings.
Unpleasant phone calls and letters followed. The architect pointed out that the lintels and supporting cripples at the door openings were not requested by them or the structural engineer but were installed by the framing contractor with the contractor’s concurrence, and that the framing contractor did not point out the problem at the other corner at the site visit. Had the problem been pointed out then, the architect certainly would have advised that the framing be reworked. In their opinion the problem should have been stopped at the layout stage by the framing contractor. Their bottom line was that, as they were not made aware of the entire problem during their site visit they were not prepared to pay for any construction work resulting from changes that they did not instigate.
The contractor backed down and worked out the problem with the framing sub-contractor. The architect continues to work with them but the incident has strained the relationship.
What was Learned
The architect’s desire to “work with” the contractor and their framing sub-contractor lead them to lose sight of their larger role in the project. The review of already built changes should have been a red flag to step back and take a hard look at the impacts and potential impacts on the project. A day or two of reflection wouldn’t have made the schedule any worse.
The architect should have advised the client to put a hold on that part of the project for a few days while they considered the implications. In the quiet of their office they most probably would have picked up on the real problem and advised all parties to follow the drawings. The framing sub-contractor would have grumbled a bit and that would have been the end of it.
The lessons do not represent OAA policy or guidance but rather are actual experiences from construction contract administration that taught the author a valuable lesson from which others may benefit.
Updated: 2022/Nov/23