Fast-Track and the Skipped Review
Your 18-person firm has a $1.35 million fee for a $28 million mixed-use project delivered fast-track. Construction documents are issued in six packages. The foundation package is due to the city in five days. Your standard quality-assurance procedure requires a three-day independent review by an architect not on the project team; the last package generated 23 comments, 6 of them significant. The project manager wants to skip the review “just this once” because the contractor is mobilizing in two weeks. In eight weeks the contractor has issued 41 RFIs and 9 change orders totaling $310,000. A field representative has been giving verbal directions to the contractor to “keep things moving.” The owner is pressing for the permit and asking why change orders are climbing. Your contract provides construction administration “for general conformance” and excludes shop-drawing approval, but does not define the number of site visits.
1. Should the firm skip the independent QA review? Analyze the risk and recommend a course of action.
Read the worked answer
No. The review is a control, not a formality. Six significant comments in the prior package show that the error rate is material, and foundation drawings affect life safety and structural integrity. Issuing them without independent review creates liability that dwarfs the schedule benefit and weakens the firm’s defense if a claim arises. The better response is to compress, not eliminate: assign an independent reviewer now, run a focused overnight review on the foundation package, and issue a written supplement if noncritical items remain. If the permit deadline truly cannot be met, notify the client in writing of the choice and its schedule consequences. If the project manager overrides the procedure, escalate to the principal and document the dissent. The $310,000 in change orders is evidence that the project needs more coordination, not less.
2. What do the RFI and change-order numbers suggest, and what immediate controls would you put in place?
Read the worked answer
Forty-one RFIs in eight weeks and nine change orders totaling $310,000-about 1.1% of construction cost-suggest incomplete documents, unresolved owner decisions, or field direction without documentation. The change orders alone equal 23% of the design fee, so the trend can erase project profit and signal a future claim. Immediate controls: maintain a single RFI/change-order log coded by cause; review open items weekly with the owner and contractor; stop verbal field directions and route all instructions through written supplemental instructions or ASIs; require principal approval for any field directive; assign a senior architect to review structural and enclosure interfaces; and report design-caused versus owner-caused changes separately. The field representative should observe and report, not direct the contractor.
3. How should the firm handle construction administration scope and staffing, given the contract language?
Read the worked answer
“General conformance” and exclusion of shop-drawing approval are consistent with a normal standard of care, but they do not excuse negligent coordination. The undefined number of site visits is the real gap. Propose a supplemental agreement defining visits-for example, weekly during structural and enclosure work, biweekly thereafter-and price additional visits or extended construction administration as additional services. Put the field representative under the architect’s direction with written protocols: document observations, do not approve substitutes or direct means and methods, and copy the project manager on every field report. If the owner expects the architect to catch all construction defects, correct that expectation in writing. The firm should also review whether the $1.35 million fee actually includes construction administration; if it was design-only, the extra staffing is a change order to the owner, not a free service.