Developers

Owners anticipate a high level of service from their design team – and in many cases, base their selection of consultants on past experience, established relationships or a proven level of expertise, that best matches their project’s planned use, and the building construction type. Extent of document completeness through estimating, and esecially the 100% Complete Set is a variable. The Owner’s expectations of document completeness are not often aligned with the consultant team’s – due of course, to many reasons, such as; design firm work load, staffing, sub-consultant efforts, design complexities and cross coordination deficiencies. An Owner’s evolving program or design requirements can also be a factor in the completion of CD’s lagging.

The contractor and the Owner however, rely absolutely on scope definition and document clarity, to proceed efficiently through the construction phase. Over the past 30 years it is our observation and experience that architects in general, have progressively evolved into relying more and more on releasing supplemental information (ASI’s) to the Contractor during construction, to complete scope – which inevitably results in more site management effort, and additional cost and schedule risks to the Owner.

Another common assertion of design teams, is that the CD’s only represent “design intent”; thus the Architect relies heavily on the Contractor(s) to complete the design scope through Requests for Information (RFI’s) or shop drawing and submittal coordination. Traditionally, or in times long ago, this style of architectural practice and construction documents may have been acceptable. Over time there have been many technical advancements, but there has also been a slow but persistent decline in the knowledge base of the industry fundamentals – both in design and in the field, and Contractors have not aquiesed to the risk transfer that has ensued.

A detailed and expert peer review of the documents, timed to be concurrent with completing the CD’s, significantly reduces risk to all parties. The time frame to conduct and integrate a peer review is best between the 100% documents milestone and bidding or final pricing. Insightful resolution of gaps and completeness in the documents yields multiple and absolute savings dividends, through the construcion phase.

Relying on the backstop of professional liability insurance, usually a requisite of the design team – the Owner assumes the risk of scope gaps between 0% and 15% (or more) of cost and schedule impacts resulting from document errors or omissions. If, or when, a project ‘hits that nebulus threshold’ of liability, there can be significant litigation, time and resource costs associated with recapturing the lost value – which at that point has usually been paid, to the Contractor. For a fraction of litigation cost, or even the potential cumulative impact cost, an expert peer review can significantly revise the risk exposure and budget expectations of any project. Contingency expectations can generally be reduced by 3% or more (based on Construction cost), with an integrated peer review process.