Exactly!

And I've seen specs and drawings where there's a clause that the
Contractor has walked the site, asked questions etc. and therefore has a
thorough understanding of the site requirements, thus freeing the designer
from explaining where the 5-ton AC unit went.  On the other hand, no one's
going to get as good a look at the building during the (frequently
low-priority and bare-bones) survey phase as everyone will have when the
project's underway.

Either approach-- the architect saying that it's the contractor's fault if
the building doesn't behave according to plan, or the contractor saying
that the architect should be able to predict all conditions in an historic
structure-- should be capable of improvement.  Shouldn't it?

On Thu, 2 Jul 1998, J.A. Drew DIAZ wrote:
...
> Suggest that the "existing 5-Ton" AC unit that just ain't
> there can be replaced from his
> Omissions & Errors Insurance
...
> Our proposal includes the Clarification that
> "We understand that the contract drawings represent a true
> and exhaustive field/site survey on the part of the
> preparers and as such portray all existing conditions."
...
> DD
>