In a message dated 98-07-06 18:34:39 EDT, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< 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? >>

Kevin,

I think there has to be a clarity established in the pre-contract phase
whereby the design professional, contractor, and owner realize and accept that
there will be unanticipated problems with the project. I believe that with the
working relationship that develops between the design professional and the
contractor that this can be worked out... having done projects it is obvious
that there will be surprizes. For the owner the restoration process may all be
new to them, frightening, causing them to want to retrench.

I think a serious problem occurs when during the pre-contract interview the
owner, possibly having a distorted idea of the restoration process, says point
blank to the contractor, "We want NO surprizes on this project and if there
are any you will have to eat them." The contractor, not having been briefed on
this attitude by the architect due to some idea of avoiding a "conflict-of-
interest" by not talking in private, is suddenly thrown out alone on a limb.
Who wins? I have always been of the opinion that if the design professional is
to be a project mediator then they should know something about how to keep
their client under a reasonable level of control. I've complained about these
situations before to design professionals and either they have no idea what I
am talking about, or understand it well enough and tell me to grow up. The end
result is usually a tinge of bitterness for all parties. Once the antagonism
is set in place it continues throughout the duration of the project. Next time
a changed condition comes up the contractor is faced with anticipating a loss.
Lousy interpretation and semantic arguments applied to loosely written and
ambiguous specifications whereby the design professional will look really bad
to the owner if they lose the argument don't help the situation. If a
contractor suddenly loses $10,000.00 in a post-contract-signing argument does
anyone really expect them to be happy happy? It gets tough.

On one side the pressure is on the contractor to not have any changes, despite
reality, and the contractor is locked into either maintaining a competitive
price for a scope of work that in the bid documents was one thing, but now
suddenly has been made something more, or to simply walk away. It is not
always prudent to walk away. I think what needs to happen in a case such as
this is that the owners need to be educated, coddled, and managed through the
project. This goes beyond technical proficiency in brick and mortar. I do not
encounter design professionals who have received training in communication. I
think the responsbility for management of the owner's state of mind has to be
shared between the design professional and the contractor, but that it is the
responsibility of the design professional with deliberation to attempt to
assemble a project in such a way that it can be completed to everyone's credit
and without bad feelings. The fact that design professionals do not readily
accept this role is one reason that there has been a rise in the number of
contract managers.

][<en