Why should you
consider an independent document review?
The project
deadline is looming, you are working feverishly to make that final bid issue
deadline. You know there are areas that are not fully coordinated because of
last minute changes, and you sent a bullet point list of these items to the
entire team. You have been working on the project for months and are confident
other parts are well coordinated by each lead designer. No structured interdisciplinary
review was completed. So, why add even more stress to an already stressful
situation?
Because,
each uncoordinated item has the potential of generating another dreaded RFI or
Change Order. Because an independent document review reduces construction
costs, saves design team construction administration time, and reduces stress.
. . That's why!
Here is an
example:
We just
completed reviewing drawings and specifications for a university interior renovation
project. The project consisted of two similar, not identical, multi-story dormitories.
There were a total of 260 drawings 30 x 42 inches in size. Each building had
its own set of drawings. One project manual (spec book) served both buildings.
The review
was completed over nine calendar days, including two working weekends. A total
of four staff contributed over 150 hours to complete the review, slightly more
than 1/2 hour per drawing. In that short time, the review team marked the
drawings and specs with over 2,000 comments about coordination and
constructability issues. Granted, some of these comments are essentially duplicates.
Coordination issues were noted on each drawing contributing to the problem. For
instance, when toilet fixture locations on the architectural plan did not match
the locations on the plumbing plan, a comment was made on both drawings to
identify the same issue. This duplication is intentional to ensure each
affected design discipline is aware of the issue so the correction will be
coordinated.
The number
of comments is great. Some comments such as correcting a detail reference have
little, if any, impact on the project cost and schedule. However, columns in
the middle of glazed openings, insulated pipes that do not fit within designed
chases, utilities extending the length of the building without regard for building
expansion joints, powered equipment without an electrical circuit, and hard
ceilings without consideration of access panels to service mechanical equipment
discovered during the review can have significant cost and schedule impact when
found during construction.
When
presenting the results of our reviews, I always have some trepidation about how
the comments will be received. Some designers become defensive, but most
receive the comments in the spirit intended: to produce a better set of documents
and a better building. We strive to help design teams and projects to be successful.
Finishing
our review by presenting our comments in a meeting with the entire design team
leads to valuable group discussion of the primary coordination issues and often
results in an agreed solution. This last presentation was well received by the
entire team. The MEP engineers were especially grateful the review found items
that everyone had grown accustomed to seeing, and therefore assumed were
correct and clear.
During our
meeting, the mechanical engineer was able to explain a code provision as the
reason why fire dampers were not shown for a dryer vent shaft. This was
something I was happy to learn. Today the same engineer called to discuss our comments
about louvers. I was pleased to have the opportunity to explain louver
construction and why drainable blade designs are not well suited for
semi-circular louvers.
The purpose
was served. Everyone learned something for the next project, and this project
will have far fewer RFIs as a result. As for the owner's perception of this design team compared to others? Guess!.
Leave a comment