# Architects - how well do they check the work done by the contractor?



## Corner (16 Jul 2009)

Hello, I am in the process of finalising the design on my selfbuild dwelling. I am very interested to know people's experiences as regards their architects coming to site to check the work that has been done by the builder/roofer/excavation or other works. Giving the lack of input (or none in some cases) from Building Control in the Rep of Ireland, I am conerned that defects are not picked up or snagged on time by the project supervisior (architect/engineer/surveyor). Hopefully I can be reassured otherwise but based on some of the sub-standard work that is obvious at times, it's reasonable to be concerned, in my opinion. I have heard of disputes going to court whereby a project supervisior has signed-off a dwelling with serious defects uncovered some years later through 3rd party independent inspection. Hence my concerns. Some feedback would be great and I believe would help others as well as myself. I'm sure there are many out there who are in the same boat.


----------



## S.L.F (16 Jul 2009)

conormark said:


> Hello, I am in the process of finalising the design on my selfbuild dwelling. I am very interested to know people's experiences as regards their architects coming to site to check the work that has been done by the builder/roofer/excavation or other works. Giving the lack of input (or none in some cases) from Building Control in the Rep of Ireland, I am conerned that defects are not picked up or snagged on time by the project supervisior (architect/engineer/surveyor). Hopefully I can be reassured otherwise but based on some of the sub-standard work that is obvious at times, it's reasonable to be concerned, in my opinion. I have heard of disputes going to court whereby a project supervisior has signed-off a dwelling with serious defects uncovered some years later through 3rd party independent inspection. Hence my concerns. Some feedback would be great and I believe would help others as well as myself. I'm sure there are many out there who are in the same boat.


 
An architect is just a designer, you need a construction engineer of some variety, or a builder, to come and check the progress on a regular basis


----------



## Complainer (16 Jul 2009)

Some architects are good project managers too. Some aren't. If you need project management, it is probably preferable that the person who did the original design carries it all the way through to completion. It just means that when picking your architect, you need to check out and get references for their PM skills as well as their design skills.


----------



## hogg (16 Jul 2009)

Stick with an engineer to oversee your build
We hired architect to draw plans and oversee our extension
We paid him for the plans but told him where to go when he looked for payment for overseeing the build we had to point out to him (after hiring a surveyor to confirm our fears!) the massive slant in the floors, the pitch of the roof was wrong, the walls were not straight, no ventilation + the whole extension was not built to the dimensions in his drawings!!
He still wants to come and sign off on the build after we told him all this!!!!

H


----------



## Corner (16 Jul 2009)

Hogg, that's the type of horror stories I have heard from some friends....it shouldn't be acceptable but it appears that in some cases the work is not properly checked on site or even at all. Yet the designer still wants to claim his/her supervision fee. Sounds crazy but it seems common based on people's experiences. Lovely classy well-drawn plans are all well and fine but if the house is not built properly then what's the point in employing the same designer for over-seeing construction. I would be interested to hear the experiences. Was it a structural engineer you employed to oversee your build?


----------



## mathepac (16 Jul 2009)

conormark said:


> ... Lovely classy well-drawn plans are all well and fine but if the house is not built properly then what's the point in employing the same designer for over-seeing construction...


Hopefully your architect / designer is going to produce detailed construction drawings (as distinct from the pretty architectural drawings) whereby the project manager can gauge progress and compliance.


----------



## sydthebeat (16 Jul 2009)

to answer the question "how ell do they check"... you need to have clearly indicated what you have engaged the architect / engineer to do.... this is vital...

the vast majority of self builders only engage an arch / eng to *inspect *the work at various stages in order to (a) drawn down mortgage payments and (b) offer an opinion on compliance with planning permission and building regulations..... this engagement usually means about 6 visits to the sit. With this low number of visits it is disingenuous to expect teh arch / eng spot issues that many have been covered up from one stage to the next. also, on small domestic builds, one stage does not have to end before another begins, then usually overlap each other ie felting and slating of roof many be occuring at the same time as first fix elec and plumbing... or insulation installation may be happening along with plastering stage.... so its impossible for a certifier to see all the factors that may cause problems in the resultant house....

if this is the engagement (which it is mainly) then the arch/eng can only comment on the work down in regard to building regs an pp.... there are many issues that will not be picked up on because its not in the remit of teh arch / eng... this issues will be squarely down to the contractor / project manager (and remember, with a direct labour build teh client IS the project manager!) to spot and resolve. issues such as bad plasterwork, untidy insulation, incorrect electric and plumbing (as teh arch / eng is NOT a professional plumber / sparks!!). Many certifiers will also require teh subbies to sign their own certs of compliance to cover themselves.

Of course, if the arch / eng is engaged to 'project manage' the build then the responsibilities are on them.. no question... but youd be looking at a very high engagement cost to do this. Such high costs are generally not paid out....


----------



## onq (16 Jul 2009)

hogg said:


> Stick with an engineer to oversee your build
> We hired architect to draw plans and oversee our extension
> We paid him for the plans but told him where to go when he looked for payment for overseeing the build we had to point out to him (after hiring a surveyor to confirm our fears!) the massive slant in the floors, the pitch of the roof was wrong, the walls were not straight, no ventilation + the whole extension was not built to the dimensions in his drawings!!
> He still wants to come and sign off on the build after we told him all this!!!!
> ...



Well I'm very sorry to hear all this and it reflects badly on the profession as a whole.


 "Slanted" floors?
 The "wrong" pitch on the roof?
 "Bent" walls?
 "The whole extension" not built to his drawings?
 I would be very surprised if the architect was actually qualified or the builder had served his time in a trade.

If the architect is qualified and a member of the RIAI you should write a formal complaint to them and enclose your surveyors report.
If he is what's known in the trade as an "unqualified success", you should equally refer him to the RIAI which is the registration body for Architects under the Building Control Act 2007.
The RIAI has been the architects' representative body for many years, but recently has been given some "teeth" by the DOE that allows them to "vet" architects.
Its important that apparently unprofessional behaviour from both MRIAIs and unqualified persons presenting themselves as architects is reported to them.

Having said that there are architects and architects and some are a little below par and others are excellent - its like "doctors differ and patients die".

The first thing I want to explore is your use of the term "overseeing" the build.
"Overseeing" is done by an Overseer, i.e. a Job Foreman, usually in the builder's employ, and on larger jobs he would be there most of the day.
His presence alone did not guarantee that every last thing would be overseen, as he would have a high administrative workload to deal with: scheduling site arrivals and departures, checking in goods, arranging for samples to be tested, ensuring compliance with and the updating the health and safety file. Overseeing the work happened a couple of times a day, usually first thing and again in the afternoon.

On small jobs these days, even a Job Foreman cannot stay on site all day every day.
They give workmen and tradesmen tasks to complete and they attend a few times a day or on sequential days to review progress.
They then pass from job to job, say two or three for a small firm doing extensions.

"Supervision" as in constant monitoring, is only available if you pay for an architect [or engineer, depending on the work stages to be covered] to be there all day every day that work occurs.
Competent architects today perform what is termed "limited inspections".
That is to say, he/she inspects at the beginning or end of defined stages, for example - on a typical two storey house these could be; -


digging trenches and trial holes
completion of site preparation prior to pouring foundations/piling
completion of rising walls/commencement of hardcore/services penetrations
 These first three are sometimes handles by site engineers or both of them.
Personally I don't eave it to the engineer - they seldom takes enough record photoraphs, if any. 

Then the other stages might be; -


Ground Floor Slab & Float
First Floor Joists/ Ground Floor Walls/Insulation
Wall Plate/Roof joists/ First Floor Walls/Insulation
Attic enclosure/Insulation/Venting
Windows/Doors/Floor Timbers/External Render/Sealing
Services 1st fix [with client to determine final positions of power points, etc] and underfloor heating installation/rad positioning
Services 2nd Fix/Plaster slabbing/vapour check
Depending on whether there is an interior designer on board, I might back off a little at this stage, but I'd keep in touch with the builder and client to ensure everything is going to plan.
On smaller jobs, particularly extensions, you need to "mind" the clients so they know what to expect in terms of disruption and that continues when you hand over to an interior designer.

In terms of certifying I note the following; -



 The designer designs, and issues Opinions on the design.
 The contractor builds, and issues Certificates on the work done.
 An architects certs can included Schedule A assurances from the Main Contractor as well as the Engineer.
 

I know its of little relevance to the grief you've suffered but I hope this sheds a little light on the process and what you should expect.
There's no place for unprofessional work from either builders or architects.
As I said, report him to the RIAI.

FWIW

ONQ


----------



## bamboozle (17 Jul 2009)

hogg said:


> Stick with an engineer to oversee your build
> We hired architect to draw plans and oversee our extension
> We paid him for the plans but told him where to go when he looked for payment for overseeing the build we had to point out to him (after hiring a surveyor to confirm our fears!) the massive slant in the floors, the pitch of the roof was wrong, the walls were not straight, no ventilation + the whole extension was not built to the dimensions in his drawings!!
> He still wants to come and sign off on the build after we told him all this!!!!
> ...


 

Who is liable then if there is damage to the house over time as a result of the architect not picking up on this?
i'd be worried in case the floor subsides or something like that and there would be no come back


----------



## hogg (17 Jul 2009)

Architect was a member of  RIAI but when I phoned them to make the complaint I was told he was no longer a member! he has also worked for a government body (which means he would have to be qualified)
The surveyor we employed gave us recomendations to fix the roof, we just have to live with the other problems!

Maybe we should get Architect to sign off on build which wont be worth paper its written on  but It might give us some comeback if problems arise in years to come?

My brother is just starting a self build and he is only using Architect for drawings and engineer to sign off on each stage!
Hogg


----------



## bamboozle (17 Jul 2009)

hogg said:


> Architect was a member of RIAI but when I phoned them to make the complaint I was told he was no longer a member! he has also worked for a government body (which means he would have to be qualified)
> The surveyor we employed gave us recomendations to fix the roof, we just have to live with the other problems!
> 
> Maybe we should get Architect to sign off on build which wont be worth paper its written on but It might give us some comeback if problems arise in years to come?
> ...


 

will that mean then if there was a defect in the build which only reared its head a few years after engineer signed off that there is no liability on the Engineer or would engineer still be held accountable?


----------



## Corner (18 Jul 2009)

bamboozle said:


> will that mean then if there was a defect in the build which only reared its head a few years after engineer signed off that there is no liability on the Engineer or would engineer still be held accountable?


 
I would have thought it would depend if the defect were a design defect or a defect in the construction/implementation of the design. If it can be determined that it's a defect in the design then it has to the designer who is liable. If the design has not been implemented properly by the contractor then the blame would have to fall somewhere between the contractor and the engineer but I would suspect this would again depend on the terms of engagement for the engineer. If he/she is only supposed to call to site at pre-determined stages then he/she will not be able to pick up on everything as discussed earlier in this thread.


----------



## Corner (18 Jul 2009)

sydthebeat said:


> to answer the question "how ell do they check"... you need to have clearly indicated what you have engaged the architect / engineer to do.... this is vital...
> 
> the vast majority of self builders only engage an arch / eng to *inspect *the work at various stages in order to (a) drawn down mortgage payments and (b) offer an opinion on compliance with planning permission and building regulations..... this engagement usually means about 6 visits to the sit. With this low number of visits it is disingenuous to expect teh arch / eng spot issues that many have been covered up from one stage to the next. also, on small domestic builds, one stage does not have to end before another begins, then usually overlap each other ie felting and slating of roof many be occuring at the same time as first fix elec and plumbing... or insulation installation may be happening along with plastering stage.... so its impossible for a certifier to see all the factors that may cause problems in the resultant house....
> 
> ...


 
my architect will do 6 site visits for a defined fee and anything over and above will be additional. He has also said that he wll not attend or take any part in the 'setting out' of the dwelling which I found astonishing. This is one of the most important parts of the project. He is leaving this down to the contractor as he keeps talking about he can't be held responsible. Maybe I need to employ a surveyor or engineer to do this? Seems overkill having a second professional employed on the job and maybe I would be safer disengaging the architect after construction drawings are developed and hiring an engineer to do the 6 staged visits and supervise the setting out. 

Also, my architect is also adamant they will not produce a specification and achedule of works for pricing as part of the tender package. Is this normal? It basically means I have nothing to give contractors for pricing in conjunction with the construction drawings. I am aware the drawings will have certain info spec'd on them but as regards a schedule of works, this is all being left down to me because I am going the direct labour route. Had I opted for the 'main contractor' route, then he says they would have done a schedule of works. If anyone can suggest where I can get a template for a schedule of works or how I would develop this without leaving any loopholes I would be greatly obliged!


----------



## CharlieR (18 Jul 2009)

If you want the setting out checking then you will need to hire a setting out engineer, £15-£20/hr or a land surveyor.

Any good builder will produce a schedule of works for the project. Get some quotes and there will be your schedule, otherwise employ a PQS to take off the drawings or alternatively go to a local university that runs a QS course and see if they want to use your project as a coursework piece and get your info that way?

Alternatively you could split your build down into the sections that it consists of and get quotes from individual contractors. Your main sections will be:-

Site strip
Foundations and drainage(internal and external)
Main structure (walls external (don't forget your below ground level walls as some omit this), walls internal, floors & ceiling to roof area, chimneys)
Roof
Windows and doors, external
Heating
Plumbing
Electrics (lighting & power)
Internal and external wall finishes
Landscaping

You will then have all your internals to your bathrooms, kitchen and internal doors

If I have missed any then hopefully someone else will add to it.

Good luck

Charlie


----------



## DBK100 (8 Oct 2009)

I have a post on my own new blog section of my website which has dealt with Architect's inspections, Contractor's responsibilities, What can be missed and Why things get missed:

[broken link removed]

Architects are just like any other profession: The good, bad, indifferent and utterly incompetent are all out there.
Selection of the right architect in the first place would seem to be the most important issue, but that can be bloody hard to do if you are a first-timer.
Detailed referrals from previous happy clients might prove the most useful (if you know any), otherwise it can be the pot-luck situation of choosing from a website or phonebook.

The Architect has a responsibility to design in accordance with the building regulations, - the Contractor’s responsibility is to build in accordance.

If the Architect is engaged for the construction stage, he is appointed to *'Inspect'* the works at 'Periodic Intervals'. This is quite different to *‘Supervision’* of the works. The architect cannot be constantly on site; in fact Architect's inspections can be routinely programmed for once every two weeks (although this can be more frequent on a domestic scale job). A lot can happen on site in the space of just one week, and a considerable amount of work (good and bad) can be completed and covered up between Architect’s visits.


The Architect’s Certificate of Opinion on Compliance with Building Regulations is exactly that, an Opinion. The Architect certifies that all work he has ‘inspected’ is in accordance with minimum standards. But lots of things fall between gaps and do go unseen.

I think some architects sometimes use "fortnightly inspections are the norm" as a '_get-out-of-jail card_', saying that they did not have the opportunity to see the defect; but critical items due to be concealed should be flagged up and inspected by someone.

That is the beauty of the Building control system in the UK. The Council Inspector comes out to check these things after the contractor has submitted his mandatory notice prior to covering up certain defined work items. That way things get caught regardless of the architect's professionalism or level of service.


----------



## Corner (8 Oct 2009)

DBK100 said:


> The Architect’s Certificate of Opinion on Compliance with Building Regulations is exactly that, an Opinion. The Architect certifies that all work he has ‘inspected’ is in accordance with minimum standards. But lots of things fall between gaps and do go unseen.
> That is the beauty of the Building control system in the UK. The Council Inspector comes out to check these things after the contractor has submitted his mandatory notice prior to covering up certain defined work items. That way things get caught regardless of the architect's professionalism or level of service.


 
I fully agree with you and appreciate the architect cannot be there to see everything. One would like to be confident however, that when they do carry out their stage inspections, they spend the necessary time diligently checking out all elements of the works. I have heard of architects 'calling to site,' showing their face and nothing more. There is no way of proving this I suppose so it's up the project manager to keep tabs on the works realistically.

As you rightly point out, if building control/planners in the ROI were worth their salt, they would come out and keep an eye on construction works. Instead they try and make life diffiuclt for people with blatently subjective conditions and refusals. But that's another story! Thanks for your post DBK100. I'll check out your blog.


----------



## sydthebeat (9 Oct 2009)

conormark said:


> One would like to be confident however, that when they do carry out their *stage inspections*,.



'stage inspections' are carried out to ensure that teh build is complying to building regulations and planning permission, nothing else.... this is quite clear and accepted.

They are not inspecting "all elements of work" as they simply cannot because at different stages, different "elements of work" wlll be either semi completed or covered up.

for example, the first two stages are 'open foundation' and 'pre floor pour'...
between these two simple stages the following has to happen:
hardcore compacted in layers not exceeding 200mm
radon sump installed
radon sump piped to external
first fix soil plumbing 
sand blinding
radon membrane
insulation 
first fix plumbing services
etc etc

so when the architect comes on site for the pre pour inspection he/she will only see plumbing services piping, insulation and bits of the radon membrane, the end of the radon sump pipe.

they cannot comment on how well the hardcore is compacted, what grade of hardcore is used, whether a radon sump is actually there or whether it has been installed properly or not, whether the radon membrane has been properly jointed etc.

thats a very very small and simple example to show the difference between an 'inspection' engagement and a 'supervision' engagement

its the builders responsibility to build in accordance with the building regulations!!


----------



## DBK100 (10 Oct 2009)

sydthebeat said:


> thats a very very small and simple example to show the difference between an 'inspection' engagement and a 'supervision' engagement
> 
> its the builders responsibility to build in accordance with the building regulations!!



But the problem arises when the builder is not as competent as he should be. A good builder will be fully conversant in regulation requirements, but I have seen too many who just don't know what they should know or possibly are more concerned about cutting corners to shave costs.

I have seen contractors install 'Fire-trap' windows in new-build, 3-storey houses. The regs clearly state that bedroom windows should have an opening section of minimum dimensions which is within a maximum distance from the floor. This is to allow escape or rescue in the event of fire. The Fire-trap version has a fixed bottom pane and opening upper pane. This can only have resulted through ignorance, although it is amazing that the window company were prepared to supply these.

I have had contractors ask me on site why they have to provide a 50mm ventilation zone above the insulation within a roof build-up, completely unaware of the risk of condensation and how that might affect roof timbers.
I have also witnessed a builder tell a client that the foil layer on foil-backed plasterboard provided the required insulation standards and that other insulation was not required in the roof. I jest not.

So, while the builder is 'legally responsible' to build in accordance with minimum standards, this does not always happen in practice. There are many excellent small builders out there, - but also there are too many who have problems fulfilling their obligation.
I think we would all agree that chasing an elusive builder to repair faults would not be fun and chasing him through the courts could well be an expensive nightmare. I would not rest happily in the knowledge that a 'legal obligation' is enough.

It would be preferable if it could be ensured somehow that things were just done the way they should be in the first instance. 
So in the absence of an effective building control system:
1 - Rigorous selection criteria for a competent builder.
2 - Have the builder tied (through contract) to an explicit set of construction drawings and specification of materials & workmanship.
3 - Appoint some qualified person to undertake a suitable number of inspections to include covering up of critical work items.


----------



## Corner (3 Nov 2009)

DBK100 said:


> But the problem arises when the builder is not as competent as he should be. A good builder will be fully conversant in regulation requirements, but I have seen too many who just don't know what they should know or possibly are more concerned about cutting corners to shave costs.
> 
> So, while the builder is 'legally responsible' to build in accordance with minimum standards, this does not always happen in practice. There are many excellent small builders out there, - but also there are too many who have problems fulfilling their obligation.
> I think we would all agree that chasing an elusive builder to repair faults would not be fun and chasing him through the courts could well be an expensive nightmare. I would not rest happily in the knowledge that a 'legal obligation' is enough.
> ...


 

You make your point very well DBK100, and I fully agree with what you are saying. Hopefully the recession will 'weed-out' alot of the bad "builders" (and other poor trades men) that are still out there!


----------



## galwaytt (3 Nov 2009)

Realistically, it's all down to money.

If you are prepared to pay for full supervision, I have no doubt that there are people lining up to do it. Remember, if this supervision is of a high order, that it will need to be scheduled to coincide with the programme of works on site. If it doesn't, then you may incur costs from the builder for adjusting his schedule to suit the inspection process............very chicken and egg !!

Full supervision of your build will require hiring an engineer - specific technical aspects and suitability are his remit, while design, detail and compliance are the Architect's remit. I can't see you getting all that in one person. One firm, maybe..........but again, it's all about how much you want to spend, as time is, literally, money.

Traditionally, this is one area where selfbuilders have opted to make savings, so you need to decide what you want, first, and get prices from people to do that, then pick one.   Don't assume anything, with regard to what's included - if it's not written down..............the only thing you can assume is that it ISN'T included !


----------



## onq (4 Nov 2009)

We request that clients retain a structural engineer and we include his cert and the contractors and sub-contractors certs in our Schedule A Assurances.

In relation to work covered up, its easy during the build to take out a brick if you need to and proper co-ordination between the contractor and architect avoids this measure.

Calling out at key times to inspect is actually better than constant supervision in my opinion. It lets the builder get on with it without a brooding presence on site, but means that completed phases of installation can be inspected once they've been attempted and deemed installed.

That way there's no nonsense - you're called to inspect, you take record photos, you ask for opening up if you need to and that's it.

As long as the material are from a good supplier and certain tests are carried out during the build, the rest of the details are fairly simple to review.

IN many cases a competent inspecting architect or engineer will infer things from their visual-only inspections that many a less experienced architect or engineer wouldn't see if the wall was opened up.

As another poster has pointed there are all kinds fo architects out there, and just because one company is a whiz at design work doesn't automatically ensure that their detailing or legal work is going to be 110%.

That having been said, competence tends to percolate through to all aspects of the  built work and if the office is pre-eminent in design, its not unreasonable to expect them to have a good level of technical competence as well.

FWIW

ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------



## Pope John 11 (8 Nov 2009)

onq said:


> These first three are sometimes handles by site engineers or both of them.
> Personally I don't eave it to the engineer - they seldom takes enough record photoraphs, if any.


 
Should you be referring this statement directly to Consulting Engineers, then this is a very poor statement to make. Otherwise if referencing it to site engineers, yes I have experienced this.


----------



## RKQ (11 Nov 2009)

'stage inspections' are carried out to ensure that the build is complying to building regulations and planning permission, _nothing else_.... this is quite clear and accepted.

I'd agree with Sydthebeat. There is a huge difference between the time, liability and fee for Full Supervision / Project Management, compared to the cheaper "stage inspection" visits.

One can't expect to pay the same fee for someone to be on site everyday compared to the fee for 6 number site visits during construction. Full Supervision is very different from "Stage payment inspections".

I take photographs of every site visit for my file. Ensure you retain somebody with Site Experience. There are good Architects and poor Architects, so do your homework - its your money!


----------



## RKQ (11 Nov 2009)

'stage inspections' are carried out to ensure that teh build is complying to building regulations and planning permission, nothing else.... this is quite clear and accepted.

I'd agree with Sydthebeat. There is a huge difference between the time, liability and fee for Full Supervision  / Project Management, compared to the cheaper "stage inspectsion"

One can't expect to pay the same fee for someone to be on site everyday compared to the fee for 6 number site visits during construction.


----------



## Mizuno100 (6 Dec 2009)

What is typical fee for architect doing "inspection" type service e.g. site visit every 4 weeks ?


----------



## Corner (7 Dec 2009)

Mizuno100 said:


> What is typical fee for architect doing "inspection" type service e.g. site visit every 4 weeks ?


 
I was quoted between €1,600-€1,800 for six stage inspections and it would be extra if they had to go back for any additional visits over and abovethe number specified. I'm not sure what the norm is...?


----------



## imogen (13 Jan 2010)

I would like to ask if there is a difference between the terms "project planning" and "project management" as employed by architects?

Does management imply supervision, as opposed to planning which results in a set of instructions that should solve x or y problem if carried out competently by the builder?

Thanks

Imogen


----------



## onq (14 Jan 2010)

Corner said:


> I was quoted between €1,600-€1,800 for six stage inspections and it would be extra if they had to go back for any additional visits over and abovethe number specified. I'm not sure what the norm is...?



It relates to the size and complexity of the house as well.

Fees for private houses may normally range from 6-11% of the nett build cost with allocation of fee billing typically one third each to Planning/Health and Safety Tender/Compliance and Contract Administration/Inspection/Certification.

However smaller houses and designs by "name" firms typically atract more fees as a percentage - the former because there is a minimum the job can be done for - the latter because demand exceeds supply.

ONQ.


----------



## onq (14 Jan 2010)

imogen said:


> I would like to ask if there is a difference between the terms "project planning" and "project management" as employed by architects?
> 
> Does management imply supervision, as opposed to planning which results in a set of instructions that should solve x or y problem if carried out competently by the builder?
> 
> ...



Management implies management of the project from before commencement on site to project handover.

For the architect this includes client management, particularly if they are new to development work/this is their first build.

This involves reminding the client that a significant number of white collar companies consist of layers of management - middle management - whose job it is to manage intelligent people doing moderately complex tasks.

People interpret, people make mistakes, people forget things - that's why you need management.

The architect's tasks during a project include:


complying with the Health and Safety legislation re Designers
briefing and updating the client on progress
providing the builder with information
assessing the quality of the work
certifying the work for payment
administrating the building contract
requesting, assessing and compiling the Schedule A Assurances

The builder's duties include:


complying with the Health and Safety legislation re Contractors
briefing and updating the architect on progress
 requesting information in a timely manner
 scheduling and sequencing the work, attendances & deliveries
 making applications for payment
 fulfilling his role in the building contract
 forwarding the sub-subtractors, installers and suppliers Schedule A Assurances
Smaller jobs may attract less attention from both architect and builder than they should get because of pressure of work on other larger projects and many home builders have derived benefits from appointing a separate project manager.

Larger jobs carry may enough of a workload to require specialisation to such a degree that a project manager becomes essential.

That having bee said, I and many other professionals I know have been involved in both larger and smaller jobs without our clients incurring the additional cost of a separate project manager.

Management does not imply supervision and even where o na large job a site architect, site engineer or clerk of works are emplyed by the client/employer, "supervision" is usually deined in favout of "limited inspections", which moves away from the idea of the all-seeing, all knowing architect to a position and accurately reflects what occurs on large projects - you cannot be everywhere at once.

Some project managers may not visit the works frequently, preferring to rely on meetings with and reports from the persons involved in design, building and inspecting the works on a limited basis.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]


----------

