ARE - CE Questions: Why Architect shouldn't accept this non conformance work
This is one question in the ARE CE test exam:
During a site visit, an architect observes a materials installation system that does not meet specifications. The contractor states the installation system is less expensive and was included on the approved material submittal. The material installation is not on the critical path, but the owner has expressed a desire to avoid change orders and time delays.
What action should the architect take?
- Require the contractor to remove and reinstall the materials using the specified installation system.
- Monetize the difference in value of the two installation systems for a change order to adjust the contract price.
- Direct the contractor to obtain written approval of the installation from the material manufacturer.
The correct answer is A, and I don't understand that since the background implies the owner is about to accept this non-conformance work, (worry about time delay), why the architect shouldn't accept the work instead of asking a removal of the metarial, which may cause the time delay.
-
The background doesn't imply the owner will accept non-conforming work for the sake of avoiding change orders/time delays. This installation is also not on the critical path, which implies it wouldn't affect the scheduled project completion time in re-doing the install properly.
The architect shouldn't accept the work because, although the installed system is "acceptable" as an approved alternate, the contractor did not receive authorization to install it over the specified system described in the contract documents, which are binding.
-
In this case the contractor should send a substitution request, not a material submittal. The submittal has been "approved," but the architect isn't responsible for confirming accuracy of submittals. The contractor is. So, they tried to pull as fast one.
In addition, the other two choices are obviously wrong, so you can choose by process of elimination.
-
The background specifically states that the material installation is not on the critical path--ergo will not affect schedule, thus fulfilling the owner's need to avoid time delays. It further states that the owner wants to avoid change orders--aka adjustments to the contract requirements. So in this case the correct course of action is to direct the contractor remove and reinstall with the specified material. This may be the correct answer but in my experience owners are pretty unhappy if all this coordination happened without their knowledge. This is the sort of thing that should be coordinated and discussed at a team meeting--either a dedicated on-site meeting or the next OAC-followed by direction coming from the architect. It's sometimes weird how the exam questions are written as if we operate in a vacuum.
-
Agreed. However if you go into the contracts you will find some language on submittals which says that the Contractor has a responsibility to confirm accuracy of submittals. There's no mention of any correspondence with the owner & architect about a substitution, so it really is on the contractor 100%. That's all NCARB wants to see, that you understand the fine print of the contracts. Forget what you know would "really happen" (even though you're probably right).
-
Yes. The two big differences between these two scenarios is 1. The contractor is communicating with you about the change before doing it (submittals are not the correct way to ask for a substitution, so it doesn't count). And 2. The BS question doesn't mention whether the new shower is compliant with the spec, so you can assume that it is.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments