I've been hard at work programming the ContractAdministratorsOnline.com forum, and I am pleased to announce that it is now open to all of you construction contract administrators who would like to sign up (for free!).

We will be adding features to the forum as we go, so please stay tuned! ♦♦♦

by Jason Peter Brown on September 29, 2007
Filed Under: ContractAdministratorsOnline.com
 Permalink to this Article

Public Works and Governmental Services Canada, in June of this year, issued new updates of their Construction Documents and Administrative Forms. These standards apply to all Public Works project with a value of $25,000 or more, and so can have a great influence on construction across Canada.

In the brochure called New Construction Documents, Public Works listed the following specific revisions:

• General Conditions Contracts valued at $100,000 or over
• General Conditions Contracts valued between $25,000 and $100,000
• Instructions to Bidders
• Bid and Acceptance Form
• Insurance Terms Contracts valued at $100,000 or over, and
• Related Documents

In the brochure called Construction Contract Administration Forms, Public Works listed the following form revisions:

• PWGSC-TPSGC 357 Certificate of Insurance Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 357-1 Insurer's Certificate of Insurance Obsolete Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 504 Bid Security New Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 505 Performance Bond New Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 506 Labour and Material Payment Bond New Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 599 On Site Instruction Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 611 Contemplated Change Order Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 610 Change Order Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 1792 Request for Progress Payment Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 1793 Cost Breakdown for Unit Price Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 1794 Cost Breakdown for Lump Sum Contract Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 1795 Inspection and Acceptance Obsolete Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 1796 Certificate of Substantial Performance (Interim) Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 1801 Extension of Time on Contract Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 2835 Statutory Declaration Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 2913 Contractor performance Evaluation Report Form Revised Form
• PWGSC-TPSGC 2913-1 Consultant performance Evaluation Report Form Revised Form

In the brochure called General Conditions, Public Works listed the following a list of corresponding previous and new GC clauses.

Taken together these documents constitutes a major change to the contract administration of project by one of Canada's major purchasers of construction services. We will monitor the impact of this change and ask member to share their experiences. ♦♦♦

by Michael Copas on August 31, 2007
Filed Under: News
 Permalink to this Article

Since 1911, when Canada's Public Works Department started to use a standard contract for their construction projects, standard forms have developed. Versions of those standard forms can be seen in CCDC ( Canadian Construction Documentation Committee) 24, A Guide to Model Forms and Support Documents (for use with CCDC 2). Those most common forms are named Certificate for Payment, Supplementary Instruction, Proposed Change, Change Directive, and Change Order.

In a Design office each of the above contract administration forms has had various other names exampled as follows:

NOTE 1: I have personally seen one of each of the examples mentioned.

NOTE 2: Alberta and BC in Canada, have adopted a variation on these forms that look more like the AIA (American Association of Architects) than the CCDC forms.

Certificate for Payment, Certificate of Payment (when certificates were issued independent of Application for Payment or Invoices) Progress Payment and Statement of Accounts are all identical in form and function with slight variation in content.

Supplementary Instruction, can be a Site Instruction, Job Instruction, and Clarification, again all the same.

Proposed Change, can be a Contemplated Change Order, Contemplated Change Notice, Change Notice, and Notice of Change. The purpose is usually to request a quotation for work described.

The relative new comer, a Change Directive, used to be a Proposed Change (with a note to proceed immediately, without a quotation) and issued by the Consultant, whereas the Change Directive has added a space for the Owner's signature.

Lastly, the most common form of all above is the Change Order which is almost universally recognized name for a form to direct work to be done for a quoted amount. In nearly al cases this form needs signatures of the Owner, Designer and Contractor, to be valid.

Speaking of Owners, Designers, and Contractors they are sometimes labelled Clients or Project Managers, Consultants, Architect or Engineers and Builders, Trades or Construction Managers and so on.

With each step in the approval stage for each of the above forms another form and another name can appear. For Instance, the following can happen. An RFI (Request for Information) is issued by the Contractor, to which a Designer can respond with a Supplementary Instruction or Proposed Change, from which a Request for a Sub Quote is issued by the Contractor, and a Sub Quote is returned by the Trade, All Sub Quotes are assembled and issued and a Quotation is issued to the Designer, for which a Change Order is prepared and signed by all, then distributed again as above. There is much pressure to collapse all the above into one place, the question is where and who is the master.

NOTE: The main differentiations of features in software that address this process are:

1. Bulk email, list and track RFIs, Request for Quotes, Quotations and track individual items for billings.
2. Prints each form that automatically logs into a database to list and track approval forms and calculate progress for contract payment process and cost impact.
3. Piggy backed with accounting data with modules for change.
4. Piggy backed with scheduling data with module for change.
5. Individually entered data process for handwritten, typed or spreadsheet listing.  ♦♦♦

by Michael Copas on July 22, 2007
Filed Under: Personal Observations
 Permalink to this Article

Contract administration is a study in language. Whether it is writing a clear description of a scope of work or interpreting the words in other communications, it all about the language. Because my first article alluded to trends away from standards I thought this article should at least list some sources of those standards.

In Canada the seat for all standard construction and design agreements and administration forms were, until recently (2003), with the RAIC (Royal Architectural Institute of Canada). Today the administration forms now sit with CCDC (Canadian Construction Documentation Committee) along with their standard agreements forms. Also, since 2003, CSC (Construction Specifications Canada) have undertaken the registration and training of Contract Administrators. It is this arena of defused authority that the trend away from standards is gaining strength.

In the United States of America, the AIA (American Institute of Architects) still retains control over the standard agreement and administration forms. The trend to abandon these standards has always been a business imperative but not generally adopted by governments and their agents, in the way it appears in Canada.

As The United States and Canada moved toward a more aggressive bidding style in the 60's bill of materials were almost completely abandoned. England in the other hand held on to such measures and contractually split oversight responsibility at the construction site between members of RIBA (Royal Institute British Architects) and RICS (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors). The AAA (Australian Architecture Association) has since 2003 also adopted the above as their methodology.

In the current climate where standards are seen to be a too restrictive I think we need to examine the consequence of abandonment. When moving away from standards there are changing words, which means new words need to be to written, new words need to be to read. This change in wording creates a cost which is being the ignored. In the case of IO (Infrastructure Ontario) and other large entities, the contracting goal has moved from risk management or mitigation but risk elimination. Since risk elimination is impossible, the result is risk transfer. Since a design teams is generally the smallest member of the project team, the transfer has an affinity to settle there.

So, if you are a contract administrator in a design office, your work load is increasing because new contract language, and there is a higher probability for your firm to become liable because of risk transfer. Have a nice day, eh! ♦♦♦

by Michael Copas on July 22, 2007
Filed Under: Personal Observations
 Permalink to this Article

On May 11, 2007, as part of The Next 100 Years Healthy Buildings Healthy Communities, OAA/RAIC Conference and Festival of Architecture, I moderated a seminar called Identifying New Trends in Contract Relationships. The premise for that seminar was as follows:

In 1987 Prentice Hall published, "Contractor's Guide to Change Orders," by Andrew M. Civitello Jr. The sub title, "The Art of Finding, Pricing, and Getting Paid for Contract Changes and the Damage they Cause," only hints at the goal of this book. A few years ago, it was rumoured that a copy of this book was on every estimator's desk at PCL and Ellis-Don. In response to evolving alternative construction procurement processes, individualized contracts and procedures are being developed, at least some of which venture into new territory. In the public sector, School Boards, the Ontario Realty Corporation, Infrastructure Ontario and Ontario's Ministry of Health are creating custom documents and procedures and the same is happening in other provinces. Some contracts are being heavily edited; some are being virtually rewritten, often by legal counsel. The result can be complicated terms and conditions, unfamiliar, confusing and frustrating to both contractors and consultants.

In addition, private sector developers have been restructuring themselves corporately, to become Owner, Builder and sometimes both.

This presentation will examine the message of Civitello's guide, the complexity of emerging construction contracts, the effect they have upon the construction contract change process and the resulting challenges facing architectural practices.

I opened the proceedings with a descriptive of Civitello's book and an outline of the structure of the session, which was one part presentation an equal part question and answer.

My presentation focused on the content of the Civitello book and how, in my mind, it has transformed the administration of contracts from interpretation of intent by the consultant to a literal interpretation of wording by the contractor. It also offers concrete methodologies to accomplish the above, as evidenced by list like: The Four C's of Contracts, Ten Reasons for Change Orders, The Six "P's" of Change Orders, Change Order Discovery Checklist, 61 ways to win in negotiations.

I was followed by Don Dassario of Poon Mckenzie Architects in Calgary. Don focused on the relative benefits and pitfalls of the Standard contracts being used by contractors in the very hot Calgary market. He pointed out in detailed, a decline in builders' risk from the use of standard contracts CCDC 2 through CCDC 3 to CCA 5, and the direct correlation with increases in consultants' risk. He did this so successfully the questions were immediately asked, waiving the usual process, but energizing the product.

Bob Halliday, a principal and senior contract administrator, with Mitchell Architects of North Bay, spoke to the impact of abandoning standard contracts in a small market. His firm is dealing with a local school board with special needs in a market with a limited population of contractors. His anecdotal presentation offered experience and stories familiar to all but also offered solutions and techniques that inspired respect. Bob's dealing with provincial bureaucracies like Ontario Realty Corporation showed equal measures of insight and resolve were needed to avoid being held responsible for everything including the kitchen sink.

Alan Munn a partner at Zeidler Partnership, gave the group a new appreciation of contract administration of Large and Extra Large projects. His understanding of the new and still being rolled out Infrastructure Ontario (IO) contracts were very impressive. He demonstrated how these contracts were intended to work, how they were in fact working and their impact on the consultants attempting to administer them. Again process failed as enthusiasm for questions pushed ahead. Alan recognized and encouraged the audience to recognize that although they may not see one of these project personally, the influence of this kind of contracting tends to trickling down to even the smallest project.

Because of impromptu questions during the presentation, the Q and A period, shrank somewhat. The activity during that time, however, was still animated and clearly enjoyed by the questioners. Based on the evaluation sheets completed by the attendees, this seminar was a complete success. ♦♦♦

by Michael Copas on July 2, 2007
Filed Under: CAO Website
 Permalink to this Article

« All Articles