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