In this ARE 5.0 Construction and Evaluation Exam Prep course you will learn about the topics covered in the ARE 5.0 CE exam division. A complete and comprehensive curriculum, this course will touch on each of the NCARB objectives for the ARE 5.0 Construction and Evaluation Exam.
Instructor Mike Newman will discuss issues related to bidding and negotiation processes, support of the construction process, and evaluation of completed projects.
When you are done with this course, you will have a thorough understanding of the content covered in the ARE 5.0 Construction and Evaluation Exam including construction contract execution, construction support services, payment request processing, and project closeout.
One interesting question that often will come up when you're at that phase of your construction project is moving along and there's a lot of changes that have happened so that the drawing sets aren't necessarily fully representative of what the current state of the building is, is when the project gets done, what does the client have? What do they end up with? Do they have enough information that is telling them that this is the building that we had so that when they come back for maintenance or to do an addition or something, they have up-to-date information?
Or do they have very little information and they have these sort of original ideas of what was supposed to happen, but not necessarily what finally ended up actually happening after the end of the construction? So that's always a big question for the owners, and that for obvious reasons it would be handy for them to have what we refer to as as-builts, meaning it's something that demonstrates, okay, this was what was actually done. Not what the design idea was, but what was actually done in the process.
And you can imagine lots of different reasons why that would be handy for the owner to know and to have. So, is the architect required to produce that? Is that something that the GC should produce? Who's responsible for making as-builts? And the answer to that is that it actually is a little murky like a lot of the issues when you're in the middle of construction. The end of the construction can be a little bit of a unusual game of, well, there's certain things that are expected from the GC and then there's other things that are expected from the architect, and then it's the owner's responsibility to ask for as-builts.
So, what would be expected from the GC? Typically in a construction process, the GC is expected to be taking notes along the way on a set of drawings. Now, it can be a physical set of drawings, it can be a digital set of drawings, it could be a digital model. But the idea is that they're taking a set of notes that are explaining the differences between the reality of what's happened and what was in the design set.
Now, there are sort of obvious limitations with that. The GC is not expected to be somebody who can produce a set of drawings or work in a 3D model or something. That's not necessarily their expertise. And so there's not an expectation of sort of clarity in that. It's more that there's just an opportunity. They're the ones who are literally right in the mix between the design intent and the actualization, so it's a logical person and a logical sort of moment to just keep track of what those changes are and just to have it sort of in a running record as they go along.
It could be a separate log, it could be literally on the drawings. Whatever way that they do it, the idea is that they're sort generally expected to do that. And it says so in the contract, though it's a little oddly worded, I think, therefore I wouldn't necessarily put a lot of money of it. But most contractors in most situations will know that they're supposed to keep at least track of what changes have happened.
So, what about the architect? Well, the architect's role of course is to keep track of all the design changes through the construction process because the design changes are important both from just making sure the right thing gets built, but also in terms of keeping a record and how that record can be used down the road if there's any squabbles, any litigation, any sort of problem that comes up. There should be a clear record of the design changes. Now, not every design change will actually even be known by the architect.
There are a series of design changes that really only the GC and their subs would actually ever even notice or see. Obviously certain things get covered up by drywall or behind concrete or behind a ceiling, and the architect, if they don't happen to be there on that particular day, just wouldn't necessarily even know about that change. So, when we talk about the contractor keeping track of changes that have happened and the architect keeping track of changes that have happened, those are actually potentially different changes and potentially different types of changes and information.
The architect is trying to keep the contract documents up-to-date as best as sort of reasonably can, and the contractor is just keeping a running record of things that are different on the contract documents from what actually got built. Both of those are different from, and actually quite different from what would technically be understood as an as-built.
The as-built means you literally go back in and measure and make sure things are the same size that they were proposed to be, draw them correctly if they're not. You may not have any sense at all that something that you had dimensioned as 10 foot three ended up being 10 foot seven, right? You may not have noticed that. It's not likely that you're gonna go through and measure each room. But if you have a set of drawings that tell everybody that it's 10 foot three, and in fact it's a different measurement, well, then if something happens down the road, maybe they're buying new carpet or they're trying to fit furniture in or something like that and they're using incorrect numbers, well, that would be really annoying for the owner because it causes all sorts of trouble.
So having a set of as-builts, very luxurious and useful thing for the owners, but takes a lot of time and therefore not easily placed on anybody's sort of to-do list.
It's clearly not gonna be on the GC's to-do list because they don't produce drawings, except for shop drawings. They produce shop drawings and things like that, but they don't produce regular drawings, right? That's not their role. So it's really only possible for it to be the architect's role. And so, will the architect do it? The answer to that is, are they getting paid to do it? So you go back to the original contract and you take a look at it, and you'd say, all right, under additional services, under that section, it would literally say as-builts of construction.
That means there would be a requirement by contract that the architect would, once the construction was done, go back through, measure, recheck, check in with the GC to find their list of changes, check in with their list, the architect's list of changes, combine all of that information with physical documentation on the site, and create the new set of as-builts that would therefore be a very useful thing for the owner. But then the question of course is, does the owner wanna pay for that?
Because it's extra time, and therefore there's extra money involved. So there are as-built information lists by the GC and by the architect, but the concept of doing a full-on as-built set of drawings, that would be a contractual additional service that would have to be contracted between the owner and the architect.
Log in to access files
From the course:
ARE 5.0 Construction & Evaluation Exam Prep
Author: Mike Newman