contractor not following plans... at all 4

[Ben29]

I designed a new construction church back in 2021. It is being built today. The contractor is making major changes on the fly without approval. We just "found out" that they started building because the architect happened to drive by the site.

1) The foundation has been poured without review of rebar shop drawings.
2) They are supposed to have a 3rd party inspector.... I don't think they do. I am finding that out today.
3) The lateral system is metal stud shear walls with strap X-bracing. All metal stud walls have been "swapped out" for 2x6 wood stud walls. All of the wood walls are erected. The exterior walls have sheathing applied.
4) I think they changed the wall height from 16ft to 14ft (will confirm this today).

The architect is asking me to provide a proposal to review and use the wood studs.

What steps should I take now?

 

[EngDM]

Yikes, we had something similar recently, where the contractor poured all of the footings witout getting rebar inspections/providing shop drawings and was unable to provide any photos. We requested that they scan every footing to ensure rebar compliance, since the loads were massive at some points (big pre-eng building).

I can't say how you should proceed, but in my opinion the as-built building does not match what your stamped/sealed structural drawings show so I'd be finding a way to get any liability from the project off my hands.

 

[XR250]

Usually metal studs are used for some fire or insurance rating. Otherwise wood framing would have been a lot easier and cheaper. How is the Arch. approving that?

 

[Ben29]

Back in 2021, the architect requested that I use metal stud because the wall heights were 16ft and due to the price of wood back then.

 

[dflva]

It sounds like the Owner placed your drawings on the shelf and sometime between 2021 and now commissioned a new design. How do you know that they are building from your design at all?

 

[lexpatrie]

Notify the building department that you don't have a clue what they did for the foundation.

 

[Lomarandil]

I'm with Eng29 and DFL -- this isn't your building anymore. Notify the appropriate parties who may believe it is your building accordingly.

Quote to the architect as though it were an entirely new (renovation) project.

 

[lexpatrie]

Quote to the architect as though it were an entirely new (renovation) project.

Factually correct, by the way, with an unknown foundation supporting it. I'd walk and leave them holding the red tag. Though this is probably something to discuss with senior leadership as it's going to make people irate. Hope your client is paid up because best case scenario, you lose them. And I'm not saying this lightly. Churches get high occupancy. Letting some rouge chipmunk build it is a bad idea.

 

[phamENG]

The issues is that, unlike a renovation of a 30, 40, or 50 year old building, that now unknown foundation is completely untested. It's one thing to say "we think the foundation is this and has supported such and such load satisfactorily for 50 years without adverse settlement" and another thing entirely to say "we think the foundation is this, but if not we don't know how it might work or not work once it's loaded up." Those allowances to increase demand by 10% in the existing building code are based on some sort of load history, however vague. This has none, and is still a "new" foundation.

I'd put it back on the contractor propose a method to demonstrate the footings were properly constructed. If not, a 100% GPR scan as well as demo in selected areas to prove the footings were built per the plans would be reasonable.

 

[SRO]

Hopefully you have a "no substitutions" note on your plans. Notify building department, Then all parties involved, as well as their extended family, AND DO IT IN WRITING!!! A paper trail is your best friend moving forward.

 

[TLHS]

Unless you have a relationship that you need to maintain with the architect, just inform the parties and the city that it's substantially non-compliant and walk away. You don't have to fix things for a client that's going to be hard to work with and isn't going to pay you in line with the complexity that they've now made. They weren't looking for your involvement during construction, so don't force yourself into it.

 

[SWComposites]

if you don't want to walk away (and that's probably the best advice) is to quote any additional work at a (quite high) hourly rate, and depending on your assessment about the chances of getting paid, require a retainer up front that you bill against.

 

[RontheRedneck]

It's been my experience that churches present some unique challenges. People who are in charge of construction projects are sometimes the ones with the most money and/or the biggest mouths, and have no construction experience.

I remember one time I got an order for a huge church. The plans were little better than a sketch. When I asked for a plan, I was told "We're going to put the money in the building, not in the plans".

So I'm wondering if the building committee might be behind some of what you have going on. They might only be interested in saving money.

One of my bosses once told me "When you go to court, the one with the most paperwork wins". I'm thinking you should have a lawyer draw up something saying you're not involved in the construction and absolve yourself of any responsibility. (Or something along those lines)

 

[bigmig]

Communication is key; get the owners and design team together, state your concerns, explain that no further construction is happening until you
check the design and issue clarifications and addendums, which will happen at an outrageous price and long time frame. This will probably be met with scorn, which is a good time to say good bye, that you are not a good fit, and they should hire someone who agrees with their methods and mindset, because that isn't you.

I have fired a few clients. The best was this: I had one guy tell me he didn't want steel on his job. I told him that was not possible because of the spans and load. He proceeded to build the entire house, leaving out all the steel and putting in his own wood beams. The building dept. came for inspection and said "what the hell is this". He calls and says he misunderstood me and because of this misunderstanding he left out all the steel, despite us telling him to put in steel 3 or 4 times, once while standing on site during construction. I fired him on the spot, sent him a letter of termination of our working relationship, and blocked his number and email. This was confusing to him, which was further testament to the fact he was a rat. Apparently he got the hint, because I haven't seen a supeona yet.

It is a little late to get your lawyer involved. But on that note, have a termination agreement in your contract that let's you walk. Good contracts are built on experience. Experience is what you get right after you needed it. A long contract is the sign of a person with lots of experience.

 

[KootK]

My instinct would be to be a bit more conciliatory than many of my colleagues here, particularly if the architect means to see the project through.

Contractors tend to know one another, as engineers do. From a reputational standpoint, I'd not want my name coming up at future construction association meetings in the context of "KootK wouldn't service this project and it nearly drove me out of business".

Yes, I do understand that you've been badly wronged here. However, the nature of human egos is such that nobody ever really considers themselves "the bad guy", no matter the situation. Hitler actually had a pretty tight logical framework for perusing his program. Cruel and often factually incorrect... but logically consistent.

So I'd gun for a presentation like this:

1) Alright, we continue.

2) I am going to specify some costly testing and will not be able to bend on that.

3) I am going to handle this hourly, with no upset, until we're past the as-built stuff. No chance I'm losing my shirt on this. You've relinquished your right to cost certainty.

4) I will not allow myself to be constantly rushed in dealing with this. I can't allow this situation to result in my undeserving other projects. I'll give this 8HR a week tops.

Of course, if this prompts the contractor to fire you, so much the better.

 

[XR250]

1) Alright, we continue.

2) I am going specify some costly testing and will not be able to bend on that.

3) I am going to handle this hourly, with no upset, until we're past the as-built stuff. No chance I'm losing my shirt on this. You've relinquished your right to cost certainty.

4) I will not allow myself to be constantly rushed in dealing with this. I can't allow this situation to result in my undeserving other projects. I'll give this 8HR a week tops.

This is good stuff that I will use in the future, if needed.

 

[EZBuilding]

I tend to agree with KootK's approach, although I think the first step is to get everyone on the same page to figure out what has happened. As others have mentioned, it's possible the contractor would prefer to hire his own engineer to fix everything and it gives you the avenue to exit the situation without being branded as the bad guy.

explain that no further construction is happening until you
check the design and issue clarifications and addendums,

Be careful with this approach, as you would have now opened yourself up to delay claims which could get costly quickly.

 

[XR250]

As others have mentioned, it's possible the contractor would prefer to hire his own engineer to fix everything and it gives you the avenue to exit the situation without being branded as the bad guy.

That has been the case many times when I have been in this situation. I'd prefer that.

 

[KootK]

This is good stuff that I will use in the future, if needed.

Excellent, I need some help with the basement wall stuff.

 

[KootK]

Wash off the lipstick and my approach is probably best summed up like this.