In “Cost-Saving Measures and Memorable Debacles,” I discussed the problems encountered on a site where the owner was acting as general contractor for his new house build and problems that ensued when an inexperienced framer was tasked with installing a complex truss roof. In that article, I wondered if a qualified general contractor could have ensured that the project stayed on track better. The key word here is “qualified,” and by that I mean someone that is actively involved in all aspects of the project to ensure that a quality, well-constructed building is the result.
I have recently been involved in a small commercial project. It’s only a slight variation on countless projects that I have been involved with in the past – simple mono pitch trusses on one end of the building, and a flat EWP roof on the other end across a gas station, convenience store, and coffee shop. Architecturally, it was quite simple, and at the time we quoted the project we asked for two simple truss dimensions (heel height and finished overhang) to be confirmed during shop drawing review. Structurally, there were questions in the EWP area regarding connections to steel framing. Both questions were important, but not complicated by any means.
At the time the contract was signed, we mentioned the confirmations needed once again and were assured that they would be addressed in shop drawing review. We issued our shop drawings – with the confirmations needed highlighted – approximately 3 months in advance of the expected delivery date, although slow site progress meant that delivery was later pushed out an additional 2 months.
A month and a half or so went by before reviewed shop drawings came back, with neither of our questions answered. The GC was reminded that we couldn’t finalize drawings for production or order custom hardware without this information. Another round of shop drawings, and another month or more, and still no answers. At this point, the GC began to be concerned about having a roof to install on the building and eventually asked us to coordinate discussions with the architect, engineer, and the framer that had been brought in late in the discussions. We reminded them that, while we were happy to be involved in the discussions, it was up to the GC to deliver the building so the GC should be leading all discussions between the various parties.
Only when the framer, faced with the prospect that his crew would have nothing to do on site, became intimately and loudly involved with the process did things start to move. The project engineer signed off on connections to the steel, and the architect signed off on dimensions. Days before we were set to go to production, and less than two weeks before delivery, the framer visited the site to survey the steel frame that had recently been installed. It quickly became apparent to him that the truss heel of 15” that we had confirmed was not close to matching the heel of approximately 22” needed to match the adjacent steel framing. A minor change on our end, a midnight review by the GC and engineer, and we were good to go once again.
But there was no happy ending to be had yet. Although the architectural drawings clearly showed a 2/12 (9.5 degree) roof slope, the steel was somehow produced to something like 1.9/12 (9 degree) – despite a clear notation on the steel shop drawings showing 2/12. The structural steel supplier claims that 9 degrees is shown somewhere on the structural drawings although I can’t find it, but time will tell who is eventually held responsible. After much discussion about various methods that could be used to mask the inconsistency, it was finally decided that new trusses would need to be built – a cost of approximately $18,000. Of course, the site is at a stand still while we rush trusses through the shop before Christmas.
I am sure there will be no end of finger pointing as responsibility for this is discussed in the coming weeks. So, who is responsible here?
- Should we, the truss suppliers and “last ones in,” have reviewed not just the notes on the steel drawings but also the dimensions and math, and found that the pitch was wrong? I strongly believe that since we followed the drawings there should be no blame directed at us.
- Should the architect have checked steel elevations against our drawings and noted that there was a discrepancy? In today’s CAD world, it would have been a simple matter to overlay the steel and truss drawings to see a pending problem.
- Does the engineer bear any responsibility here? I would say no, because this is an aesthetic and not structural issue, but there will be questions asked, especially if there is a 9-degree slope indicated somewhere.
- And what about the GC? As coordinator of the project, where does their responsibility lie? I often see the GC as being something of a coach to all the various sub-trades that are needed to work to deliver the project. They need to be sure that everyone is working as a team. Clearly that wasn’t the case here.
What are your thoughts? Have you had projects go off the rails because of poor project management? Where do you draw the line for where your responsibility ends, and how do you protect yourself by ensuring that line is clearly drawn?