<44;
:5
....
§ l. .
a a?
:3... urn
5

. 333w; .
. #3.

am

 

 

 

 

 

a...» rm“ . a _

{ﬂaw .Jﬁxd. a. .301. .5

....;v!r....f 2.4.. int...” 3G2.

5. a... Si . . a. . .

O:I.|..V4|. {writ .3. .

‘23}...«uxrb-nw . u
. a. v I! K! “tau“

.1. 534‘.“

.m

 

 

. .1! i To
[.7111 .
I. o ‘ '1’ ‘ ’1‘

K x 39%.. .ﬂ . ,.

. . 5«PF.1\»DV. :14 . I

I.-.\......\.m 9.1, . 19?. 2:
in... .
.. .

i. . .

.1. . .3 v 2.. -

‘ . b. .L

 

ﬂu or .
\ . .. ..|._..f.:

)3
3%.” I112: . . .
L it» .. 1$.l

ﬁmﬂmalia

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

Mimi

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

DEVELOPMENT OF PRECONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER
PREVENTION STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING DESIGN ERRORS
AND OMISSIONS IN UNIVERSITY PROJECTS

presented by
Vijay Yelakanti

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MS. 4 degree in Construction Management

 

 

~ Meet/14

Major Professor’s Signature
5/2/2295-

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

.—‘ ___-.-.-.-.-...._.-.-.—A_ — —- —- .-

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

:‘t’ﬂ T 'N'

ij’ J ‘
‘81 ii-

77(71

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 c:/CﬁC/DateDuo.indd-p.15

— — ——— _...__._._._...__.,

 

 

DEVELOPMENT OF PRECONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER PREVENTION
STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING DESIGN ERRORS AND OMISSIONS IN
UNIVERSITY PROJECTS ’

By

Vijay Yelakanti

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Construction Management Program

2005

ABSTRACT
DEVELOPMENT OF PRECONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER PREVENTION
STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING DESIGN ERRORS AND OMISSIONS IN
UNIVERSITY PROJECTS
By
Vijay Yelakanti

This research focused on developing strategies to prevent change orders caused
by design errors and omissions during the preconstruction stage of a project. The study
examines a database of change orders from 16 Michigan State University (MSU)
construction projects. The researcher analyzed 1,372 change order items to identify
recurring causes of change orders. Change order items were analyzed quantitatively
based on Construction Speciﬁcation Institute (CSI) divisions. Keyword searches were run
on narrative descriptions of change order items in the database to isolate recurring causes.
Additionally, interviews were conducted of contractors, subcontractors, architects as well
as university construction administrators from ﬁve universities to gain their perspectives
on change order causes and processes. The research showed that 42% of change orders
resulted from design errors and omissions, and identiﬁed a number of recurring design
and plan coordination causes of change orders. The results from the quantitative analysis,
keyword searches, interview data, and literature review were used to develop a plan
review checklist, and recommended strategies for reducing design errors and omissions,

which are suitable for use by universities and similar institutional organizations.

 

To My Beloved Family

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I'd like to acknowledge the contributions of many people who have helped to
complete this research thesis. Professor Tim Mrozowski, for his outstanding motivation,
guidance and assistance throughout the work on the thesis. Dr. Tariq Abdelhamid for his
valuable guidance on design related change order issues. Dr. William McCarthy for
sharing his MS Access expertise. I also thank my ﬁiends Pooja Mechanda and
Shashikanth Manikonda who always boosted my morale throughout the course of the

research thesis.

iv

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................. ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIN

1.0. Introduction ................................................................................. 2
1.1. Need ........................................................................................... 3
1.2. Goals and Objectives ...................................................................... 4
1.3. Methodology ................................................................................. 5
1.4. Deliverables ................................................................................. 6
1.5. Validation .................................................................................... 6
1.6. Case Study University ..................................................................... 6
1.7. Scope and Limitations ..................................................................... 7

1.8. Summary and Organization of the Thesis ............................................. 7

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE

2.0. Introduction ................................................................................ 10
2.2. Project Administration ................................................................... 17
2.3. Communication between Project Participants ...................................... 21
2.4. Summary ................................................................................... 24

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction ................................................................................ 27
3.1. Literature Review ........................................................................ 28
3.2. MSU Database Analysis ................................................................. 28

 

CHAPTER 4: DATA REPORTING

4.0.

4.1.

4.2.

4.4.

4.5.

4.6.

Introduction ................................................................................ 40
Data Collection.............................................. .............................. 40
“All Data” Analysis ....................................................................... 42
Comparison with the Civitello Change Order Discovery Checklist ............ 57
Interviews ................................................................................... 65
Summary .................................................................................... 75

CHAPTER 5: PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST

5.0.

5.1.

5.2.

5.3.

5.4.

5.5.

5.6.

5.7.

5.8.

5.9

Introduction ................................................................................ 78
Quantitative Analysis of MSU Database .............................................. 79
Study of Narrative Descriptions in the MSU Database ............................ 79

Comparison of Civitello C.O. Discovery Checklist with MSU database.......79

Quality Control Checklist Used by the University of Notre Dame ............. 80
RediCheck — Plan Review Checklist Services ................... ................... 81
Interviews .................................................................................. 82
Plan review checklist ................................................................... 82
Validation .................................................................................. 87
Summary ................................................................................... 88

CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDATIONS

6. 0.

6.1.

6.2.

Introduction ............................................................................... 90
Recommendations ....................................................................... 90
Summary ................................................................................... 93

vi

 

CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

7.0.

7.1.

7.2.

7.3.

7.4.

7.5.

7.6.

7.7.

7.8.

Introduction ................................................................................ 95
Overview of the Report .................................... ’ .............................. 95
Understanding Preconstruction Activities ........................................... 95
Identifying the Causes of CO. by Studying the Case Study University ....... 96
Compilation of Current Preconstruction Change Order Issues ................ 96
Development of Recommendations ................................................... 97
Limitations of the Research ............................................................ 97
Conclusions ................................................................................ 98
Areas of Future Research .............................................................. 98

vii

 

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1:

APPENDIX II:

APPENDIX 111:

Reason codes ........................................................... 101
Keywords for CSI Divisions used for KWIC Search ............. 103

Tables of interview responses used for umbrella project

SubcontractorInterviews.....................................................................106

Contractor Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 16

Architect Interwews124

Michigan State University (MSU) Interviews ......................................... 138
APPENDIX IV: University Interviews ................................................... 159
APPENDIX V: Checklist development/validation Interviews. . . .. ....................... 171
APPENDIX VI: Charts of CSI division analysis ........................................ 179
APPENDIX VII: University of Notre Dame Checklist .................................. 210
APPENDIX VIII: Plan review Checklist ................................................... 223
Reference ......................................................................... A .................. 242

viii

 

Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 3.1
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3

Table 4.4

LIST OF TABLES

Broader overview of Civitello’s change order discovery checklist ......... 14
Contractor selection criteria ....................... ' ............................... 19
Reasons for changes in owner-contractor working relationships ........... 21
Variables of the database ......................................................... 29
Schedule of values per CSI division of all projects in the database ........ 41
Number and aggregate costs of changes by C81 division ................... 47
Keywords for each CSI division ................................................ 56

List of keywords used in analysis of comparison with Civitello’s

checklist ............................................................................ 59

ix

 

Fig 2.1
Fig 2.2
Fig 3.1
Fig 3.2

Fig 3.3

Fig 3.4
Fig 3.5
Fig 4.1
Fig 4.2
Fig 4.3
Fig 4.4

Fig 4.5

Fig 4.6

Fig 4.7

Fig 5.1

LIST OF FIGURES

Organization of literature ......................................................... 10
Summary of the development of a checklist for brieﬁng .................... 23
Methodology ....................................................................... 28
Excerpt of database showing relationships in MS Access ................... 30

Excerpt of database showing various change order variables in MS

Access .............................................................................. 31
Organization of CSI divisions in MS Excel spreadsheet ..................... 32
Excerpt of database showing narrative descriptions .......................... 34
Number of change order items per CSI division ....................................... 42
Cost generated by change order items per CSI division ............................ 42
Number of change order items per speciﬁed grouped reason codes ...... 44
Cost ofchange order items per grouped reason codes. . . . . . 44

CSI Division 1 — Number of change order items per grouped reason

codes ................................................................................ 45

CSI Division 1 — Cost of change order items per grouped reason

codes ................................................................................ 46
Excerpt of MS Excel displaying keyword ‘duct’ recurrence ................ 58
Excerpt of plan review checklist ................................................ 84

 

 

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.0. Introduction

Change refers to any event that results in a modiﬁcation of the original project
scope, execution time, or cost of work (Bridgers et.al, 2001). A procedure for requesting
a change via a written document to add, delete, or modify the work on a construction
project is referred to as a change order.

A change order is typically requested to improve project value, but it may lead to
cost overruns and time delays as a result of uncompetitive pricing, increased general
conditions, and overhead costs. Change orders can signiﬁcantly affect the budget and
schedule of a project. In 1995 the Construction Industry Dispute Avoidance Task Force
(DART) reported that more than $60 billion annually were spent on change orders in the
United States (Ibbs, 1997). In a study of change orders at Michigan State University, it
was found that more than 10 million dollars were spent for change orders on a group of
sixteen projects with a total starting value of 133 million dollars (Mrozowski, 2004).
Although the percentage of change orders (percentage increase in budget of a project, and
number of change orders) varies depending upon the nature of a project, several authors
have offered opinions regarding change order percentages. O’Brien reports increases in
project costs due to change orders average approximately 5 percent of the initial cost
(O’Brien, 1998).

The number of change orders is a concern for building owners and contractors. In
an attempt to reduce cost overruns, time delays, and disputes in projects, some
researchers have examined change order management practices and developed

recommendations regarding the management of change orders during construction. Little

 

research however has addressed preconstruction activities which can decrease the number
of change orders on a project.

This research addresses preconstruction activities for reducing change orders in
university construction. In this research, Michigan State University was used as a case
study organization to determine the causes and impacts of change orders. The research
led to the development of a plan review checklist, and to recommendations and strategies
for reducing change orders caused by design errors and omissions. Additional
recommendations are also made for other preconstruction activities which impact change
orders and include functional brieﬁng, scope deﬁnition, and communication between
project participants (architects, engineers, owners, contractors and sub contractors).

1.1. Need

The cost of projects within major universities can be signiﬁcant, for example at
MSU, according to a December 2002 report, released by the MSU Physical Plant there
were 66 active projects equaling 199 million dollars (Mrozowski, 2004). Due to the
number and value of projects built, the cumulative effect of change orders can be
signiﬁcant within a university construction system. Therefore reducing change orders
before they occur through a variety of preconstruction activities could decrease cost
overruns.

Diekman and Nelson (1985) have identiﬁed and classiﬁed causes of change
orders as: (1) design errors and omissions, (2) scope changes, and (3) unforeseen
conditions. These researchers reported that 65 percent of change orders were generated
by design errors and omissions, 30 percent from sc0pe changes, and the remaining 5

percent from unforeseen conditions (Diekman, et.al., 1985). In Contractors Guide to

 

Change. Orders (Civitello, 2002), Civitello classiﬁed the sources of change orders as
predesign, plans and speciﬁcations, and site. Civitello identiﬁed plans and speciﬁcations
as common generators of change orders. Consequently, cost overruns and time delays
could be reduced by minimizing design errors and omissions, which lead to change
orders.
1.2. Goals and objectives
1.2.1. Goals

The goals of this research were to identify potential areas of change orders caused
by design errors and omissions, and to develop preconstruction change order prevention
strategies, along with recommendations and instruments for reducing design errors and

omissions for university construction projects.

1.2.2. Objectives

The objectives of this research were to develop a plan review checklist in order to
reduce change orders caused by design errors and omissions, and to formulate
recommendations for preconstruction activities, such as functional brieﬁng, scope
deﬁnition, and communication between project participants, which can reduce the
number of change orders.

1.3. Methodology

This research was accomplished using the nine steps identiﬁed below. The

research methodology is explained in detail in Chapter 3.

1) Review of literature.

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

1.4.

which

Development of questionnaires for architects, contractors, subcontractors, and
university construction personnel which sought information on change order
management practices and causes of change orders.
Review and analysis of a database of MSU construction projects, which included:
CSIl division quantitative analysis, analysis of narrative descriptions of change
order items, and comparison with Civitello’s (2002) change order discovery
checklist.
Interviews with outside designers, contractors, and subcontractors.
Interviews with construction personnel of ﬁve research intensive universities.
Comparison of the data obtained from the interviews and database in order to
identify the sources of change orders.
Interviews with MSU construction personnel in order to gain their perspective on
plan review processes and for the development of a plan reviewchecklist.
Development of preconstruction change order prevention strategies including:

a. Plan review checklist.

b. Recommendations for programming and functional brieﬁng, scope

deﬁnition and communication between project participants.

Interviews with MSU construction personnel in order to gain feedback regarding
the use of the plan review checklist.
Deliverables
The completion of this research led to the development of a plan review checklist

is designed to help identify potential design errors and omissions.

 

1 The Construction Speciﬁcations Institute, a professional organization of construction speciﬁcations

writers. twww.aiapvc.org/glossaghtm) date visited: 10/15/2004

Recommendations were also made related to coordination issues among design
disciplines for reducing design errors and omissions in CS1 divisions 15 and 16, as well
as for programming and functional brieﬁng, scope deﬁnition and prequaliﬁcation of
architects appropriate for large universities.
1.5. Validation

Interviews were conducted with construction administrators of the case study
university in order to obtain their views regarding the use of the proposed plan review
checklist and its potential for preventing change orders caused by design errors and

omissions.

1.6. Case Study University

MSU has over 40,000 students on a campus of over 5000' acres; A December
2002 report, released by the MSU Physical Plant, noted that there were 66 active projects
equaling 199 million dollars, 37 different prime contractors were employed, and 10 MSU
project managers were assigned. Projects released for construction in 2002-2003 totaled
178, and were valued at 84 million dollars (Mrozowski, 2004).

This research focuses on preconstruction change order prevention strategies, and
is part of a broader research project: the Michigan State University Change Order
Management Project (referred to as the umbrella project) (Mrozowski, 2004). That
project addressed strategies for change order management practices on MSU projects. As
a part of the umbrella project, 16 MSU construction projects, 19 contracts, 159 change
orders, and 1,675 change order items were analyzed to ﬁnd the major causes of change
orders. For this research 1,372 change order items with complete information were used.

Additionally, construction professionals were interviewed to gain an insight into change

 

order management practices in industry. The case study database analysis and interviews
were correlated to ﬁnd the sources of change orders, and to develop preconstruction
change order prevention strategies.
1.7. Scope and Limitations

Strategies and recommendations were developed, which can reduce the number of
change orders caused by design errors and omissions. This research did not addresses
change order processing, or change order management strategies during project progress.
The limitations of the research were:
1) The sample of projects used for data analysis was from only one university, which

can limit generalization of recommendations to other universities.
2) The interviews were conducted with Michigan based ﬁrms; practices and procedures
of ﬁrms from other regions may vary.

1.8. Summary and organization of the thesis

This chapter introduces some of the causes of change orders, and stresses the
importance of preconstruction activities in reducing the number of change orders. There
is a need for research on the development of strategies to reduce change orders related to
errors and omissions in the design process. This research is intended to improve
construction within universities by identifying the sources of change orders and providing
recommendations for reducing design errors and omissions which frequently are the root
cause of change orders.

This thesis is organized into seven chapters with appendices. The ﬁrst chapter
establishes the need for the research, and deﬁnes the research objectives, methodology

and expected deliverables. The second chapter presents the literature review. The third

chapter explains the methodology, database and interview processes. The fourth chapter
presents the data, database analysis, interview responses, and feedback. The ﬁfth chapter
describes development of the plan review checklist. The sixth chapter presents
recommendations for reducing change orders that result from design errors and
omissions, as well as on other preconstruction concepts. The seventh chapter consists of
the summary, conclusions and limitations of the research, followed by discussion of

future research areas.

 

 

CHAPTER 2

9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE

2.0. Introduction

This chapter presents a summary of literature addressing the areas inﬂuencing
change orders. The focus of the literature review was on change orders generated by
design errors and omissions. Additionally, the researcher reviewed literature on related
factors that inﬂuence change orders, such as the selection process of architects/engineers,
prequaliﬁcation of contractors, bid evaluation strategies, partnering, and communication
between project participants, and how they can add or reduce the number of change

orders on a project. Refer to Figure 2.1 for the organization of the literature review.

 

I Change Orders (CO) I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DesrgnEtrors & Project. Administration Communication
Omissrons

Q Role of an Architect 8 Selection of an Architect Communication
8 3:0 between Owner &
g Pre-bid plan reviews g Pre-qualiﬁcation of Contractors 8 Architect
s a “a
.2 Plans & Speciﬁcations .5 Bid Evaluation Strategies g Communication ,
f5 3 g between various
'2 Documentation E Partnering: c2 desi disciplines

 

 

FIGURE 2.1. ORGANIZATION OF LITERATURE

2.1. Design Errors and Omissions

In this section, the researcher identiﬁed and discussed issues which can be

effective in reducing change orders due to design errors and omissions; they are: (1)

10

architect’s role in reducing design errors and omissions, (2) pre-bid plan review and (3)
documentation.
(a) The Role of an Architect

In Civitello’s publication, Contractor ’s Guide to Change Orders (Civitello,
2002), the responsibilities of the architect from preconstruction to closeout are clearly
deﬁned and include: (1) production and coordination of plans and speciﬁcations, where
architects hold responsibility for generating complete and clear plans with accurate
speciﬁcations, (2) technical accuracy of all documents, (3) workability of the design (the
designer is ultimately responsible for project design and the ability of systems to function
and perform in the manner and to the extent intended), and (4) code compliance (the
designer is assumed to be responsible for specifying technical speciﬁcations in
compliance with codes unless speciﬁc engineering activity is introduced in
subcontracting agreements).

In addition to the architect’s review of plans, third party plan reviews may be
conducted prior to construction to identify potential problems. Plan reviews can help to
reduce the number of change orders caused by design errors and omissions and are
discussed below.

(b) Pre—bid plan reviews - third party plan review process, constructability

The quality of design documents has a direct inﬂuence on the number of change
orders. The better the design documents, the fewer the change orders (O’Brien, 1998).
Changes identiﬁed during the later stages of a project may have more impact than those
identiﬁed in earlier project stages. Changes identiﬁed early in a project are easier to

handle (O’Brien, 1998). Identiﬁcation of possible change orders prior to construction can

11

 

be achieved by the process of third party reviews, and constructability reviews. In a paper
titled “The Constructability Review Process: A Constructor’s Perspective” by
Mendelson, “constructability” is deﬁned as “the integration of construction expertise into
the planning and design of a project so that construction forces have the maximum
opportunity to deliver the project in conformity with the cost, quality, schedule, and
safety objectives of the project’s stakeholders.” The constructability reviewer is deﬁned
as a construction expert who can incorporate construction expertise into the design
process, so that all criteria are met, from aesthetics to proper construction (Mendelson,
1997)

Mendelson identiﬁes two elements which are considered to be the source of
potential problems: (1) plans and speciﬁcations, and (2) contract language, including the
general, supplementary and special provisions. He also suggests that there are advantages
in having the constructability reviewer at the preliminary design phase assess the
potential design and determine the requirements necessary to handle the project. These
procedures promote a cooperative team atmosphere regarding the project.

Constructability during design phase - In a research paper related to
constructability, titled “Improving Constructability During Design Phase,” Glavinich
(1995) explains the importance of constructability with respect to problems related to
scheduling and the time delays caused by design errors and omissions (Glavinich, 1995).
Glavinich indicates that no matter who bears the responsibility, ignoring constructability
during the design phase may lead to conﬂicts during the project, which in turn may lead
to delays, inefﬁcient use of resources, and out of sequence work. These issues impact

major participants of the project with contractors being the ﬁrst to experience it.

12

 

Glavinich also indicates that problems may arise during the pre-bid stage. He
emphasizes that bidding periods are short and may not allow contractors to review plans
and speciﬁcations completely and accurately. Thus, it is the duty of Architects/Engineers
(A/E) to check the quality of design documents at the pre-bid stage. Glavinich recognizes
problems with coordination issues and quality of design documents, and cites them as
major causes of delays and project disruptions. In considering the constructability of a
project, several issues were identiﬁed that included: avoiding activities that delay the
progress of a project, eliminating use of unusual equipment or materials, avoiding the use
of exotic state-of-the-art technologies, and specifying obsolete materials, equipment and
construction techniques.

(c) Plans and speciﬁcations

Civitello’s publication “Contractor’s Guide to Change Orders” (2002) is used
extensively for data analysis in this thesis and is cited several times in this chapter.
Civitello identiﬁes issues related to the sources of change orders and provides detailed
descriptions of plan areas where potential change orders can be found. A broad
representation of a change order discovery checklist developed by Civitello is illustrated
in Table 2.1.

In his discussion of design related issues, Civitello indicates that the designer has
to coordinate drawings and speciﬁcations among the various design disciplines and that a
lack of design follow-up and accurate information can lead to change orders. Civitello
identiﬁes certain telltale phrases in construction plans that reﬂect a lack of design follow-

up such as, “As Shown,” “See Structural,” “See Plans.” Rather than using such phrases,

13

 

 

Civitello suggests providing precise references such as “See Section 0344” instead of

“See Specs,” and “See 2/S4” instead of “See Structural.”

Data
Code
‘ of W

From Utilities Not
Permit

Utilities — A ' Within the Contract Limit Lines

AND BID DOCUMENTS

ward Date
Subcontractors
Allowances
Time
AND SPECIFICATIONS
As lndicated”

Conﬂicts
Conﬂictions
lumn and Beam Locations
the
Telltales
Interfaces
of
a Review of Relevant
Each
There A Preferred Solution?
at“ . .
Schedule vs.
Level of Detail
Fixture Locations
Lines and Plan Orientations
Electrical
Details and Dimensions
and Procedure
Restrictions
Section

and Contours

 

and Electrical Plans

TABLE 2.1.

BROAD OVERVIEW OF CIVITELLO’S CHANGE ORDER DISCOVERY
CHECKLIST (Modified into tabular format) (Civitello, 2002)

In another recommendation, Civitello speciﬁcally discusses change orders caused

by last minute design changes. These may be identiﬁed in plans and speciﬁcation

14

.l".. ‘

4 , .i. . : ‘ ‘1 4‘
. , . . .~. v . _
" . .4 oil v. n L
"L on-u “‘“h‘ﬁii‘t'iaz'ﬂl. 3. '- .

 

 

- ~ .,,.a.ra:-ﬁM"~i-‘:;.ir;gmé};.::;'

sections that have been rewritten, in design details that have been changed, or in materials
and equipment added or deleted at the last minute. Although this practice of adding
details is not considered to be wrong, these changes are sometimes made after drawings
and speciﬁcations have passed ﬁnal checks.

Changes made at this stage should be coordinated with all affected disciplines;
failure of coordination can lead to change orders and errors. Civitello identiﬁes the
following telltale signs to look for in the documents: a different style type on the plans,
handwriting in the speciﬁcations, hand-drawn details on computer-generated plans, out-
of-sequence reference marks and details, out-of-sequence or inserted pages in the
speciﬁcations and details, different handwriting on plans, and inconsistent use of
language (inconsistent ways of saying the same thing may lead to a variety of
interpretations).

Civitello identiﬁes speciﬁcations as a potential area for generating change orders.
A thick set of speciﬁcations that develop over a period of time at an architect’s ofﬁce are
referred to as “fat” speciﬁcations. “Every year more projects are completed, more battles
are won and lost, more arbitrations occur, and more change orders are reluctantly given
up. Each subsequent speciﬁcation then attempts to “beneﬁt” from the experience,”
(Civitello, 2002). In the process of lessons learned from the above, speciﬁcations are
continuously developed that eventually become “fat” speciﬁcations, resulting in
complicated, cryptic, and confusing speciﬁcations that lead to change orders. Civitello
recommends that being cautious about these kinds of speciﬁcations can help avoid

potential change orders.

15

 

 

In a section on “Inadequate Level of Design,” Civitello discusses change orders
that occur due to lack of information and inadequate level of detail. Examples cited by
Civitello include: missing mounting or fastening details, insufﬁcient dimensions, and
vague descriptions of special shapes, angles, and etc.

In discussion related to match lines and plan orientation, Civitello mentions that
in large projects improper match lines and plan orientations can play a role in generating
change orders.

In a ﬁnal important recommendation for avoiding change orders caused by
numerous details and dimension strings, Civitello suggests that providing correct
information the least number of times will be to everyone’s advantage.

((1) Documentation

Historical project documentation can provide base knowledge helpful in
identifying the sources of problems which lead to cost overruns and time delays in future
projects. Unfortunately, not much importance is given to historical documentation in the
industry. “Generally, lessons learned during the construction phase of a project are not
effectively incorporated into the design and construction phases of other projects”
(Kartam, 1995). Good documentation helps to compare current work with that of
previous work, and thus helps to detect problems in advance. The main method for
testing a design is by a process of comparison. “Compare and contrast is the underlying
name of the game” (Brown, 2001). In a paper related to documentation (Brown, 2001),
the author identiﬁed beneﬁts of knowledge acquisition from the construction process and
also the lessons learned are presented. Brown’s research used a survey and interview

processes, and determined that although many organizations have a formal or informal

16

method for obtaining and sharing the data, the main focus is on design aspects rather than
construction. While organizations may use a method to acquire and share data, it is

limited to very few people in the organization.

2.2. Project administration

(a) Selection of an Architect - “Selection of the design professional should be
pragmatic even if the design professional is MICHELANGELO reincarnate ” (O’Brien,
1998).

The major participants in a project, the owner, designer, and contractor have
common project objectives, and an important part of project planning is the selection of
design professionals and contractors (Crowley et.al., 1995). “Selection and retaining
design professionals and constructors is a vital step in producing a quality product”
(Potter et al., 1995). ‘

Depending upon the design needs and scope of a project, architects are hired on
the basis of their specializations and expertise. “The strategic interests of design
purchasers who seek specialized knowledge from their consulting professionals have
motivated many architects to specialize by building type” (Gutrnan, 1988). As the design
of a project plays a vital role in its success, developing a good scope for a project is
crucial and requires high technical and design knowledge on the part of the architect. In a
paper addressing the designer’s construction knowledge and its effects, Battersby and
Yates (2003) summarized research which indicated that designers have limited

knowledge of the construction process.

17

Selection processes for design professionals based on qualiﬁcation criteria are
currently used in the industry. One such system is Qualiﬁcation-based selection2 (QBS).
QBS is addressed in a report titled Qualiﬁcation-Based Selection of Design Professionals.
QBS is a ﬂexible procedure for obtaining architectural, engineering, land surveying, and
other related professional design services on public projects. This system assists the
owner in selecting design professionals based on quality, rather than price.

(b) Prequalification of Contractors — Does it makes a difference?

The selection of contractors also inﬂuences project quality and administration.
This process involves multiple steps, including prequaliﬁcation and bidding. Based on
prequaliﬁcation criteria, contractors are evaluated to determine eligibility for bid
participation. Issues related to selection of contractors are discussed below.

Financial and technical capabilities of contractors are assessed before they are
invited to make a formal bid. This process of evaluation is referred to as “prequaliﬁcation
process of contractors” (Alsugair, 1999). It is considered to be one of the most important
aspects in project decision making, because it helps to eliminate unqualiﬁed contractors.
This decreases cost overruns, time delays, disputes and substandard work (Hatush et.al.,
1997)

In research related to owner-contractor relationships, titled “More STable Owner-
Contractor Relationships” (Dozzi et.al., 1996), construction professionals were asked
about selection criteria for architects, engineers, and contractors. Most of the owner and

consultant (engineer and architect) respondents indicated that they use some form of

 

2 The Michigan QBS Coalition was formed in 1984. The purpose of the coalition is to enhance the public safety by
providing a vehicle for the education and assistance of public ofﬁcials and public owners toward the qualiﬁcations-
based selection approach of design professionals and design professional services. In 1987 it undertook the charge by
the Michigan Legislature in House Concurrent Resolution 206 to provide a documented process.

18

 

prequaliﬁcation or screening in selecting a contractor. This process included: previous
performance, location, ﬁnancial measures, technical capabilities, safety record or safety
program, project team expertise, working relationships, shared understanding of goals,
objectives and interests, quality assurance, execution plan, company culture, management
philosophy, labor relations, and speciﬁc environment programs. Dozzi et.al., (1996)
showed that prequaliﬁcation of the contractor is effective and contributes to the success
of the project.

Many factors are considered during the prequaliﬁcation process of a contractor.
Researchers Hatush et.al., (1997) list the following factors that can be utilized during the

contractor prequaliﬁcation process (Table 2.2).

 

 

 

 

 

Past Failures Management Safety Accountability
Management Personnel Experience Modiﬁcation Rate
Financial Status Length of Time in Business
Bank Arrangements Safety Performance
Ability OSHA Incidence Rate
Management Knowledge Owner/ Contractor Relationship
Project Management Organization Credit Rating
Experiences Financial Stability
Other Relations Technical Support
Past Performance Plant and Equipment

TABLE 2.2

CONTRACTOR SELECTION CRITERIA
(Source: Hatush et.al., 1997)

(c) Bid Evaluation Strategies - Does the lowest bidder always offer the best bid?
The selection of a bidder (contractor) has a tremendous impact on the quality of a
project. “Owners should use sound discretion in evaluating the qualiﬁcations of low
bidders” (Civitello, 2002). Many professionals generally do not consider the practice of
accepting the low bid as a healthy sign for a project’s success. It often raises many

questions such as, “Has a mistake been made in the low bid?” (Crowley et.al., 1995). If a

19

 

 

 

contract is awarded to an unqualiﬁed bidder, there may be errors in estimation which
would affect the progress of the project, and consequently lead to change orders.

Researchers Crowley et.al., (1995) proposed a quantitative evaluation method to
select the best bidder that is consistent with the low bid philosophy. In this method,
emphasis is given to lowest bids, which are termed as “discordant bids,” and are
identiﬁed using a series of implementation steps. In identifying discordant bids, statistical
procedures are used and are elaborated in ﬁve implementation steps: (1) identifying an
exploratory sample from available bids, (2) identifying a suiTable transformation, (3)
testing for homogeneity of variance, (4) estimating the scale of bids, and (5) selecting the
discordant threshold.

In the same paper, public policy implementation of this bid evaluation procedure
is explained in detail, followed by differentiation of alternative procurement procedures
and the proposed bid evaluation procedure. The major drawback discussed is the lack of
professionalism, where the contract award becomes a lottery, rather than a testimony of
managerial skill, construction talent or innovation.

(d) Partnering - Will this really help?

Partnering is a relatively new project administration tool, which can encourage a
cooperative atmosphere on projects. “Partnering is typically deﬁned in one of two ways:
by its intended attributes such as trust, mutual goals, long-term commitment; or by the
process where partnering is seen as a verb, as in developing a mission statement, agreeing
on goals, etc.” (Crowley et.al., 1995)

Partnering develops a mutual understanding between the project participants

before the project starts, and this may have a positive impact on project success. By

20

 

addressing the goals and interests in the early stage of a project, potential problems may
be identiﬁed and resolved in advance. “Partnering offers a challenge to the stakeholders
to ﬁnd mutual advantages in addressing change orders” (O’Brien, 1998).

A research study on owner-contractor relationships utilized a survey, which
included questions on partnering (Dozzi et.al., 1996). The study found projects that used
partnering most, often yielded successful results. Sixty nine projects initially started with
formal partnering continued their relationship until the end maintaining Table
relationship compared with projects without formal partnering. Reasons for declining and

improving relationships found in the study listed in Table 2.3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N DecliningRelationships N Improving Relationships
21 Unclear contract/litigation 25 Trust/positive relationship
20 Change in scgpe/schedule 20 Shared goals
12 Personnel 9 Teamwork/communication
7 Failure to perform 6 Personal changes
7 Lack of trust 3 Clear contract
6 Underbid
N = Number of respondents.
TABLE 2.3
REASONS FOR CHANGES IN OWNER-CONTRACTOR WORKING
RELATIONSHIPS

(Source: Dozzi et.al., 1996)

2.3. Communication between project participants

In all phases of a project’s life-cycle, communication between project participants
plays a vital role in its success. Effective communication between the administrative
division (owner), design function (architect), and the construction force (contractor) is
vital. Lack of communication between these three creates potential for misunderstandings
that eventually lead to change orders causing time delays and cost overruns (Civitello,

2002)

21

 

 

 

 

In the predesign phase the architect is involved with the owner in project scope
deﬁnition; in the design phase, he/she generates plans and speciﬁcations and
communicates with other designers, and during the construction phase he/she
communicates with the construction team. “The architect has a responsibility to satisfy
him/herself that the work is being performed in accordance with the design, as well as
within applicable workmanship standards” (Civitello, 2002). Communication between the
owner and an architect, and communication between architect and other designers heavily
inﬂuences project quality.

(a) Communication between the owner and an architect

“In situations where the ultimate users are not construction-knowledgeable, such
as universities or hospitals, users should be included in the programming process”
(O’Brien, 1998). Effective programming is essential in determining project scope.
(Programming may also be referred by some authors as ﬁmctional brieﬁng or needs

brieﬁng and are used interchangeably in this thesis).

Communication between the owner and an architect in determining project scope
can have a tremendous inﬂuence on project success. The Construction Best Practice
Program (CBPP)3 (1998) deﬁned brieﬁng as “the process by which the client’s
requirements are investigated, developed and communicated to the construction industry”
(CBPP, 1998, Hassanen; et al., 2000). A proper functional brief can be instrumental in

developing a preferred design and can help to avoid potential change orders.

 

3 The Construction Best Practice Program (CBPP) is a program which is aimed at developing an
understanding and explanation of the beneﬁts of best practices and providing guidance to UK client
organizations to make them available with skills which can support implementation of any new changes.
This program is supported by Environment Transport and Regions and the Construction Industry Board.

22

 

 

In a paper titled “Improving Construction Client Satisfaction Through Emotional
Brieﬁng” (Seay et.al., 2003) issues related to the importance of Functional Brieﬁng (F B)
are addressed. In this paper, the authors indicate that althoughF B occupies a signiﬁcant
place in project planning, the function of the brief is not well understood by all
participants. A brief allows an owner to explicitly indicate project requirements and goals

to an architect.

This clear deﬁnition of a project at its outset facilitates the smooth ﬂow of a
project and helps eliminate any major changes. Inadequate time and thought at an early
stage of a project is considered to be a major cause of poor deﬁnition of projects.

(Kamara, et al., 2002).

Due to variations in projects and a lack of standard procedures for brieﬁng, a
check list was developed by the authors for use by designers during the early stages of

project planning. Figure 2.2 illustrates a summary checklist for brieﬁng.

         
    
  
 
  
  
  

 

  
   
  

BRE
A.

1
Identiﬁcation

Resources and Context
C. Desi

      
  

 

B.

  
  
 
 

BSRIA

     
 

Title
' Team

of the

   
 

 

The
The

Cost

  
 

      
 
  
 
 
  

Details Future Work

   

  
  
  
 

B S 7832
Identiﬁcation

Resources and Context
and Performance

  

A.
B.
C. Desi

FIGURE 2.2
SUMMARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHECKLIST FOR BRIEFING
(Source: Cheong, Anumba, Hill and Bouchlaghem, 2003)

23

 

 

As a part of this research Seay et.al., (2003) conducted a survey in the United
Kingdom to identify perceptions on FB. Industry practitioners, consisting of clients,
consultants and contractors, were surveyed. The survey found that 64 percent of the
respondents use a standard methodology in brieﬁng, and the remaining 36 percent do not
follow any standard methodology (Seay et.al., 2003).

(b) Communication between design disciplines

A project team is comprised of various design professionals who work on the
single objective of successful project completion. “All systems, structural, mechanical,
electrical, site, architectural, and many specialty systems, must satisfy their own
respective requirements while keeping within the grand scheme of the project” (Civitello,
2002). Due to so many project participants and lack of coordination between them, there
is possibility for error. Lack of coordination between project participants can lead to
many problems in a project. “Some of the most signiﬁcant areas in which the risks of
error and oversight are extremely high are the points where the various design disciplines

interface with each other” (Civitello, 2002).

In a paper related to design coordination for building projects, Tarek et.al., (2000)
indicated that the management of changes is crucial, since changes made in one discipline
will have effects on other disciplines. The authors of this study stress the need for
documentation of a design rationale, which is helpful in avoiding problems which ﬂow
from lack of coordination among design disciplines.

2.4. Summary
The literature review addressed various causes of change orders along with

activities conducted prior to construction which inﬂuence the quantity of change orders.

24

Th:

C31

18"

SCI

 

 

The literature review helped to provide a basic understanding of issues that inﬂuence the
causes and prevention of change orders. Several related topics addressed in the literature
review include: design errors and omissions, architect selection, functional briefmg,
scope deﬁnition, pre-bid issues and contract documents/bid strategies. The literature was

used by the researcher in formulating strategies for reducing of change orders

25

 

CHAPTER 3

26

3.0

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction

This section presents the methodology used for this research, and brieﬂy

introduces the umbrella project. The methodology is outlined below and is presented

graphically in Figure 3.1. The broad methods used for this study include:

1)
2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

Literature review.
Analysis of the MSU project database.
Development of questionnaires for architects, contractors, subcontractors, and
university construction personnel, which sought information on change order
management practices and causes of change orders.
Interviews with outside architects, contractors, and subcontractors.
Interviews with construction personnel of ﬁve universities.
Comparison of the data obtained from interviews, with the literature review and the
database, to ﬁnd correlations and to identify sources of change orders.
Interviews with construction personnel of a case study university, to gain their insight
regarding plan review processes and on the development of a plan review checklist.
Development of preconstruction change order prevention strategies which include:

a. Development of a plan review checklist.

b. Development of recommendations for preconstruction activities, including

selection of architects, project communications and functional brieﬁng.

Validation of the checklist through interviews with three MSU construction

personnel.

27

 

[Literature Review I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Study Questionnaire Development I
Database Analysis
Construction Professionals
Ilnterviews ‘ [University Personnel
[Case StudLPersonnel
i r
[Data Comparison Interviews:
Plan Review Checklist
Study of Civitello's ﬂue Dame Checklist I Deyelopment
Publication I
i

 

3.1. Literature Review
Literature and research which addressed design errors and omissions, selection of
architects, scope deﬁnition, functional brieﬁng, contractor prequaliﬁcation and selection,

pre-bid plan reviews, commissioning, and partnering, was reviewed and summarized. An

Recommendations Development I

 

I Plan Review Checklist I

 

 

 

[ Validation I

 

FIGURE 3.1 METHODOLOGY

overview of the literature review was presented in chapter 2.

3.2. MSU Database Analysis

As a part of the umbrella project, a database was created from MSU construction
projects ﬁles. Data was collected on 1,675 change order items listed on a total of 159
change orders for 19 contracts and 16 projects. Data contained a variety of variables

including changeorder code (COID), change order item code (CIID), change order item

28

description, projects, and CSI divisions (the cost per CSI division associated with each

COID). Table 3.1 lists the variables included in the database, which were used for this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thesis.

Project Table Information

Project ID MSU Project Number assigned to all MSU projects

Project Descrilnion Project name assigned to project

Change Order Table Information

Change Order ID (COID) Change order code included in the database

Project ID MSU Project Number assigned to all MSU projects
Number of change order in sequence for a particular

Change Order Number project

Previous Contract Amount Original contract amount or subsequent totals after prior
change orders

New Contract Amount Contract price after adjustments for change orders to date

Chang: Contract Sum Net increase or decrease resulting from change orders

Change Order Item Table Information

Change Order Item ID (CIID) Change order item code in the database

Reason Code The reason category for the item using a MSU Contracts
and Grants coding system.

Change Order Item Description Narrative description of the change order item

ChangOrder Amount Total contract adjustment due to the change order

 

 

TABLE 3.1 VARIABLES OF THE DATABASE I

The MSU Contract and Grant Administration (CGA) has developed standard
deﬁnitions referred to as “reason codes,” which are used to classify the causes of change
order items. The CGA system includes 20 codes, and for this thesis, these reason codes
were grouped into broad categories including: (1) design (change order items related to
design errors and omissions), (2) ﬁeld (change order items related to ﬁeld changes), and
(3) scope (change order items related to scope changes). Approximately one quarter of
the change order items in the database had reason codes previously assigned by CGA.
For items not previously classiﬁed, the researchers assigned reason codes using CGA
standard deﬁnitions when possible. Paper ﬁles, including correspondence, bulletins, and

other documentation for each item, were reviewed to determine reason codes when they

29

had not been previously speciﬁed. Refer to Appendix I for a complete description of
CGA reason codes. Where reason codes did not exist or could not be assigned for some
change order items they were left as unspeciﬁed.
3.2.1. Analysis

The analyses performed in this research are reported below. The steps used were
organization of the data, development of a format for analysis, sorting of the data per
analysis requirements, and development of ﬁnal recommendations.

The project database was developed using MS Access software. Figures 3.2 and
3.3 below show the conceptual structure of the database; Data was exported into MS
Excel for analysis, categorization, sorting and retrieval. (Refer to Figure 3.4).

DD‘UQW' rcbrlXDa'Q.

 

 

.IaII-III'U IMJ nu Mada") [MI-ml Mid-M Mlﬂlnl mum“
mo n’ . _ can a corn . ' _ cm - . A
w mm I hon-rub L corn “ coo
hem W Own-at Wt wt
. M - m (Wm ﬂow-(at ' (“do ’ ”Mow IMO“
new v Iﬂbdn v hon V W: v rom- V W v m w:
lurch-i1 Ming-ill II»:- kn. . in in! I Menthol L
Dunn A I m A ' (no A I (orb 2 (0|)
m - w "MID ‘ m
hm hm 00.0-6- - .
W W (mm Calida nin-
- a V (alumni v new to ma- v inoc-
' (We
“SUI
- .
VIM
mum
amen
mun
W
m
cm-

FIGURE 3.2 EXCERPT OF DATABASE SHOWING
RELATIONSHIPS IN MS ACCESS

30

IIIIIII

sooo‘o-v

 

 

 

DIIJTIIIIIITV

 

o-..o.o-...

DIIIIIIIII

........-

 

.31. --a£nn:naa
r alumni smalls; .
2 sum minnow mom no on to a camel. use
a norm: mrmm new: mun Downers-dc
o o

 

WW
o

 
 
   

 

..__ hm ,
W5!" Chaim Guile- w
”W St and I Mu Sn” SM .6
”Phys“ S< manna IQ Mm. Sumo-I W
W tn EM M Gm

        

 
 
 
 
 

m
WI!!! MIMI

 

Contact: and
I Contact! and ( MIMI
Carma out

Canluclu and ("mi
.m. magi/1m

 

tam“ 51mm!!!) 511715197 uiﬂlw -
INN/Jim 2 mun/um
__. _ _L.._ _ ,, _,
CHI-«qwmunmw
_Wu MMMCMMVM

   

FIGURE 3.3 EXCERPT OF DATABASE SHOWING VARIOUS
CHANGE ORDER VARIABLES IN MS ACCESS

31

 

 

 

 

 

E Microsoft ExdeT 3 Change Orde Color wrf1-30.04 7’“ _"
12] BE Etit 119w risen Farmet Iools pom undow Lick)
aDﬁEdéa%O-i.‘ZvQIBIW%v.:’Arlal .1ovnlu§££§_
E37 v ﬁr 1013:2002
.-. A? B jg 777C 77,? 7 D _ W E 7“ ,, ________ _ rmhwg g
. 1 ‘CllD zICOID :IChangeOrderNo _v_IReesonCode _vjltemlntDate :IChangeltemDesc
2_s 706 _ 90 ,. 7 0 All 973/1999 Update documents to coordinate stairs wrth changes madet
3 3 487 116 0 03 7/11f2001 Revise layout materials and details in courtyard
4 j 356 62 0 D3 1719:2001 Value engineering issue drawings (includes bulletin#6)
_ 5 I 1531 121 0 D3 9-"16.-'2002 Reuse door 1C2 from a double door to one 4' X 7 door
6 ‘ 701 90 0 D3 1123/1999 Reuse door sizes and hardware add mullions at doors as sh
7 474 103 0 D4 4227:2001 Furnish all labor material and equrpment to construct a stear
8 . 1335 150 0 D4 10:"23-‘2001 Proceed Wllh labor material and testing to install seventeen l:
_9 i 433 69 1 Dept Scope 67"16/1999 Approved quote for BUIIGIIMI
10‘ 1309 146 1 Dept Scope 3930-2003 General trades budget overrun
1L. 939 118 2 Documents 11-"13'2001 Delete 1213A exhaust. add compressed air piping add hard
12: 1129 139 2 Documents 2120/2003 Remodel control room
l 134 1541 159 2 Documents 10-‘11/2002 Revise AHle outsnde air measurement and controls andd s
. 14a 1495 93 2 Documents 292852000 Relocate and add ﬁre extingursher cabinets.
.15.; 438' _ 72 2 Documents 04 3-‘1/1999 CCD CDt-3::Miscellaneous items listed in Chnstman's qur
16j 545 125 2 Documents 04 8/16/2001 Modify west time per sketch C7 4 and C7 5 and also per lett
_ 174 1532 121 3 Field 1177:2002 Additional blinds ln Room 1300
181‘ 1533 121 3 Field 7-“12/2002 Add motorized operators to cooling tower CT-1A and CT-1B I
. 19. 155 31 4 Field 4115/2000 lnstall temporary protection for special events
20 189 36 4 Field 9212:2000 Clean the office Break Room Hallway. Waiting Room and R;
217 199 40 4 Field 1113012001 Construction Testing.
221 200 41 4 Field 11290002 Extended general conditions as quoted in letter dated Janual
.231 225 45 4 Field Testing invoices (SME).
24 l 238 47 4 Field 161998 Remove plaster ceiling in A9 annex hallways which totals ap
* 25‘ 243 49 4 Field 3226/1998 Remove asbestos insulation in areas not outlined in docume
26, 245 49 4 Field 411311998 Labor and material for project Sign
27I 251 50 4 Field 713031998 Increase testing allowance
28" _ 335 56 ,. 4 Field 4715/1999 Install temporary rooiat commons tie-in
ZS‘I 336 56 4 Field 101871999 Temporary walkway during work in commons
304 __ 3'40~ _ __ 57 _ 4 Field _ _ 3122;2000 Additional Site work _ ~
’31“ 341 57 4 Field 3122/2000 Extended general conditions
327 342 _ 58 _ _ _ _ 4 Field _ _ _ 9/21/2000 Addltlcnal testln allowarﬂ _ _ _ _ _
33j W 69' _ . ”isla- ., 112371999Paorm thin-pile load-test perTDgf-‘7 I
344. 7 78 4 Field 8/27/1999 Per specrflcation section 00110.1 2A5 8. 00204.1 7.the belt I
._ - QJ, ‘_ ,7__ .-___.__-___' I u - - - 'r‘ __
«“5 » 1m worsened: 1sme-zilc’3'ri’é‘r‘eez z rviasonds_Zii-£Ts__ii¥‘iiioimm WWII-0m .

FIGURE 3.4
ORGANIZATION OF CSI DIVISIONS IN MS EXCEL SPREAD SHEET

The data in MS Excel was organized on the basis of CSI divisions as shown in
Figure 3.4. Change order items in the database were placed in 16 different MS Excel
worksheets by CSI division. Additionally one worksheet, which included all data from all
projects and CSI divisions, was created for analysis of the entire data set (referred to as

All Data).

32

(a) Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative analysis was run on each CSI division and, on the entire data set to
determine the causes of change orders associated with each individual CSI division, and
their aggregate costs. Aﬁer determining the number and costs of change orders by C51
divisions, all change order items were examined based on grouped reason codes (design
errors and omissions, ﬁeld, and scope). The “All Data” worksheet was analyzed in order
to ﬁnd the change order items generated and the cost associated with each grouped reason

code.

(b) Narrative Description Analysis

After completion of the quantitative analysis discussed above, the narrative
descriptions of each change order item were evaluated using key words identiﬁed for
each CSI division. The purposes of the keyword analyses were to correlate the causes of
change orders with Civitello’s change order discovery checklist, and to determine if
common causes could be identiﬁed. Additional keywords were developed for the “All
Data” worksheet as well. Refer to Figure 3.5 for an excerpt showing the narrative
descriptions. As 334 items did not have narrative descriptions, only 1,341 change order
items were used for analysis. Using a Keywords-In-Context (KWIC)4 approach various
key words were identiﬁed for frequency counts in respective CSI divisions; the search
was performed using MS Excel software. Examples of identiﬁed key words in the

database are duct, ceiling, beam and columns. Refer to Appendix II for complete list of

 

‘ Key-words-in-context (KWIC) is closely associated with indigenous categories. KWIC is based on a
simple observation: if you want to understand a concept, then look at how it is used. In this technique,
researchers identify key words and then systematically search the corpus of text to ﬁnd all instances of the
word or phrase. Each time they ﬁnd a word, they make a copy of it and its immediate context. Themes get
identiﬁed by physically sorting the examples into piles of similar meaning (Ryan et.al., 2003)

33

key words. All key words were documented with the number of occurrences in that
particular CSI division. The same keywords were also used for the “All Data” worksheet,
which acted as a supplement to the keyword search performed for each CSI division. The
frequency of recurring words was recorded and the occurrences were checked on the
basis of each project. Keywords that had lower rates of recurrence were compared with
other analyses. For example, if a certain keyword had lower occurrences, then the same
keyword was checked for reference in Civitello’s checklist, the database analysis, a
Quality Control Checklist (QCC) used by University of Notre Dame, and responses of
interviews. If the keyword had been addressed in any of those comparisons, and found to
be relevant, those items were included in the checklist. As searches were conducted some
of the sources of change orders could be identiﬁed, which then were used as a basis for
development of a plan review checklist and recommendations. Refer to Appendix II for

the list of keywords identiﬁed in each CSI division.

 

 

 

 

_ _ __t'r .A'. ' _ _ L._ ”-7—. i ,, _ . 1-4.» e-_2.?..,3._r. - ILL-4 l ' __. -_..
l
i . l |

7‘17__iPro]ect NtCllD COID ChangoOiRomnC ltemln I ChangeltemDeac

772 ‘Jennison F 143) 157 7 11 D3 7 7 677 I I2 Install new continuous hinges on doors 110.3 and 110.2.

g lJennison 1:7 - 1455 7 157 _ _ 11 D4 777 77 7 5/1 I I2 Remove existing doors and frame to Room 1E5 and replace with right-hand swing

774 7MSU Bio-F 460 7 93 13 D4 9671' 3' Add door and frame at corndornﬁ.

775 7 MSU Bio-F 77 740 7 so 7 13 D4 9371'? Add door at vending 3203. ,

7 6 7MSU Bio-E 741 so 13 D4 7 97371' I' Add door at vending 4203. 77
7 (MSU BiooF 748 93 13 D4 7 9871' :' Add transom panel at door 1219 to accommodate monorail beam.

787 7MSU Bio-F 77 7 876 1(1) 7 23 D4 7’ 7 777 III At pantry doors 1425A and 14mAAoors at east elevation aregto be 2B'X7'wood7l

_97 7MSU BioF 1501 94 17 D4 - I II Change door 1st2-2 from hollow metal to aluminum.

7710 MSU Bio-F 663 88 11 04 117971' 2' Clarify door number on drawing (refer to RFI#179).

L717LMSU Bio-F 1499 7 w 94 _ 7 17 D4 _ _ 4 . I II Provide electrical strikes at doors DOS-1,8212, 78223. and 8224. 77 _ .._ “

7172aMSU Bio-F 7 847 % 77 21 D4 76 I III Revise door 77103-2 to be an aluminum door and frame (RFMII79)

13 MSU Bio-F 884 101 24 D4 - .. Revise door no.2l40—2 to be a 'B' label door,door type N with wire glass,with han
147iMSU Bio-F 7 7437 so 7 13 D4 9071' :' Revise doors to B label.
15 MSU Bio-F 747 so 13 D4 7 9371’ 9 Revise size of doors 12013.1255A-3J260A—1 and 1M3.

_17677MSU Bio-F 2 749 - so 713 D4 7 _ _ 9/371 ' :' Revrse Size ofdoors14101,14151.1440-1,and14108-1 to coordinate with elev
17 MSU Bio-F 746 I) 13 D4 9871' :' Revrse size of overhead doors to accommodate chillers.

H187 IMSU Cycll 1248 7 143 7 10 D4 - I I3 Add transformer to touch-free door opener. 7 7
19 MSU Cycli 1179 140 7 05 1/1- I I3 Replace speciﬁed lire door closures with ones that work in the designed space.
720 jJennison F 13437 7 151 5 Document: 9 1: I I1 1.Revisrons to laundry room 1450 and requrrements for owner equrpment.

H21 7JennisonF7 _7 13417 777 151 .-.-_- 5 Documentz9719 I I1 Add door hardware at door 325 1. 7 77 7 7 _ _ 7 ___

722 lMSU BioF $47 110 33 Document: 771 Ill Add an anchor hinge to doors 12191 and 1267-3 (RF14823)

7237 :MSU Bio-F 797 108 31 Document: . I i1 Add closer to door 1103—2 and provide new doors with smaller lites,auto flash bolt
_247‘MSU Bio—F7 __q 856 7 7 99 ””7 22 Document: 8/14 I II Add LCN 4011 door closer in the active leaf of doors 1308 and 1402 (RF11655) __
25 AMSU Bio-F 481 110 33 Document: 771 I It Add threshold and weatherstripping to door 8238-2 (RF14822)

‘V: MIDI! D2- 7" 04‘: 4m ‘34" h ....... a. «no 4 It 4... [I‘d vim-'4- .. 'D'I-L.I lea-ll..." __-.-I J... h. '2... -‘_-- ”4-4 anon-J J .....

 

 

FIGURE 3.5 EXCERPT OF DATABASE SHOWING
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTIONS

34

(c) Data Reporting

Three different reports were developed during the study, which included: (1) the
CSI division quantitative analysis, (2) narrative descriptions of change order items, and
(3) comparison of the Civitello change order discovery checklist with the MSU database.
The CSI quantitative analysis report is included in Chapter 4, under the discussion of CSI
division analysis (Refer to Appendix VI). The narrative description analysis and

comparison to the Civitello’s checklist is included in Chapter 5.

The results of the database analyses were integrated with information obtained
from the interviews and literature review and together were used to develop the plan
review checklist and preconstruction change order prevention strategies suiTable for

MSU and for other large universities.
3.3. Interviews

As part of the umbrella project, researchers conducted interviews with ten MSU
personnel from Physical Plant and Engineering/ Architectural Services (EAS), two
architects, six contractors, four subcontractors, and construction personnel from Purdue
University, University of Wisconsin, University of Notre Dame, and University of

Minnesota.

Approximately 40 individuals in total were interviewed to gain the insights of
construction professionals. A target list of interviewees was developed by a university
Oversight Committee appointed for the umbrella project. The list included ﬁrms that had
worked for MSU in the past. The researchers short-listed ﬁrms for conﬁdentiality

purposes and sought their participation in the study. Interviews were conducted by

35

faculty and graduate research assistants. The identiﬁcation of the ﬁrms interviewed was

not disclosed to the Oversight Committee.

The purposes of the interviews were: 1) to gather information regarding change
order trends, 2) to identify existing change order management practices and 3) to gather
information about the possibilities for improvements in the change orders process. The
questionnaire was broadly categorized into seven sections: (1) background or
demographic questions, (2) design services, (3) building and pre-bid plan reviews, (4)
causes of change orders, (5) quality standards, (6) project delivery systems, and (7)
documentation. Interviewees were contacted prior to the interview by telephone to
determine their willingness to participate and to schedule the interviews. Interviews
lasted approximately 60 minutes with the questionnaire presented to the interviewees at
the time of the interview. The entire interviewing process was completed within one
month. The questionnaire was submitted to the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) for approval prior to conducting the interviews.

Notes were taken during the open-ended interviews by the researchers and
responses were paraphrased, tabulated, and aggregated. The data obtained from the
interviews were managed in MS Excel software. Refer to Appendix III for the tabulated
data of the interviews. This information was utilized to identify typical change order
management practices and was useful in developing strategies for prevention of change
orders.

3.4. Comparison of the Data to Identify Major Causes of Change Orders
The data obtained from the interviews was compared with the literature review

and with the results of database analysis to check for correlation. Using this comparison,

36

sources of change orders related to design errors and omissions were identiﬁed, and
recommendations were developed for reducing design errors and omissions which may
lead to change orders.
3.5. Interviews with Construction Personnel of the Case Study University

The researcher conducted interviews with ﬁve construction personnel of the case
study university in order to gain their insights on plan review processes, and for
development of a plan review checklist. The questionnaire addressed departmental plan
review processes (if any), suggestions for a plan review checklist, and time period for
plan review.
3.6. Development of Preconstruction Change Order Prevention Strategies

Development of Plan Review Checklist

Based on the results of the database analysis and the integration with the
interview responses, literature review, and a checklist from the University of Notre
Dame, potential areas of change orders were identiﬁed and a change order checklist was
developed. This process is discussed in chapter 5. This checklist addresses the
architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical design disciplines. The checklist can
aid in identifying sources of change orders related to design errors and omissions prior to
construction, and can be implemented at four stages of the plan review process including:
(1) conceptual level, (2) schematic level, (3) design development level, and (4) contract
documents level.

Developing Preconstruction Change Order Prevention Strategies

From the literature review and interviews, the researcher developed additional

strategies for reducing change orders caused due to design errors and omissions. The

37

recommendations include: aspects of functional brieﬁng, recommendations related to C81
division 15 and 16, and selection of architects.
3.7. Validation

The plan review checklist was submitted for review to the construction personnel
of Michigan State University in order to validate its effectiveness. Two MSU
construction departments, Architectural and Engineering Services and Campus Park and
Planning (CP & P), were chosen for validation.
3.8. Summary

This chapter introduced the methodology used for the thesis and provided a brief
description of the database and its analyses, the interview process and the development of

a plan review checklist.

38

CHAPTER 4

39

CHAPTER 4: DATA REPORTING

4.0. Introduction

This chapter presents the data used for this study, and its analysis. In this
research, a quantitative analysis of CSI divisions was conducted and a narrative
description analysis was performed using a keyword search approach referred to as
KWIC (keywords-In-context). Additionally interviews were conducted with construction
professionals to gain an insight into change order management practices in industry.
4.1. Data Collection

The MSU database was created from project ﬁles. Overall, the projects in the
database totaled $133.35 million at contract start, and their ending cost was $144.19
million, the total increase by change order was $10.84 million, or 8.1 percent from
starting contract price. Projects selected for the database ranged from approximately $90
million for a new project, to a $313,000 contract for renovations. Projects that were
predominantly new buildings or substantial additions were classiﬁed as new buildings.
Projects that consisted mostly of renovation work were classiﬁed as renovations. The
database consisted of eleven contracts classiﬁed as new buildings and eight contracts
classiﬁed as renovations. A breakdown of costs by C81 division for the entire project set
was developed to determine the relative impact of cost of CSI divisions on a project, as

shown in Table 4.1.

40

Total Costs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CSI

Division By Division %
1 $8,609,625 6 %
2 $12,418,425 9 %
3 $9,642,198 7 %
4 $10,388,214 8 %
5 $8,626,550 6 %
6 $2,537,656 2 %
7 $4,147,514 3 %
8 $5ﬂ56,l95 4 %
9 $7,038,028 5 %
10 $718,515 1 %
11 $7,322,868 5 %
12 $318,157 0 %
13 $1,226,832 1 %
14 $1,186,312 1%
15 $39,156,403 29 %
16 $14,114,828 11%

TOTAL $133ﬁ18,320 100 %

 

TABLE 4.1 SCHEDULE OF VALUES PER CSI DIVISION
OF ALL PROJECTS IN THE DATABASE

Table 4.1 shows that CSI division 15 accounted for the greatest cost'($39 million,
29%) of the aggregate total cost of the project, followed by CSI division 16 ($14 million,
11%). CSI division 10 ($718,515, 1%), CSI division 13 ($1.2 million, 1%), CSI division

14 ($1.1 million, 1%), and CSI division 12 ($318,157) were small inﬂuencers with each

division accounting for 1% of the total cost.

41

 

4.2. “All Data” Analysis

The data in the, “All Data” worksheet was analyzed using reason codes in order to
ﬁnd the general sources of change orders. The “All Data” worksheet was sorted on the
basis of CSI divisions in order to ﬁnd the number of change order items associated with
each division (Refer to Figure 4.1) and the increase in contract amount (Refer to Figure

4.2).

 

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141518
CSIDMann

FIGURE 4.]. NUMBER OF CHANGE ORDER ITEMS PER CSI DIVISION

 

1234567891011121314151617
CSIDManM

FIGURE 4.2
COST GENERATED BY CHANGE ORDER ITEMS PER CSI DIVISION

42

 

 

Figure 4.1 shows that CSI division15 (308) and division 16 (267) were involved
in the greatest number of change order items, followed by divisions 2 (208) and division
9 (148). For this analysis 1341 change order items were used, but because some change
order items involved more than one CSI division, the total numbers of CSI division
citations are 1530.

Figure 4.2 shows that CSI division 2 ($2.437 million) is associated with the
largest cost increase, followed by CSI division 15 ($1.196 million) and CSI division 16 ($
842,847). For the purpose of the cost analysis, change order items were broken into CSI
divisions, and the proportional cost which could be assigned to each division was
determined. Change order costs assigned to each change order item were then aggregated
to obtain the totals reported in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.3 shows that design errors and omissions items (394) caused the most
change order items in the database, followed by ﬁeld conditions (286) and scope (256).
However, when considering costs Figure 4.4 shows that ﬁeld conditions accounted for
$2,202,527, followed by scope ($2,039,145) and design errors and omissions
($1,790,336). As the reason codes, “miscellaneous”, and “reason not speciﬁed” had not
been used for the analysis, the number of change order items and cost increases do not
correlate with the total number and cost of the grouped reason codes mentioned above.
(Refer to Table 4.2). The researcher found that two change order items skewed the data
and made scope changes the most costly reason code. These items were CIID 477 and
CIID 487 of the MSU Bio-Physical Sciences project and were preplanned and generated
approximately $880,000 in change cost. Similary, items CIID 474, 482 and 493 generated

approximately $812,322, which heavily inﬂuenced the “ﬁeld” grouped reason code.

43

 

 

 

 

 

Design Field Conditions Scope

FIGURE 4.3

NUMBER OF CHANGE ORDER ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODES

 

Design Field Conditions Scope

FIGURE 4.4

COST OF CHANGE ORDER ITEMS PER
GROUPED REASON CODES

44

CSI Division Analysis

Aﬁer analyzing the “All Data” worksheet, each CSI division was analyzed to ﬁnd
the number of change order items, and the increase in contract amount associated with
each grouped reason code. Analysis of each CSI division is reported below by referring
to the number of change order items and cost associated with each grouped reason code
in parentheses, for example: In CSI division 1, the number of change order items of ﬁeld
conditions is (18), and cost is ($90,835). Refer to Appendix V1 for charts related to each
CSI division, and refer to Table 4.2 for an overview of the CSI division change order
item analysis. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 are included below as examples, showing charts of CSI

division 1.

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE 4.5
CSI DIVISION 1 — NUMBER OF CHANGE ORDER
ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODES

45

 

140000

1 20000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

 

Design Field Scope
FIGURE 4.6
CSI DIVISION 1 — COST OF CHANGE ORDER ITEMS PER
GROUPED REASON CODES

46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals grouped reason codes,
Totals grouped reason including Design, Field, Scope,
codes, Design, Field and Miscellaneous and
CSI Variable Design Field Scope Scope . Reason not speciﬁed
1 Number 1 1 18 16 45 72
Cost $76,453 $90,835 $1 18,667 $285,955 $310,597
2 Number 28 107 27 162 208
Cost $50,440 $1,219,840 $170,545 $1,440,825 $2,437,182
3 Number 12 22 20 54 69
Cost $7,285 $260,228 $175,1 19 $442,632 $468,204
4 Number 31 5 20 56 74
Cost $168,434 $12,339 $227,706 $408,479 $418,578
5 Number 53 34 9 96 1 12
Cost $136,468 $168,331 $197,102 $501,901 $613,062
6 Number 14 7 10 31 48
Cost $17,448 $5,129 $41,125 $63,702 $81,899
7 Number 15 7 13 35 49
Cost $14,919 $18,016 $28,449 $61,384 $62,280
8 Number 47 7 25 79 94
Cost $1 17,750 $3,820 $35,870 $157,440 $179,260
9 Number 39 23 39 101 148
Cost $53,948 $31,705 $87,470 $173,123 $267,833
10 Number 10 2 24 36 40
Cost $12,498 $9,187 $37,128 $58,813 $59,188
1 1 Number 6 l 9 16 28
Cost $9,112 $312 $5,195 $14,619 $60,953
12 Number 2 0 6 8 8
Cost $4,504 $0 $25,225 $29,729 $29,729
13 Number 1 0 O 1 2
Cost ($1,964) $0 $0 ($1,964) $2,635
14 Number 0 0 1 1 3
Cost $0 $0 $25,655 $25,655 $29,623
15 Number 119 57 44 220 308
Cost $627,891 $92,464 $212,864 $933,219 $1,196,302
1 6 Number 61 44 69 174 267
Cost $216,560 $99,055 $339,529 $655,144 $842,847

 

 

TABLE 4.2 NUMBER AND AGGREGATE COSTS OF CHANGES BY
CSI DIVISION

CSI 1 — General Data

 

 

 

CSI division 1 represents “General Requirements” of a project, which include:
price and payment procedures, administrative requirements, quality requirements,
temporary facilities and controls, product requirements and execution requirements, etc.,

In the MSU database, 45 change order items were associated with CS1 division 1 and

47

 

were used for analysis. When considering the grouped reason code analysis, ﬁeld
conditions (18) accounted for the most change order items, followed by scope (16),
design errors and omissions (11). The cost analysis showed that scope changes (118,667
dollars) accounted for the greatest cost increase, followed by ﬁeld changes ($90,835) and
design changes ($76,453).
CSI 2 — Site Work

CSI division 2 addresses site construction, demolition, restoration and
rehabilitation. In the MSU database, 162 change order items were associated with
division 2, and were used for analysis. Field conditions (107) accounted for the most
change order items, whereas design errors and omissions and scope changes were 28 and
27 respectively. The cost analysis show that ﬁeld changes ($1.2 million) accounted for 90
percent of the total cost increased within the division, followed by scope changes
($170,545, 8%), and design errors and omissions ($50,440, 2.1%). CIID 493, 474 and
482 caused by ﬁeld conditions accounted for $812,332 of the total $1,219,840 caused by
ﬁeld conditions, and therefore this grouped reason code accounted for the greatest cost
increase.
CSI 3 — Concrete

54 items were associated with CSI division 3, and were used for analysis. As in
division 2, ﬁeld conditions (22) was the dominate cause of change order items
contributing 41 percent of total changes. However, scope changes (20) were also a
signiﬁcant cause constituting approximately 37 percent. The results of the cost analysis
were consistent with the number of change order items. Field changes ($260,228)

accounted for 58 percent of the total cost increase, followed by scope changes

48

 

($175,119), which were approximately 40 percent. Design errors and omissions ($7,285)
were the least, approximately 1.5 percent of total dollar amount ($442,632). As in CS1
divisions 1 and 2, ﬁeld changes are associated with the most change order items and
greatest cost increase. Change order items associated with the addition of an electrical
ductbank, and communication ductbank heavily inﬂuenced the cost of the “ﬁeld”
grouped reason code.
CSI 4 - Masonry

56 items were associated with C81 division 4, and were used for analysis. Design
errors and omissions (31) accounted for the most change order items, constituting
approximately 56%. These were followed by scope changes (20) and ﬁeld conditions (5).
The cost analysis show that scope changes ($227,706, 35%) accounted for the greatest
total cost increase within the division, followed by design errors and omissions
($168,434) and ﬁeld changes ($12,339). The change order items coded as design errors
and omissions are mostly due to lack of information on plans and speciﬁcations, which
prompted drawing revisions and change in scope of work.
CSI 5 - Metals

CSI division 5 Metals includes: structural steel, joists, metal framing, and other
fabrication metal items. In the database, 96 change order items were associated with CS1
division 5. Design errors and omission (53) accounted for the most change order items,
whereas ﬁeld changes and scope changes were 34 and 9 respectively. In the cost analysis,
the order was reversed with scope ($197,102) causing the greatest increase, and was

followed by ﬁeld conditions ($168,331), and design errors and omissions ($136,468).

49

 

 

 

From the change order item descriptions, it can be found that these changes are due to
revisions in layout, change in materials, and missing information or details.
CSI 6 — Wood & Plastics I

CSI division 6 includes work associated with basic wood and plastic materials. In
the database, 31 items were associated with CSI division 6. Design errors and omissions
(14, 45%) accounted for the most change order items, followed by scope (10, 32%), and
ﬁeld conditions (7, 23%). The cost analysis showed that scope changes ($41,125, 65%)
accounted for the greatest increase in cost, followed by design errors and omissions
($17,448) and ﬁeld conditions ($5,129). Value engineering of millwork for one project
accounted for signiﬁcant amount of the scope change total.
CSI 7 - Thermal and Moisture Protection

Thermal and moisture protection, dampproofmg, waterprooﬁng, shingles,
ﬂashing, sealers, rooﬁng and siding panels constitute the major part of CSI division 7. In
the database 35 change order items were associated with CSI division 7. Design errors
and omissions (15), accounted for the most change order items, followed by scope
changes (13) and ﬁeld conditions (7). The cost analysis showed that scope changes
($28,449, 46%) accounted for greatest cost increase, followed by design errors and
omissions ($14,919, 28%), and ﬁeld changes ($18,016, 7%). In this division, change
order items caused by errors and omissions, accounted for the greatest number of change
order items and cost increase. These items were generally caused by drawings errors or

details which would not achieve the objective as designed, or missing information.

50

 

CSI 8 — Doors and Windows

79 items were associated with CS1 division 8. Design errors and omissions (47)
accounted for the most change order items, followed by scope (25) and ﬁeld conditions
(7). The cost analysis showed that design errors and omissions ($117,750) accounted for
the greatest cost increase, followed by scope ($35,870) and ﬁeld conditions ($3,820).
CSI 9 — Finishes

101 items were associated with CS1 division 9. In this division, design errors and
omissions (39) and scope changes (39) generated the same number of change order items,
each causing 39 percent of the total items, followed by ﬁeld changes (23) at 23 percent.
The cost analysis showed that scope changes ($87,470) accounted for the greatest
increase in cost, followed by design errors and omissions ($53,948) and ﬁeld conditions
($31,705). The cost increase in design errors and omissions are due to updates to
documents.
CSI 10 — Specialties

CSI division 10 includes several specialty areas of construction, such as louvers
and vents, telephone specialties, toilet, bath and laundry specialties, service walls, ﬁre
protection specialties, etc. 36 change order items were associated with CSI division 10. In
this division, cost increases are closely tied to the number of items. Scope changes
generated the most change order items (24), and accounted for the highest cost increase
($3 7,128).
CSI 11 — Equipment

CSI division 11 include: equipment and maintenance of equipment, etc. 16

change order items were associated with CS1 division 11. Scope changes (9) generated

51

 

 

 

the most change order items, followed by design errors and omissions (6), and ﬁeld
conditions (1). The cost analysis showed that design errors and omissions ($9,112)
accounted for the greatest cost increase at 62 percent, followed by scope changes
($5,195), and ﬁeld ($312). In “design errors and omissions,” the cost increases are
inﬂuenced by items related to plumbing and compliance with codes.
CS1 12 - Furnishings
CSI division 12 includes fabric, art, interior planters and furniture. In the
database, eight change order items were associated with CSI divisions 12. There were no
change order items generated by ﬁeld changes. Scope changes caused 6 items, and design
errors and omissions caused 2 items. Overall this division had a minor impact on
aggregate cost increase for the project set.
CSI 13 — Special Construction
CSI division 13 addresses special construction such as: air-supported structures,
building modules and aquatic park facilities. This division generated only two items, one
was D4 (errors) and other was “reason not speciﬁed.” Thus, only one reason code was
reported in this analysis.
CSI 14 — Conveying Systems
Elevators, escalators, scaffolding, etc. fall under the category of conveying
systems included in CS1 division 14. This division generated only three reason codes, two
were from scope, and “no reason” was identiﬁed for the other.
CS1 15 — Mechanical
CSI division 15 addresses several HVAC, plumbing and ﬁre protection systems.

In the database, 220 change order items were associated with CS1 division 15, and were

52

r
- i

7'" ‘ “ _7.,:.’,U.l.e', _ ' ‘., . I .
.i ur'r'sd7gl7gw.ile~lrvg“4 it..-“ ,

 

used for analysis. In the grouped reason code analysis, design errors and omissions (119,
54%) accounted for the most change order items, followed by ﬁeld conditions (57) and
scope (44). The cost analysis showed that design errors and omissions ($627,891)
accounted for 55 percent of the total cost increase within the division, followed by scope
changes ($212,864) and ﬁeld conditions ($92,464). From the analysis, it was found that
most of the change order items are caused by missing information or by a portion of the
work which would not achieve its intended result.
CSI 16 - Electrical

CSI division 16 addresses electrical materials and methods including service,
distribution, lighting, alarms and communication systems. 174 items were associated with
CS1 division 16. Scope changes (69) generated the most change order items contributing
approximately 40 percent, followed by design errors and omissions (61, 35%), and ﬁeld
conditions (44, 25%). The cost analysis showed that the number of items caused by each
reason code was closely associated with the total cost increase with design errors and
omissions ($216,560), ﬁeld conditions ($99,055), and scope ($339,529). In this division
CIID 487 (scope change $112, 520 -— revision of layout, materials, and details) and 494
(design error and omissions $70,626 —— change requested to revise the electrical light
poles) acted as outliers. Other than these two items, the remaining items were equally
spread across the reason codes, thus correlating with the results of the grouped reason
code analysis.
Summary of CSI division Analysis

CSI division 2 is associated with the highest cost increase, followed by CSI

division 15, which accounted for the greatest number of change order items and the

53

second largest increase in cost. Division 16 generated the third highest costs. The
researcher found two outliers in CSI division 2, which skewed the data. Through the
research, the researcher recognized that some owners may .preplan for change orders if
budget is available, some items may deliberately be deleted, and later procured via
change order. These outliers made scope changes the most “expensive” grouped reason
code. These outlier items were CIID 477 and CIID 487 of the MSU Bio-Physical
Sciences project, which were preplanned and generated approximately $880,000. One of
the items was repeated in all of the above—mentioned CSI divisions, except CSI division 6
and 10. This resulted in a higher dollar amount even though there were fewer change
order items caused by site scope.

From analysis of CSI divisions 1 through 7, a trend was observed in the change
order items caused by design errors and omissions, in that the percentage of change order
items was higher than the percentage of cost increases associated with them. Similarly,
change order items caused by scope changes showed an opposite trend, where the
percentage of change order items was lower than the percentage of associated costs. The
implication may be that scope changes are generally more expensive than changes caused
by design errors and omissions for these divisions.

CSI divisions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 15 showed that design errors and omissions to be
the dominant cause of change orders, however only CSI divisions 8, 11 and 15 showed

that design errors and omissions accounted for the greatest increase in cost.

54

 

 

 

4.3 Narrative description analysis of MSU database

At completion of the quantitative analysis, the researcher examined narrative
descriptions in the database for each change order item and developed keywords from
each CSI division. From the Keywords-In-Context (KWIC)5 approach various key words
were identiﬁed for frequency counts for each CSI division. The search was performed
using MS Excel software. Key words were documented with the number of occurrences
in each CSI division. The same keywords were also used for the “All Data” worksheet,
which acted as a supplement to the keyword search performed for each CSI division. The
frequency of recurring words was recorded. Keywords that had lower rates of recurrence
were compared with the literature review, Civitello’s checklist, QCC (Quality control
checklist from University of Notre Dame), the quantitative analysis and interview results.
If they were found to be relevant, those items were also included in the checklist. Refer to

Table 4.3 for list of keywords.

 

5 Key-words-in-context (KWIC) is closely associated with indigenous categories. KWIC is based on a
simple observation: if you want to understand a concept, then look at how it is used. In this technique,
researchers identify key words and then systematically search the corpus of text to ﬁnd all instances of the
word or phrase. Each time they ﬁnd a word, they make a copy of it and its immediate context. Themes get
identiﬁed by physically sorting the examples into piles of similar meaning (Ryan et.al., 2003)

55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.95! CSI Division . .
Drvrsron Occurrence Description Occurrence

1 7 Doors 31
Bulletin 6 Ceilings 14
Excavate 6 Frame 14
1 1 9 Roof 71
11 Drywall 8
Pavements 1 1 Painting 23
Walk 15 Metal 9

Concrete 15 10.11.1113,” None
Asbestos Pipe 44
Pier Insulation 1 3
Concrete Drainage 26
Beam Duct 35
15 Valve 24
Slab Damper 8
None Grill 9
20731 items are from one Steam 20
Steel Air 33
Beam Supply 18
Lintel Switches 17
Duct 17
Detector 7
Circuit 16
Fire 12
l 6 'Wire 12
Fixture 22
Light 43
and Conduit 29
Sealant Security 5
Caulk Communication 12
Data 16

Laminate

Windows
Doors

Frame

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4.3 KEYWORDS FOR EACH CSI DIVISION

In CSI division 1, two keywords, “drawing” and “bulletin reproduction costs”
occurred seven and six times respectively, no consistent cause could be determined for
these keywords. For other divisions, such as CSI division 8, some keywords had a

signiﬁcant number of occurrences. 72 citations of doors were found in the database.

56

 

Through this process, the researcher was able to identify areas for further examination.
This process was applied to each CSI division. For example, in CS1 division 2, the
researcher found the following commonly occurring. keywords: excavation (6
occurrences), pipe (11 occurrences), ﬂooring (11 occurrences), pavements (11
occurrences), walk (15 occurrences), concrete (15 occurrences), and asbestos (8
occurrences). Upon determining those words with frequent occurrences, the researcher
examined the narrative descriptions more closely to determine the causes of change
orders. For this division, items related to “pipe” were generally related to the type of pipe
material. For the keyword “sidewalk”, causes included: drawing dimensions and
additional portion of sidewalks were replaced. The results of this analysis are reported in
Table 4.3.

Based on the results of the keyword searches, areas of emphasis could be
identiﬁed for correlation with Civitello’s change order discovery checklist. Some of the
keywords that were most prominent in the database were: duct, columns, beams, ceiling

spaces, doors and light ﬁxtures.

4.4. Comparison with the Civitello Change Order Discovery Checklist

In this analysis, the MSU database was compared with the Civitello change order
discovery checklist discussed in chapter 2. Civitello identiﬁed a variety of issues related
to the sources of change orders and gave detailed descriptions of problem areas. The
process of comparison was similar to that used for the narrative descriptions discussed
above. Recurring terms were identiﬁed as sources of potential change orders.

The entire database was searched using keywords, and individual spreadsheets of

recurring words were developed in MS Excel. Refer to Figure 4.7 for an example for the

57

keyword: duct. After individual spreadsheets were developed, the researcher developed
reports that showed the correlations between the issues addressed by Civitello and the

MSU projects database.

 

 

 

 

 

     
   

 

 

 

 

'L"" z.” Jinx “7:... [/1 ILL-1J1: UlliﬁT:-'.-!lll’l'5. - -ai.u_... . .‘a -.a-- - a; var-I .ﬂwa- ailw.-.-- for.» '.. ._o~..-.- - - _' -‘.- ~. -. -~ .~-~ o .. w e .-9JJﬂ
E] u- m: n— yui w I” on mm» nub was! - - a x
DﬁBduOBVLlhn-d- Qt-alilnalw'isvﬁl-“ via-Ilusuzm ax.ut.-111a=ar _-&-A-
1"» "".. F: -

G42 '- ‘- Ravise vent on cooling tank Ior CRUJ from 3' COHIIOUOU' to 6‘ reduced to 4‘ par RFI‘ 121
1 a I A 8 3 C D E F c _. H l .l I;
1 Project H.010 (OID ChangeOrRaaaeuCrnamlmDa f‘ ‘ " CCD Bulletin 0110!! C51
2 MSU Bier ass 93 15 105/311: Revise Ik<1mtﬂmq at era ‘15 51‘)"
3 MSU Bier 669 as 11 04 2mm on" steel beans an exhaust one: ehaﬂa. b 14D
4 MSU DioF 755 93 16 04 10500113 Revise return air and transform NI rimmed: D 15D
5 MSU 9101‘ 837 34 17 D4 407m Revise autoclave room arhauat cliiclworlr D 20D
5 MSU 810‘ 849 m 21 04 105mm Animal loom intake dammit D 29D
7 new Bio-F 850 so 21 :14 ans/1m Electrical roam mi... some». 1:1 2911
a MSU Cycli 1251 143 to 04 3111/1113 Install in “animal rltld amcion b o leauo ice
9 MSU BioF 1471 91 14 04 m Cian'y AHUI 2‘. 3. 4 discharge dllm sins and orientation D 9D
10 MSU eior 1472 91 14 or M Cant, 30 u re .inei termrnation b 911
ll MSU 81oF 1482 91 14 04 m Camry supply item 0120 near stairs 3. 11 90
' 12 MSU 8609‘ 1483 91 14 0‘ W Revise 'ab eahauet Amaranth D 9D 1
- 1:1 MSU Bio: 1551 94 17 on amrzcm Pmde duct opening for 42 x 24 ducHaodrnig into an n 19D 1
-. 14 04 Count 12
- 15 MSU CycI- 1046 137 4 C5 9716/2110 Rum duct Work in Room V1019 to plow 8' ceiling height D 0 Issue 51
° 16 Jenniaon F 1440 157 11 05 Gift/.1112 previde a) two static pressure switches in the HVAC rlnctworlv D 9 OFCI178
- 17 Jenmeon F 1454 157 11 13 7711/1112 lnataﬂ relief dampers in Iupply duct work as directed by the project representative D 9 CFC. 164
' 18 05 Canon 3
. - 19 Spartan CI 197 40 2 00(11va W1 Louver, reﬂected ceiling plan rlirdworti. dﬂuear. and condensing unit electrical changaa D 4 1
7n usu Bros 372 54 a Document aeomi 12mm ammu- around trueseo b 0 Dec 1177
21 MSU Bio: 799 im 31 Document 571401101 Add lire damper io moi lloor supply ilttil at em 'b 3813
22 MSU 81°F 825 95 18 Document era/arr. Provide changes to the large supply .111“ leading the supply plenum m the class it!) area oItM cles'le 0D
23 M31; ever see so 22 Dowmant- m noiom grilles and transfer ducts ‘b 3311 .
24 MSU 81°F 15% 121 44 Document swam Acoustical lla- ilui r in rooms 321% and 3210 D 50D 1
- 25_ Daemon 6 ‘
" 26 MSU Cycle g3 15 2 F3 enrxm Reroute l-IWH piping above ceiling to allow 10! installation dtamporary iln- Morlr D 0 Issue 4 E
- 27 MSU Cyclr 1035 137 _ 4 F3 _ W Additional iii-ii work tor lAH-l‘ one on root D 0 Issue 42
- E MSU Cycli 1059 137 4 F3 W Revise torlet partition support due to mechanical dirt-i. D 0 Issue 64
- E MSU Cycli 1194 140 7 F3 807/3312 Reroute sheet m"."1lll."0" for IAN-2. D O Ieeua116 -'
- 13 MSU Cycl- 12% 143 10 F3 371m Install new air return itnrr par PF! 120 D 0 Issue 172
- 31 F3 Col". 6
f - 32 7MSU Cycli 137 145 12 F8 some Inatal accuatical In rite-.1 in corhranca memo and directors outta D D leaue 193
- 1! F6 Centre 1
' - 34 Campus F 24 7 1 Field 5118/1111 Install portion of new 11w lime in Lot 89.18“ lower than speciﬁed D ID
35 MSU Bros 370 64 4 Field 70ml Electrical CommunlCﬂICn iruu bank relocation D 0 PCO 12%!
$ MSU area 32 66 5 Field W Relocate «1111 i wort-r in otﬁce area D 0 900 48
at MSU 510‘ 706 so 13 Field mom Add oiooinen .1... ionni. iiom amuse Add corhmurucation ductbank from manhole mans io cob 7 1e?)
'3 MSU 310‘ 4 826 1G! 31 Field Wrml Relocate existing mechanocal piping and -Im mark for new ramp in aerating chemistry building 2 D
B MSU BioF 829 118 41 Field 1175/1131 Add lay in :- ling 1'1 the two senate areas in the clean room "no ﬂ mckide maing supply iturtuo (304-79 0D
0 Campus F 954 7 1 Field 911001111 Relocate III' iline entry location into manholes near Crop Scrence D ID
41 _Jennieon F 1355 152 7 6 Field W Rename 111 work on rid floor a R’ D 0 OFC‘54
Q‘Jameon F 1:56 152 6 Field Ill/m2 so vent on CI:O|II'\ tank for 'LLI om mummmm_ O OFCOIJ '|

~ 1 . -\se.(rau(Hermann-u[wxmr?wIVM1m(”lazmlmzmlmxswrl lrl , 22_ 1 J"
Ore-'1} Iva-w- \kCJOlﬂdatllBO-HJAEKTE.

M —-... __. __..— .— . _-......r... __. .___1 _ . __ . ... . - . . . _. .. ___V._q—Y M

 

 

 

FIGURE 4.7 EXCERPT OF MS EXCEL DISPLAYING KEYWORD
“DUCT” RECURRENCE

4.4.1. Major Findings of Comparison of MSU Database with the Civitello Change

Order Discovery Checklist

Civitello developed recommendations for identifying potential change orders and
listed various causes. Civitello’s suggestions were checked for correlation with the MSU
construction projects. Little or no correlation in the database did not, necessarily disprove

a speciﬁc Civitello recommendation; rather, the term “no correlation” signiﬁes that

58

 

keywords used by Civitello were not present in the database of 16 university projects. In
some instances the speciﬁc narrative descriptions may not have used the precise words of
Civitello, or in other instances Civitello may have used keywords that were not as
applicable to university projects such as “zoning”. Given the above mentioned limitation,

the correlation checks were used only as guiding paths for the research, rather than

 

proving or disproving the recommendations developed by Civitello. Table 4.4 indicates

the list of keywords used for each search.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Major Cause Keyword Occurrence
Boring (Subsurface Data) Soil 13
Boring (Subsurface Data) Testing 24
Building Code
Compliance Code 5
Temporary Utilities Temporary 15
Easement/ Rights of Way Walkway 4
Ceiling Spaces Structural Members 9
Ceiling Spaces Plumbing 10

‘ Ceiling Spaces Heating Systems 3
Ceiling Spaces Fire systems 40
Ceiling Spaces Insulation 2
CeilingSpaces Lighting 10
Ceiling Spaces Duct 47
Ceiling Spaces Pipe 12
Ceiling Spaces Vent 3
Ceiling Spaces Sprinkler systems 2
Ceiling Spaces Steel reinforcements 6
Ceiling Spaces Ceilings 36
Ceiling Spaces Sofﬁts 1
Columns and Beams Beams 33
Columns and Beams Columns 19

Light ﬁxtures Light 54
Price/Bid Allowances Allowance 13
Price/Bid Allowances Deducts 17

TABLE 4.4
LIST OF KEYWORDS USED IN ANALYSIS OF COMPARISON WITH
CIVITELLO’S CHECKLIST

59

 

Signiﬁcant ﬁndings of the Civitello’s comparisons and analysis are presented
below.

Boring (Subsurface Data)
Keywords: soil and testing.
The soil borings provide relevant information about subsurface conditions of the
site. Accurate subsurface data can help prevent change orders that arise from soil
conditions. In the MSU projects database, it was found that 37 change order items were
caused by unsuiTable soil. All change order items related to subsurface data were for
removal of the unsuiTable soil, as it was hindering construction progress. Civitello
explained that experienced estimators know how to research the precise deﬁnitions of
technical terms in order to gain a clear understanding of the exact conditions described in
the data. If accurate data are provided, the information can help reduce change orders due
to soil. According to Civitello, the important considerations are:
1) Relevance of the boring locations and data to the construction area, and
2) Consistency of data throughout the site.

Building Code Compliance

Keyword: code

From the keyword search it was found that out of 1,341 change order items, only
ﬁve change order items were due to building codes, indicating that failure to follow

building codes was generally not a signiﬁcant problem.

60

Easements/Right of Way
Keyword: walkway

According to Civitello, one of the potential sourcesof change orders related to a
site was “restrictions in site access.” “Production and efﬁciency are dramatically reduced
because of sudden, unexpected complications in moving about the site,” (Civitello,
2002). Little evidence was found in the database with this issue; only four change order
items were generated by problems with easements and rights of way, presumably because
of the larger campus setting without local government restrictions. However this issue
may be more pronounced with private development or in development which requires
approval of local government.

Temporary Utilities —- Availability within the Contract Limits
Keyword: temporary

Another important factor related to project sites were temporary utilities. Civitello
identiﬁed many items related to temporary utilities that have to be considered during
estimation, such as telephone poles, power availability, lighting, etc. The keyword search
resulted in 14 items, but these items were not directly related to the items speciﬁed by
Civitello. Few change order items in the data were found to be caused by a lack of
temporary utilities.

The other aspects of predesign identiﬁed by Civitello included: special agency
approvals, interference from utilities not properly shown, and plan approvals (building
permit), showed no correlation with the MSU projects database, presumably may be
because of the university’s control over the construction site and also adjacent sites which

belong to MSU.

61

Contract and Bid Documents
Keywords: allowance and deduct
Several contractual issues were suggested by Civitello as sources of change orders
and included:
1) Award Date
2) Named Subcontractors
3) Price/Bid Allowances and Contract Time

As this research studied topics related to “design errors and omissions,” the time
aspects related to change orders were considered to be out of scope, “award date” and
“contract times” were not considered for the keyword search.

Ceiling Spaces
Keywords: structural members, plumbing, heating systems, ﬁre systems, insulation,
lighting, duct, pipe, vent, sprinkler systems, steel reinforcements, ceilings, and sofﬁts

Civitello identiﬁed ceiling spaces as a signiﬁcant source of conﬂict that generates
change orders. He said that generally all projects have some conﬂicts related to ceiling
spaces.

Since ceiling spaces are related to other construction items, such as structure,
HVAC, ﬁre protection, etc., the entire database was analyzed using the keywords
“structural” (9), “plumbing “(10), and “heating systems” (3). These items generated a
limited number of occurrences. However, ﬁre protection systems were a signiﬁcant
source being listed in over forty change order items. Most of these change order items
were due to design errors and omissions. The CSI divisions most affected were CSI 15

and CSI 16.

62

According to Civitello, ductwork was considered to be one of the prime sources
of conﬂict for change orders involving ceilings. The database analysis shows that
ductwork was associated with 47 change order items, which was signiﬁcant when
compared to other keywords related to ceiling spaces. The divisions that were impacted
most by “ductwork” were CSI 15 and 16.

“The smaller the area and the more complex the building system, the greater the
probability of conﬂicts and change orders,” (Civitello, 2002). In the database, most
ductwork changes ﬂowed from problems related to ceiling heights and air ductwork.
Another major factor was re-routing/relocating the ductwork, which affected other CSI
divisions.

Column and Beam Locations
Keywords: beams and columns

Civitello identiﬁed sources of change orders involving columns and beam
locations as errors in information provided in the drawings, as well as a lack of
coordination. Change order items in the database were searched using keywords,
“columns” and “beams”, and further analyzed for correlation with the recommendations
made by Civitello, which include the dimension and location of columns and beams, and
coordination with architectural, electrical and mechanical disciplines. CSI division 5 was
heavily inﬂuenced by changes due to ceilings and beams. In this analysis, it was found
that most change orders generated were due to errors in documents.

Civitello also indicated that there might be problems with walls, plumbing,
windows, ducts, and equipment, which may not be coordinated with column and beam

locations. During the analysis of the database it was found that there were a number of

63

 

changes generated by location of walls (columns — 19, beams - 33), ducts (47) , and ﬁre
sprinkler systems (40). The major changes in columns and beams were revision of beam
sizes and changes in reinforcement.

Light Fixture Locations

Keyword: light

In his explanation regarding light ﬁxtures, Civitello suggests that a major cause of
change orders is lack of coordination between design professionals of light ﬁxtures
during development of plans and speciﬁcations.

The database showed that there were 54 change order associated items with the
keyword “light”. These change order items were generated by requests for additional
light ﬁxtures, changes in layout of ﬁxtures, change of ﬁxtures type from those indicated
in the plans or speciﬁcations, or changing the complete lighting layout. The majority of
change order items were requested in order to change or replace the type of light ﬁxtures.
These items were oﬁen generated by lack of coordination between design professionals,
and were related to inadequate ceiling spaces, ﬁre sprinkler systems, and ductwork.
Changed Existing Conditions

The database showed that some change orders occurred as a result of changes at
the site or by hidden conditions. Civitello noted, “This situation is one in which
conditions or circumstances at the site become different from those that were documented
and observed at the time of the bid.” According to the database analysis, 31% of change
order items are caused by ﬁeld conditions. These changes occurred due to several site
conditions, such as discovery of a regulated hazard, poor soil conditions, hidden

conditions and changes in local, state or national codes during the construction.

64

4.4.2. Summary of Comparison with the Civitello Change Order Discovery

Checklist

Important ﬁndings of this analysis are that lack of coordination between design
disciplines is a signiﬁcant cause of change orders. Civitello identiﬁed numerous problem
areas, such as “ceiling spaces,” “light ﬁxtures,” “columns, “beams,” and “ducts,” and the
database supported many of his detailed suggestions. Following the analysis, Table 4.4
along with Table 4.3 of the narrative description analysis were used by the researcher to
focus the development of the plan review checklist.
4.5. Interviews

As part of the umbrella project, the researcher conducted interviews with ten
MSU construction administrators, outside designers, contractors, subcontractors, and
construction administrators of four other research intensive universities in order to gain
insight into their current change order management practices. The, purposes of these
interviews were: 1) to gather information regarding change order trends, 2) to identify
existing change order management practices, and 3) to gather information about
possibilities for improvements in the change order process. Data collected from the
interviews was used in conjunction with the results of the change order database analysis
and literature review in order to develop recommendations suiTable for universities.

Interviews were conducted by faculty and graduate research assistants. Data from
the open-ended interviews were paraphrased, tabulated, and aggregated. Refer to

Appendix III for the tabulated data of the interviews.

65

 

 

4.5.1. Interview Responses

As a part of the umbrella project, six contractors, three subcontractors, two
outside designers, ten MSU construction administrators, and staff from four research
intensive universities were interviewed to solicit opinions regarding change order
management and practices. A total of 45 open-ended questions were asked, 20 of which
were related to preconstruction issues. Questionnaires were speciﬁc to each interview
group, although some similar questions were included. The interview responses are
reported below in two categories: (1) industry interviews (architects/engineers,

contractors and subcontractors), and (2) university interviews. Reported below are the

general themes expressed by the respondents.

Industry Interview Responses

In this section, interview response of contractors, subcontractors, outside
designers, MSU construction administrators and staff from four~ research intensive
universities are reported. The questions asked included several aspects of change orders,
such as: classiﬁcation of change orders, tracking the performance of lower tier personnel,
testing programs of soils and environmental conditions, soliciting information on change
order histories, use of International Organization for Standardization (ISO), programming
and ﬁmctional brieﬁng, plan review processes, university standards, partnering,
commissioning, pre-bid walk-thrus, and CSI divisions inﬂuencing change orders. The
questions and verbatim responses are included in Appendix 111.

When interviewees were asked if they classiﬁed change orders, it was observed
that architects, contractors, and subcontractors did not classify the causes of change

orders. From experience, contractors and subcontractors mentioned design errors and

66

= ~ «am Mai-7:

 

’._:1I.}"£‘grri‘sien- » -'-~

inammstwmwmm- 1 ', 'g- .

erwceJa'e-ué izﬁiLzJi'ri-aﬁéhiz:

omissions, ﬁeld conditions (which include hidden conditions), scope changes, and poor
coordination between various design disciplines as the dominant causes of change orders.

When asked about monitoring or tracking the performance of lower tier
personnel, with respect to change orders, respondents indicated that although no formal
procedure was adopted, every group implemented its own informal process.

When asked about testing programs, respondents noted that testing programs,
such as soils testing and environmental conditions were generally determined by the
owners in consultation with their consultants.

Questions were asked regarding soliciting information on change order histories
from project participants. Respondents indicated that quality-based selection was
generally adopted, although various other factors such as experience and quality of
drawings were considered. Information was typically solicited through an RFP process.
When asked about soliciting information on change orders from contractors and
subcontractors, the interviewer found that, in general, there was no practice of requesting
such information.

The researcher was interested in learning if construction, design, or construction
management ﬁrms that participated in ISO usually had a reduced number of change
orders. Respondents indicated that ISO certiﬁcation likely does not have any impact on
reducing the number of change orders.

When those interviewed were asked if the spread (variation) of bids inﬂuenced
change order rates, and if it can act as a good predictor of change orders, their responses

were mixed. Though the majority of the group agreed that there would not be any major

67

effect, everyone intuitively felt that there should be an impact and that this factor might
serve as a predictor of change orders.

Two questions related to programming (functional brieﬁng). Contractors and
subcontractors were asked about the frequency of change orders occurring when there
were communication lapses between architects and owners. The group collectively
considered this issue to be a frequent problem occurring on most projects. The second
question asked about the processes used for establishing programs and documentation.
Designers indicated that they were generally involved with the owner, either by direct
meetings or through the exchange of written responses and comments.

Contractors and subcontractors were asked if A/E ﬁrms adequately reviewed
drawings prior to bidding. A similar question asked about university plan review
processes. This group of respondents felt that there was room for improvement in the
plan review process of architects and engineers. Responses were mixed with regard to
the plan review processes of the university. Contractors and subcontractors indicated that
due to lack of time and understaffmg, the university personnel typically had limited time
for plan review. In general, though, they expressed satisfaction with the process.

Interviewees were asked if MSU standards had an impact on the number and type
of change orders. Most interviewees indicated that these standards did not generally lead
to change orders; however, they also stated that although the standards were good, they
should be updated.

When asked about partnering and commissioning, there was an overwhelming
response that these two practices were not effective in reducing the number of change

orders. Although, a minority of the respondents indicated that these practices might help

68

to improve communication among project participants. The respondents expressed
various opinions about partnering and commissioning, which included:

1) Commissioning might increase the number of change orders, because during this
process hidden problems are identiﬁed that might have been ignored in regular
practice. V

2) Commissioning would be effective, if experienced people were involved in it.

3) Formal partnering sometimes helps in reducing miscommunication, which could
decrease processing time for change orders and expedite a project.

Architects, contractors, and subcontractors were asked if pre-bid meetings/walk-
thrus were effective in reducing change order rates. The majority of contractors and
subcontractors felt that this process would not be very effective, whereas designers stated
that pre-bid meetings helped in submitting better bids, and eventually reduced the number
of change orders.

I When asked about which CSI divisions caused the most change orders, the
unanimous answer from all respondents was CSI divisions 15 and 16. In addition to these
divisions, CSI division 2 was also reported as a division that generated a signiﬁcant
number of change orders, due to hidden conditions. Almost all of the respondents
indicated that, in general mechanical and electrical design professions caused the
maximum number of change orders.

When respondents were asked for additional ideas that could be employed to
reduce change order rates, a variety of ideas surfaced, including:

1) Better coordination between design interfaces

2) Improvement in the quality of drawings

69

3) Repeat work as an incentive to do good work

4) Institution of a mandatory 30 day review period prior to bidding

5) Preplanning of the front-end activities and allocating more time for these
activities

6) Better plan review process

7) Make pre-bid walk-thrus more effective.

From the industry interview responses, it was found that poor coordination
between various design disciplines is a dominant cauSe of change orders. Regarding the
classiﬁcation of change orders, there is no such process of classiﬁcation, however
respondents informally classiﬁed causes as design errors and omissions, ﬁeld conditions
and scope changes. Also, the respondents generally indicated that ISO, partnering and
commissioning has little influence in reducing the number of change orders. Additionally
respondents also mentioned that spread (variation) of bids does not heavily inﬂuence
change orders. In addressing prevention strategies, interviewees indicated that good
functional brieﬁng, adequate time for plan review process, and pre-bid walk-thru
processes can help to reduce the number of change orders.

University Interviews Responses

In this section, interview responses of university personnel are reported. The
questions asked addressed several issues related to change orders, such as: causes of
change orders, change orders history, ISO use, programming and functional brieﬁng, plan
review processes, availability of university standards to trade partners, partnering,

commissioning, and pre-bid walk- thrus.

7O

University administrators mentioned design errors and omissions, ﬁeld conditions
(which include hidden conditions), scope changes, and poor coordination between
various design discipline interfaces as the dominant causes Iof change orders.

A question was asked about soliciting information on change order histories of
project participants before they could qualify for the work. Although one of the
universities mentioned that they had a vendor performance program in place, none of the
universities formally requested change order history information.

University administrators were asked if construction, design, or construction
management ﬁrms that participate in ISO usually had a reduced number of change orders.
Respondents indicated that ISO certiﬁcation likely does not have any impact on reducing
the number of change orders.

University administrators were asked if the spread (variation) of bids inﬂuenced
change order rates, and if this could act as a good predictor of change. orders. Most of the
respondents indicated that there would not likely be any major effect. But some
respondents indicated that the spread cold have an impact and this factor might serve as a
predictor of change orders.

A question related to establishing functional briefs and programming was
included. All of the universities had similar processes, where one specialized department
in the university was always involved in developing functional briefs for projects and
aids concerned departments. All imiversities considered that scope deﬁnition was not a
signiﬁcant cause of change orders.

One question focused on plan review processes and respondents indicated that

they could be improved. Another question asked university personnel to describe their

71

individual plan review process. It was observed that individuals and ofﬁces generally had
varying processes for periodic plan reviews. The University of Wisconsin, in addition to
various levels of plan reviews, instituted a review charrette, which included various
people from shops, the design architect ofﬁce, project representatives, etc., for plan
reviews. Purdue University had a rule of turning in documents 30 days prior to bidding,
in order to leave sufﬁcient time for plan review. The University of Notre Dame used a
checklist for plan review processes.

Construction administrators were asked if their universities had any published
standards or speciﬁcations that established requirements for design and speciﬁcation of
projects. Additionally, it was asked whether or not failure to follow these standards by
designers was a frequent problem. All universities indicated that they had published
construction standards, and the respondents speciﬁed that problems due to the failure to
comply with the standards were not common.

In a question related to partnering and commissioning, the group collectively
indicated that these two practices were not effective in reducing the number of change
orders. A minority of the respondents indicated that these practices might help to improve
communication among project participants, but did not reduce change orders.

The next question inquired if pre-bid meetings/walk-thrus were conducted by the
universities. Interviews with university construction administrators indicated that pre-bid
meetings/walk-thrus were conducted, but they were mandatory at only one university.

When asked about which CSI divisions causes the most change orders, all

respondents indicated that CSI divisions 15 and 16 cause the most change orders. Also,

72

the group indicated that CSI division 2 generated a signiﬁcant number of change orders
due to hidden conditions.

The major ﬁndings of university interview responses concur with the industry
interview responses. Design errors and omissions, ﬁeld conditions, scope changes, and
coordination between design disciplines are considered to be the dominant cause of
change orders. Architectural, mechanical and electrical disciplines are considered to
cause the most change orders. New industry practices, such as partnering,
commissioning, use of ISO program are not considered to be effective in reducing change
orders. However, better programming and functional brieﬁng, pre-bid walk-thrus,
improved plan review processes are considered to be effective tools for reducing change

orders.

4.5.2. Checklist Development Interviews

To gain the perspectives of construction personnel regarding plan review
processes, the researcher interviewed four people from the MSU Engineering and
Architectural Services (EAS) staff who were involved in all stages of plan review
processes from the conceptual stage to contract documents. The plan reviewers were
from varied design disciplines, and their experience with plan reviews varied from 14 to
30 years. Their paraphrased responses are included in Appendix IV.

From the interviews it was apparent that none of the plan reviewers had an ofﬁcial
plan review protocol or process in their respective departments, although they had an
informal checklist they implemented on the basis of their expertise and experience. Two
of the respondents explained their informal process of plan review. One respondent

indicated that in their department, they typically review for two weeks then made written

73

comments, and submitted them to their consulting NE. The plans and comments were
then reviewed by the consulting A/Es, who answered the written comments and sent the
responses back to the concerned department. Necessary actions were then taken to correct
the plans and speciﬁcations according to the comments made. In another department, the
plan review process was done by three people, and they traded the plans among
themselves to gain everyone’s perspective.

The researcher was interested in knowing which factors could be included at the
various levels of design (conceptual, schematic, design development, and contract
documents). There was no clear answer for this question, but coordination was indicated
to be an important aspect to include at each level. One respondent indicated that the
conceptual and schematic levels blend together, and it should be made clear that all
aspects discussed during these stages were related to each other and were well deﬁned.
Similarly, the stages of design development and contract documents blended together and
at this point it was important that issues discussed in the conceptual and schematic stages
were addressed during design development and preparation of contract documents.

Since one of the goals of developing a checklist was to improve the plan review
process, the researcher was interested in learning the typical duration of this process at
various completion levels. All respondents said that it depended on the complexity of the
project, and it might vary from a few hours to a couple of months. Some mentioned that
the time typically allocated was insufﬁcient, although one of the respondents indicated
that this period was generally adequate. Three respondents mentioned that too many
levels of approvals in the plan review process were another factor that created a barrier

during plan review.

74

The researcher asked if there would be any barriers in implementing standardized
checklists. One of the respondents indicated there would not be any barrier, whereas a
second respondent said that there may be some resistance from people who were already
using their own processes. A third respondent said that if the checklist was complex and
speciﬁc, it would not be implemented. A fourth respondent indicated that the time period
would be a barrier to implement a checklist. All of these respondents felt that training
staff in the implementation of a standardized checklist would be very helpful.

Three of the respondents mentioned that a checklist should not be speciﬁc and
complicated; rather, it should be simple and general in order to help the current existing
informal practices. All suggested that the organization of a checklist should be based on a
speciﬁc design discipline and should be implemented at each of the design stages.

The major ﬁndings of checklist development interviews include: no formal plan
review protocol is used in any department, however an informal process is adopted by
plan reviewers. Respondents indicated that a checklist should be developed by design
disciplines, however no classiﬁcation had been mentioned. The duration of plan review
depends on the type and complexity of a project. It was also found that a plan review
checklist should be simple and general, such that it can be customized to match the
current informal process.

4.6. Summary

This chapter presents the data used in this research, followed by data handling and
reporting procedures. As a part of this research, sixteen MSU projects were analyzed and
eleven construction professionals and construction administrators of ﬁve research

intensive universities were interviewed. The analyses reported in this chapter are: “All

75

Data” analysis, CSI division analysis, narrative description analysis and comparison of
MSU database with Civitello’s checklist, construction industry interviews, university
interviews and checklist development interviews. The interview responses were tabulated
in separate spreadsheets for quick reference and are included in Appendix III. The results
obtained from the data analysis and the responses obtained from the interviews indicated
trends in the sources of problems leading to change orders. These trends and patterns
were integrated with the literature review and summarized to create a plan review

checklist and recommendations, which are discussed in Chapter 5.

76

CHAPTER 5

77

CHAPTER 5: PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST
5.0. Introduction

This chapter discusses the plan review checklists, which are an important
deliverable of this research. In this research, various sources were used throughout the
course of the study to develop a plan review checklist and included: (1) quantitative
analysis of the “All data” and CSI divisions spreadsheets, (2) study of narrative
descriptions of the MSU database, (3) comparison of the MSU database with the Civitello
change order discovery checklist, (4) the quality control checklist (QCC) used at the
University of Notre Dame as part of its quality assurance program (refer to Appendix VII
for a complete Notre Dame checklist), (5) RediCheck plan review checklist procedures,
and (6) interviews with MSU construction personnel. The researcher integrated all
sources and developed a checklist that could be used at the four stages of design.

The organization of the checklist was based on the interview responses of MSU
construction personnel, who suggested that the list should be organized by design
discipline. The University of Notre Dame checklist was also structured this way.
Therefore, the checklist was developed on the basis of work disciplines (architectural,
civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical) and for the four levels of design (conceptual,
schematic, design development, and contract documents). Data from the various sources
was discussed in chapter 4. In this chapter, the development of the checklist is reported
along with discussion of the organization and structure of the checklist, and its validation

process.

78

5.1. Quantitative Analysis of MSU Database

From the quantitative analysis, it was found that 42 percent of change orders
were due to design errors and omissions. The change order items caused by design errors
and omissions are due to the portion of work which might not have achieved the
objective as designed or arc'due to missing relevant information. This was a very broad
category that addressed a variety of issues, such as inadequate level of detail, numerous
details, dimension strings, and coordination between design disciplines. This provided a
quantitative base for the recommendations developed by Civitello in his “plans and
speciﬁcations” section.
5.2. Study of Narrative Descriptions in the MSU Database

During the narrative description analysis, keywords were identiﬁed and checked
for recurrence. This helped to identify the trends and sources of change orders.
Frequently recurring words were recorded and considered for inclusion in the checklist.
5.3. Comparison of Civitello Change Discovery Checklist with MSU Database

Keywords identiﬁed by Civitello were compared with the MSU database to ﬁnd
correlations. The items identiﬁed by Civitello which were supported by the analysis of
the database narrative descriptions were included in the checklist. Also, Civitello
identiﬁed several areas of potential change orders that did not occur in the narrative
descriptions of the change order items in the database. But the researcher believed that
these items were still relevant to the current research, and therefore these items were
included in the checklist. One of these areas was Civitello’s, “plans and speciﬁcations.”

The researcher could not ﬁnd any direct use of the phrases in the database narrative

79

descriptions; however it was clear from the reason code analysis that there were many
change orders due to design errors, so the researcher included these items in the checklist.
5.4. Quality Control Checklist Used by the University of Notre Dame

The organization of the checklist was developed based on the responses of the
interviews and a Quality Control Checklist (QCC) used at the University of Notre Dame.
The researcher compared the results of the quantitative analysis, the analysis of narrative
descriptions, and the Civitello checklist with the Notre Dame checklist. Some items from
the QCC were directly incorporated into the plan review checklist proposed by the
researcher. The QCC checklist is included in Appendix Appendix VII.

QCC consisted of a description of the scope and purpose of the document and laid
out guidelines for implementing a quality plan review checklist. QCC was structured into
four design development levels: (1) conceptual design drawings checklist, (2) schematic
design drawings checklist, (3) design development drawings checklist, and (4) 100
percent construction drawings checklist, which was further divided into respective design
disciplines (architectural, civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical).

QCC generally includes the following: (1) Conceptual design drawings checklist:
this section consisted of ten questions that together addressed all design disciplines
related to conceptual level drawings. (2) Schematic design drawings checklist: this
section was divided into ﬁve sections, of which one segment consisted of two common
questions, and the other questions were distributed among four design disciplines:
architectural, civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical. (3) Design development
drawings checklist: this section of the checklist was designed similarly to the schematic

design drawings checklist; however, it included another section titled “cost”, which

80

consisted of one question about the correlation of cost with the established budgets. The
common questions addressed in this checklist consisted of eight questions mostly
addressing CSI division 15 and 16 issues. (4) 100 percent Construction drawings
checklist: this was the ﬁnal section of the checklist that was organized on the basis of the
four major design disciplines mentioned above. In the architectural section, questions
were speciﬁc to ﬂoor plans, elevations, reﬂected ceiling plans, scale, section and details,
schedules and legends, and miscellaneous. The other design disciplines consisted of
questions in a general format, which covered several issues related to 100 percent
construction documents. In the civil/structural section, questions were related to structural
elements and dimensions. The mechanical section was focused on equipment, ﬁre
sprinkler systems, ducts, coordination issues and piping. The electrical section addressed
aspects related to coordination among design disciplines, riser diagrams, panel board
information, low voltage speciﬁcations and type of ﬁxtures.

The QCC helped in several ways in developing the plan review checklist. The
proposed checklist is heavily inﬂuenced by the QCC in its organization and structure.
Also, relevant questions have been incorporated into the proposed plan review checklist.
5.5. RediCheck — Plan Review Checklist Services

RediCheck Associates is an organization that offers plan review services to locate
design errors and omissions. “RediCheck is both a systematic method of construction
document quality control and a professional group of architects and engineers who are
authorized to perform RediCheck services directly for clients,” (website: http://redicheck;
review.com/, date visited: 03/17/2004). This organization uses various checklists based

on each design discipline, which are titled together as “Interdisciplinary Checklists,” and

81

include: civil, structural, architectural, mechanical/plumbing, kitchen/dietary,
speciﬁcations checklists, and consolidated RediCheck checklists. The RediCheck
approach to dividing checklists on the basis of design discipline was adopted for the
suggested plan review checklist developed by the researcher.
5.6. Interviews

The responses of the checklist development interviewees helped in the
organization and development of the checklist. Using information gained from the
interviews, the researcher was able to organize a checklist on the basis of design
discipline and implementation at the four design levels. The respondents felt that keeping
the checklist informal and general would help in improving the current plan review
process. Therefore, the checklist was developed to be general for broader categories, such
as dimensions and standards pertinent to a speciﬁc design discipline, but detailed on
issues with a high recurrence of keywords in the database, such as ceiling spaces and
ducts. Refer to appendix IV for the questionnaire of checklist development interviews.
5.7. Plan Review Checklist

From the analyses and the information obtained from the interviews, a plan
review checklist was developed that was organized on the basis of design discipline, and
could be implemented at the four design development levels. The purpose of this
checklist is to assist the staff of a university in the plan review process. Use of the
checklist would aid in identifying various design review issues that were sometimes
overlooked in university projects. This checklist should be used as a supplement to

current plan review processes and as a vehicle for improving plan review processes. The

82

organization of the checklist is presented below, followed by discussion of the validation
procedure. The checklist is included in its entirety in Appendix VIII.
5.7.]. Organization of the Checklist ‘

The organization and structure of the checklist was mostly inﬂuenced by the
Notre Dame’s Quality Control Checklist, the MSU interviews, and RediCheck. The
researcher adopted a similar approach as the QCC, and organized the checklist at two
levels: (1) design phase of the project and (2) construction discipline. The design phase
includes four subdivisions: conceptual design development level, schematic design
development level, design development level, and contract documents level. The
subdivisions of design phases are classiﬁed into construction disciplines, which include:
architectural, civil/structural, mechanical and electrical. Interviews conducted to validate
the proposed checklist suggested a similar approach. This organization of the checklist
will be helpful in reviewing each discipline individually and addressing the coordination
issues simultaneously. Refer to Figure 5.1 for an excerpt of the plan review checklist and

refer to appendix VIII for plan review checklist.

83

 

CONCEPTUAL

YES NO
1) Is conceptual design in accordance with the master plan?
Source: QCC
2) Does the site plan show utilities and trafﬁc patterns? D E
Source: QCC

3) Do the plans clearly indicate the existing and proposed

facilities of the site? El [:1

a) Are the locations of telephone poles, electrical lines and

any other facilities clearly indicated? [3 E]
Source: QCC, supported by Database analysis

4) “Are small-scale line drawings of plans and sections adequate

to deﬁne horizontal and vertical relationships”? E] D
Source: QCC

5) “Is there any general description of architectural, engineering,

structural and mechanical systems to be used”? D E
Source: QCC. supported by Interviews

 

 

 

FIGURE 5.1 EXCERPT OF PLAN REVIEW CHECKLSIT

The questions listed in the checklist were drawn from the various sources
discussed above, but heavily draws on the QCC of the University of Notre Dame. Many
of the questions in the conceptual and the design development level of the proposed
checklist are adopted from QCC.

The checklist consists of 128 questions with multiple sub-questions under each
speciﬁc question. The checklist includes 6 questions at the conceptual level, and 27
questions at the schematic level. At the schematic level, one question is common to all
disciplines, and seven questions are in the architectural category, four for civil, eight for
mechanical and eight for electrical.

The design development level plan review checklist contains ﬁve categories: a

common category, followed by architectural, civil/structural, mechanical, and electrical,

84

and includes 39 questions. The common category contains questions related to applicable
codes and standards. 12 out of total 14 questions in the architectural category were
developed from the database analysis. Two questions that were related to insulation and
ﬁre systems were adopted from the QCC. The mechanical category includes 6 questions,
which were mostly inﬂuenced by the interviews and database analysis. Interviewees
suggested several issues, which were incorporated in this category. The electrical
questions related to communication systems, etc., were adopted from the QCC. The
remaining electrical questions were identiﬁed through the database analysis.

The ﬁnal section of the checklist was titled “Contract Documents”, whereas in the
QCC it was titled as “100 percent Construction Drawings Checklist.” The researcher
opted for a different title because it was mentioned in the interviews that the ﬁnal set of
drawings that are reviewed would not always be 100 percent complete; consequently,
they suggested the title, “contract documents.” It includes 55 questions. This section was
heavily inﬂuenced by Civitello’s recommendations and the database analysis, although
the QCC was used in various instances. The architectural section includes 7 questions
which were identiﬁed through the comparison of database with the Civitello’s checklist.
The questions address several aspects, such as speciﬁcations, code compliance, match
lines and orientation, ﬂoor plans and dimension, elevations, ceiling plans and legends.

The civil questions were derived from the database analysis, and include
questions related to footings and foundation drawings, whereas QCC questions used
include: dimensions of structural elements and review of column layouts.

In the mechanical category, there are 18 questions, of which questions derived

from the interviews include: compliance of equipment and systems with MSU standards

85

and identiﬁcation of spaces for equipment and their respective locations. The questions
related to duct and ceiling places were extracted from the database comparison with
Civitello’s checklist. All remaining questions were identiﬁed through database analysis,
and include: review of types of pipes, sprinkler systems layout and specialty equipment.

In the electrical category there are 17 questions. Questions related to panel boards,
riser diagrams, speciﬁcations, and grounding were adopted from the QCC. The remaining
questions resulted from the database analysis, and included: compliance of electrical
systems with university standards, legend, lighting plans, conﬂicts with mechanical and
structural elements, and type of ﬁxtures.

The questions in the checklist address recurring causes of change orders
discovered during database analysis, the review of the Civitello change order discovery
checklist, review of QCC and checklist development interviews. Questions in the
checklist are organized on the basis of design development phase, and subdivided into
design discipline. The checklist addressed items which may generally be overlooked
during the plan review process.

5.7.2. Implementation

The plan review checklist addresses various design related elements and is
organized at four different design levels. Plan reviewers should check the listed items
during the plan review process. All “no” responses should be provided with written
descriptions explaining the necessary actions to be taken to correct the items listed. The
complete plan review checklist is included in Appendix VIII. This checklist can act as a
supplement to the current plan review process. During the MSU staff interviews it was

suggested this checklist should be used with the current informal/formal plan review

86

process followed by university personnel. It was indicated that this checklist should be
used by experienced plan reviewers of the university, who would be able to customize it
according to their needs. New plan reviewers or any third party should be trained to use
this proposed checklist. Also, this checklist should be used by plan reviewers with
relevant information provided, such as functional brieﬁng and narrations of mechanical
and electrical systems. Building codes and standards which will assist in a better plan
review process should also be provided.

5.8. Validation

To validate the checklist, interviews were conducted with construction
administrators at Michigan State University. The checklist was provided to three MSU
construction personnel in advance for their review. Interviewees were asked for their
views and suggestions regarding the checklist. All plan reviewers had approximately 20
years of experience in plan review processes and were involved in all stages of plan
review. The speciﬁc responses of interviews are included in Appendix V.

Interview responses were generally similar. All interviewees indicated that using
this checklist would be helpful and would serve as a tool to reduce the munber of change
orders. When asked if there would be any baniers to implementing this checklist, one of
the respondents indicated that it should be able to be tailored to the needs of the plan
reviewer. Two of the respondents indicated that training staff to follow this checklist
would be a good idea. When asked if the checklist should be made mandatory in the plan
review process, all indicated that it should not be mandatory; rather, it should be left to
the plan reviewer’s discretion to follow it. The ﬁnal question asked if this checklist would

increase or reduce plan review process time; in general the respondents stated that the

87

checklist would increase plan review process time, as it would prompt them to review
more options.
5.9 Summary

This chapter presents the plan review checklist, which was developed from the
database analysis, literature review and interview responses. This chapter also describes
the process of checklist development, followed by the discussion of its organization,

implementation procedure, and validation.

88

CHAPTER 6

89

CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDATIONS
6. 0. Introduction
This chapter presents discussion of preconstruction change order prevention
strategies. The “plan review checklist,” was discussed in Chapter 5. These strategies
were developed by integrating the results of the database analysis and comparing the
Civitello checklist with items in the database, interview responses, and through a
literature review.

6.1. Recommendations

6.1.1. Recommendations for University Personnel

During interviews, respondents were asked to suggest recommendations that
could help reduce the number of change orders on university projects. Most of the
responses suggested that good programming and better university plan reviews would
reduce the number of change orders. From the responses, the following recommendations
were made:

1. University personnel should receive periodic training in the plan review process
and in university standards.

2. University personnel should be given ample time to review plans and
speciﬁcations.

3. University personnel should place more emphasis on coordination issues among
various design disciplines (architectural, civil, structural, electrical and
mechanical).

4. University personnel should make sure that consultant A/E’s are following

university standards during design and contract document stages.

90

5. Designers of university projects should receive training in the university
standards, and frequent communication should be promoted between university
personnel and designers.

6. University standards should be made available to subcontractors.

6.1.2. Recommendation for CSI Division Focus

From the database analysis, it was evident that CSI divisions 15 and 16 generated
the most change orders items. Also interview respondents unanimously agreed with this
research conclusion. Based on the responses of the interviews and literature review, the
following recommendations were made:

1) Since the major problems in these divisions are related to lack of coordination
between design disciplines, more emphasis needs to be placed on communication
and coordination between the parties.

2) More time should be provided for the review of shop drawings due to the

complexity of divisions 15 and 16.

6.1.3. Recommendations Related to Programming and Scope Deﬁnition

In section 2.3 (1) of the literature review, Kamara et.al., (2001) addressed the
importance of functional brieﬁng in an article titled “Improving Construction Client
Satisfaction Through Functional Brieﬁng”, similarly Hassanen et.al., (2000) discussed
functional brieﬁng and programming. From these articles, it was found that
communication between the owner and architect plays a vital role in project success.

From the interviews, it was found that some change orders arise due to poor scope

91

deﬁnition and a lack of communication between the architect and the owner. Speciﬁc

recommendations for improving scope deﬁnition are as follows:

1)

2)

3)

6.1.4.

Scope changes can be reduced by utilizing strong programming practices. End
user involvement during the development of a fimctional brief is critical.
Architects should take the lead in developing accurate functional briefs and
should educate the owner about the project.

More time should be allocated for programming, and to identify the needs of a
project. The scope should be clearly deﬁned to help architects develop designs
for the project, which satisfy the owner’s objectives.

During the interviews, it was suggested that the owner should make sure that
designers are following university standards during the design development stage.
Any deviations from standards should be checked during the review and brought
to the attention of designers.

Prequaliﬁcation of Architects

Based on the literature review, it is recommended that architects be prequaliﬁed

for the work. The researcher reviewed QBS and architect selection criteria adopted by

universities.

To ascertain qualiﬁcations of architects, questions relating to the following can be

included: (1) project related experience, and number of years of experience in industry,

(2) hierarchy of the ﬁrm, and information related to the assignment of staff for university

projects and the determination of their responsibilities, (3) protocols and plans adopted to

reduce design errors and omissions and information related to an internal quality program

(if any), (4) the plan review process and coordination with other design disciplines, (5)

92

schedule of planned activities, and (6) familiarity with university standards and the
challenges faced in university projects
6.2. Summary

This chapter discussed the recommendations developed through the literature
review and interview responses. Recommendations are suggested for reducing change
orders causing by design errors and omissions, and are categorized as: recommendations
for university personnel, which are focused on better university plan reviews,
coordination between project participants, communication practices among the owner and
an architect, such as programming and scope deﬁnition. In the ﬁnal section,

recommendations related to prequaliﬁcation of architects are included.

93

CHAPTER 7

94

CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

7.0. Introduction

This research was intended to identify preconstruction change order prevention
strategies for university projects and the focus of this research has been on reducing
change orders caused by design errors and omissions in university projects. This chapter
provides an overview of this report and concludes by identifying future areas of research.
7.1. Overview of the Report

The ﬁrst chapter of this report introduced the research topic and established the
need for the study. In chapter 2, literature related to change order practices and
preconstruction change order issues was presented. Chapter 3 presented data collection
methods used for this research, and chapter 4 discussed data analysis. Chapter 5
presented the plan review checklist, which was an important deliverable of this research.
This was followed by the discussion of preconstruction change order prevention
strategies and recommendations in Chapter 6.
7.2. Understanding Preconstruction Activities

To gain an understanding of preconstruction activities, the researcher identiﬁed
papers and articles, related to functional brieﬁng, scope deﬁnition, pre-bid issues,
prequaliﬁcation of project participants, coordination issues of design disciplines,
partnering, and commissioning. These were used in conjunction with the database

analysis and interview responses for formulating recommendations.

95

7.3. Identifying the Causes of Change Orders by Studying the Case Study
University

In order to identify the sources of change orders, a database of recent MSU
projects was analyzed. Paper ﬁles, including correspondence, bulletins, and other
documentation for each item, were reviewed to determine reason codes. A database of 16
MSU projects, 19 contracts, 157 change orders, and 1,675 change order items was
developed in MS Access as a part of the umbrella project. This database was analyzed to
ﬁnd the sources of problems within individual CSI divisions. A study of the narrative
descriptions using KWIC was conducted to identify recurring sources of change orders
on MSU projects. These analyses were used in developing a plan review checklist. The
major ﬁndings of the database analyses were: (1) 42% of change orders in the database
resulted from design errors and omissions, (2) CSI divisions 15 and 16 were associated
with the greatest number of change order items in the database and accounted or the
greatest cost increases compared to other CSI divisions, and (3) ceiling spaces, light
ﬁxtures, ductwork, columns, and beams were identiﬁed as likely causes of potential
change orders.
7.4. Compilation of Current Preconstruction Change Order Issues

In addition to database analysis, interviews with construction personnel were
conducted to gain their perspectives on change order management practices in industry.
The respondents included two architects, six contractors, three subcontractors, and
construction personnel from ﬁve research intensive universities. The ﬁve research
intensive universities participating in these interviews were: (1) University of Wisconsin,

(2) Purdue University, (3) University of Minnesota, (4) University of Notre Dame and (5)

96

Michigan State University. Open-ended questions were used for the interviews, with a
total of 45 questions. The obtained data was paraphrased, tabulated, aggregated, and was
used in the development of recommendations. .

During the university interviews, it was found that design errors and omissions,
ﬁeld conditions, scope changes, and coordination between design disciplines are
dominant causes of change orders. Architecture, mechanical and electrical disciplines are
associated with greatest number of change order items. Respondents also indicated that
partnering, commissioning, and usage of ISO program were not effective in reducing
change orders. However, better programming and functional brieﬁng, pre-bid walk—thrus,
and improved plan review processes can help in reducing change orders.

7.5. Deve10pment of Recommendations

The database analysis, literature review, interviews with construction industry
professionals, and interviews with MSU construction personnel formed the basis for the
development of recommendations. Individual reports were made for each analysis and
interpretations were drawn from each report. The researcher integrated data from the
various sources and used it to form the recommendations of the research.

7.6. Limitations of the Research

This research was aimed at developing preconstruction change order prevention
strategies and utilized a case study to identify the causes of change orders. Michigan
industry professionals with a variety of backgrounds and construction ﬁrms were
interviewed to learn about change order activities. Therefore the limitations of the study
included: (1) because the database analysis reﬂect a limited number of projects from one

university; it may not be representative of the construction systems of all research

97

intensive universities, (2) the interviewees represented only Michigan-based ﬁrms, and
Midwest universities, ﬁndings for other geographic locations or for other types of
organization may be different. I
7.7. Conclusions

Preconstruction is the ﬁrst phase of construction, and has a signiﬁcant impact on
all subsequent activities. From the literature it was found that change orders identiﬁed at
the early stages have a smaller impact than change orders identiﬁed during the later
stages of a project, which suggests the importance of front-end activities of a project.
Unidentiﬁed issues during the early stage of a project often creep up during construction,
which can increase the cost of a project. Because few researchers consider change orders
as a value added process, most of the time a sense of resistance is observed by the project
participants. This research made an attempt to reduce the list of unidentiﬁed issues during
the preconstruction stage by proposing a plan review checklist, which may reduce the
number of change orders. Though this research addresses various preconstruction issues,
the scope was limited to design errors and omissions. The next step of this research could
be to expand its scope in order to address other areas of preconstruction with greater
depth.
7.8. Areas of Future Research

This research addressed preconstruction change order issues and, focused on
design errors and omissions. As a part of this study, 16 projects of one university were
studied and construction professionals were interviewed to learn about preconstruction
activities. Data collection could be expanded to more than one university, such that

recommendations can be generalized to the larger group of universities.

98

The KWIC (Keywords In Context) approach was used during the database
analysis to identify common sources of change orders. The list of keywords used, could
be made available to plan reviewers to expand the current checklist and make it more
comprehensive. This could have the potential to improve the current checklist. Checklists
could be developed into different types, depending upon the time available for plan
review. A checklist could be developed for a quick review or an extensive review of a
project.

Another area of preconstruction activity that plays a vital role in the success of a
project is scope deﬁnition, which is done as a part of developing a functional brief.
“Brieﬁng has risen on the construction client’s agenda as building users have become
more demanding and clients have increasingly found that the buildings they procure are
often inappropriate for their needs,” (NBS, 2002). A strong brief can make a major
contribution to the success of a project. This research could be expanded to include the
process of scope deﬁnition through functional brieﬁng, and could include
recommendations to improve communication between project participants at the
preconstruction stage and also could examine brieﬁng processes.

During the interviews, respondents mentioned that prebid walk-thrus can be an
effective tool in reducing change orders. This occasion can be used as a platform to
understand the project scope and learn about goals and objectives of the project. This
phase of preconstruction can be studied in detail to provide more recommendations to
improve efﬁciency of walk-thrus, and making them mandatory. Recommendations can be
developed addressing several issues which include: (1) prior to the session - developing a

well deﬁned agenda, (2) during the session - providing accurate and important

99

information, which can help trade partners to understand more about the project, and (3)
after the session — distributing meeting minutes to all trade partners for review and future
reference. .

Although change orders may play a role of an uninvited guest in a project, it is
possible to foresee them and adopt necessary measures to avoid them before they occur.
By adopting good project planning strategies and implementing necessary actions during
the preconstruction stage, change orders can be signiﬁcantly reduced. This research
provided a tool and recommendations which can reduce change orders caused by design
errors and omissions in large university projects. The plan review checklist can act as a
vehicle for identifying potential areas of change orders, which are generally overlooked
during plan review.

General recommendations provided by the researcher can also aid universities
processes for improving quality and coordination of design documents, which can lead to

a reduction in changes caused by errors and scope deﬁnition.

100

APPENDIX I

REASON CODES

101

DESIGN ERRORS AND OMISSIONS

 

Reason Code

Description

Explanatory Description

 

Change required because original design did not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dl Construction Standards include an MSU standard
DZ Code Compliance Corrects for a local, state or national code deﬁciency
DB Constructability Portion of work is not buildable as desigmad
Portion of work will not achieve objective as designed
D4 Errors or is missing relevant information
Other design related error or omission not described
D5 Other above
Documents - General term used prior to CGO detailed codes
FIELD CONDITIONS
F 1 Environmental A regulated hazard is discovered: asbestos, pcb, etc
F2 Soils Poor soils are discovered
F3 Hidden condition A hidden existing condition is discovered
F4 Allowance adjustment Allowance is adjusted to reﬂect actual cost
A local, state or national code is changed during
F5 Change in code construction
F6 Other Other ﬁled changes not described above
Field - General term used prior to CGO detailed codes
SCOPE
8] Customer Scope Customer changes scope for any reason
82 Physical Plant Scope Physical Plant changes scope for any reason
S3 CP & P Scope CP&P changes scope for any reason
S4 Value engineering Value engineering changes contract price
SS Other Other scope changes not included in above
Site scope - General term used prior to C00 detailed codes
Scope - General term used prior to CGO detailed codes

 

 

 

102

 

 

 

APPENDIX II

KEYWORDS FOR CSI DIVISIONS USED FOR KWIC SEARCH

103

KEYWORDS FOR CSI DIVISIONS USED FOR KWIC SEARCH

CSI
Division
1
Bulletin
Excavate

Pavements
Walk
Concrete
Asbestos
Pier
Concrete
Beam

Slab

None
20/31 items are from one

Steel

Beam

Lintel

Column
Roof
Plate
Deck
None

Sealant
Caulk

Laminate
Windows

Doors
Frame
Hardware

Occurrence

7
6
6
ll
11
ll
15
15
8

 

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CS] Dwrsron Description Occurrence
Doors 3 1
Ccﬂgs 14
Frame 14
9 Roof 71
Drywall 8
Painting 23
Metal 9
10,11,12,l3,l4 None
Pipe 44
Insulation 1 3
Drainage 26
Duct 35
i 5 Valve 24
Damper 8
Grill 9
Steam 20
Air 33
Supply 1 8
Switches 17
Duct 17
Detector 7
Circuit 16
Fire 12
1 6 Wire 12
Fixture 22
Light 43
Conduit 29
Security 5
Communication 12
Data 1 6

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX III

TABLES OF INTERVIEW RESPONSES USED FOR UMBRELLA
PROJECT

105

SUBCONTRACTOR INTERVIEWS

106

SUBCONTRACTOR INTERVIEWS — TABLE A3.1

 

Feed back from SubContractors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Question Response Response code
Code
Q1 What is the title of President 81
your position within CEO 82
your ﬁrm?
Divisional manager 83
Q2 Can you provide Data omitted for conﬁdentiality Sl
approximate recent
construction data for
your company (or Data omitted for conﬁdentiality 82
department) such as
approximate number
of projects, types of
projects, dollar value
and or project
proﬁles?
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality S3
Q3 Do you conduct any No S]
formal post . Yes. Put jobs in archives. Send a 2 page 82
construction analysrs survey to owners to get information on
ofpr0jects Wlth the company (performance, fairness on
respect to budget, change orders, working with other
schedule, change trades, if we were thinking ahead). Yes
orders, or performance Daily. We use timberline PM module
9f the panics . (since 2 years) and have daily reports on
involved. Describe. job sites. Actually owners must put
Are pr0ject records everything on the intemet too: RFls,
aggregated for the invoices, all documents.
purposes of
SESE‘ELZErath? Nothing formal, daily review of job cost, S3
' daily loss and proﬁt is detailed. Nothing
on CO's
Q4 Has any analysis been No, lnforrnally YES. In new projects for Si

 

undertaken to
determine change
order causes? Can you
describe this process?

 

rooﬁng the design didn’t meet the
standards of the university. Designers
have to pay more attention to MSU
standards

 

 

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What were its PM and estimators compare change 82
ﬁndings? Were orders to bids. We look at it for: request
recommendations for change (money change), no change
made and (no change on money. For example shift
implemented? doors before wall are built) and N/A

change orders (ones which donor affect

us). This is the only classiﬁcation we

use.

Yes, not formal, missed on plans, S3

speciﬁcations are not an issue. Some

contractor review can help. Experience

people are required, better training of

design Engg.

QS Have you standardized No 81
systems for classifying N o 82
causes (such as scope,
document error or No S3
ﬁeld conditions)?

Describe.

Q6 Have you drawn any No S]
conclusrons wrth Not enough time to bid. Not enough 82
respect to the f time for architects to prepare drawings.
dﬁmmant cauiewh RFI should be answered. Poor
c ange grders. at communication. Use of Construction
are they. management instead of General

contracts.

Designs work on paper, not on ﬁeld. S3
Lack of experience in design and require
constructability reviews.

Q7 Has any analysis been No S]
conducted Wm“ helps No. Most contractors do not want 82
you to predict change change orders contrary to owner’s
orders rates for beliefs
projects? If so can you '
describe our rocess No S3

Y P
or methods? What are
typical change order
rates?

QB Is that rate of changes Sophisticated owners understand, 1 don’t 8]
orders seen as know
acceptable by owners? Maybe s2
Explain. They get surprised, but no problems S3

with MSU. Dealing with one of Man’s
organization directly or through a GC on
EAS projects

Q9 Are you aware of any No 81
published industry N o 82
average rates for
change orders? No S3

Q10 Are performance N/A 81

 

 

 

 

108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

records of your lower No. But we rate the other people we 82
tier subcontractors work with and our competitors. We have
formally or informally set up a database of costs, markups,
considered with bids, who were the people involved in
respect to change each job within our ﬁrms and other
orders? If yes, can you project participants. We use a weighted
describe how they are rating system that rates them for
monitored by your performance, fairness, schedule,
organization? estimated project proﬁt. Then we add a
factor in our bids depending on all this.
Yes, through job costing. No work is S3
done unless C0 are signed and
approved. CO's are not tracked for CO's.

Q11 What are the typical Way too long, 60-120 days from S]
durations for discovery of change including payment
processing change process. Problems are in MSU
orders? Do these authorization time. Durations contribute
durations contribute to to extended general conditions, but we
additional costs such don’t increase cost
as extended general
conditions, ripple 6 -10 months. Identiﬁcation of change to 82
effects or impact MSU authorization. It affects our morale
change orders? more than anything else.

Depends on the schedule, processing S3
happens quickly if it will hit the

schedule. Takes 2-3 weeks from

identiﬁcation of change to MSU

authorization date. CO's don’t impact us

much.

Q12 When general To a very small extent, no experience as 81
contractors or such, low bid is the only factor
construction managers
award construction I don’t know, but like 1 said we do. 82
contracts, are change No S3
order histories of
subcontractors
considered in
determining if they are
"qualiﬁed" for the
work. How is this
information solicited?

Q13 In your opinion do No S]
subcontractmg, . No not consistently. ISO is highly over 82
constructi on or desrgn rated. Quality is very important, having
ﬁrms .Whld'.‘ a quality plan is more important than
partrcrpate in ISO .

usmg ISO.
programs usually have ,
reduced change order What is ISO? N/A S3
rates on projects?

014 Do you have any GC 1, CM 2, DB 3 High to low. 81

 

 

 

 

109

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

opinion or analysis on Negotiated general contract is the best in 82
whether the project my opinion. General contracts were
delivery method such always better. GCs bid the job hard
as design build, dollar, more time was given 0 bids,
construction trained skilled people were there to
management or answer questions and they knew what
general contracting they were doing. CMs when they began
inﬂuences change were GCs doing CM jobs and they still
order rates? Explain. employed skilled experienced people on
jobs. Now that generation has retired.
We have fresh graduates with little
experience brought onto jobs with no
training. They should be tapped for
other skills, not ﬁeld skills. We need
answers to open items and incomplete
drawings. CMs do a poor job and work
for the owner, not for the project. I don’t
know much about design build but I
guess owner has poor control on these
projects.
Yes. Lowest DB, CM, GC. CMs have S3
better ﬁeld of civil.
S4
SS
S6
S7

Q15 Do you have any Yes, by rule of thumb. If low bidder 8]
opinion on whether misses something who would ask for
the spread (variation) CO, but it isn’t a good predictor of C0
of quotes received
from subcontractors - sz
inﬂuences change , ,
order rates? Are they a Effects 3 lot. Lower bidder wrll markup S3
good predictor of Cos. I don t like the low bid system. It 5
change orders on a better to have prequaltﬁcation system.
project?

Q16 How common is it for Big one, very oﬁen 81
change orders to be Very common.0wners need to take 82
caused becaciise the responsibility and commit to time. They
failing ngr‘ixtﬁfdate should hire experienced architects not

people who have never worked with
on aspects of the MSU before and put them on important
desrgn, leading to jobs
scope changes N / A. S3
necessary to make the
design work properly
for the owner?
017 Are construction There is a room for improvement. In few Si

 

documents adequately
reviewed and
coordinated by ME

 

projects, MSU didn’t detail the projects
enough. They dint had enough time to
ﬁnish drawings

 

 

110

 

 

ﬁrms prior to bidding?
Explain.

There is not much time given for that.
RFls don’t get answered prior to
bidding. Drawings are always hastily
prepared. 20 years ago and architect
would discuss problems before the bid.
Now with CM jobs architects are no
longer doing that job and don’t take any
calls. Opportunities to get answers for
better bids, better details, and completed
drawings are lost. MSU is preventing
getting a better deal for itself by
blocking direct communication with
architects by use of CM jobs.
Speciﬁcations are not speciﬁc anymore.
You’re letting contractors bid on
chances instead of reality. Ambiguity
goes in favor of trade contractors and
not owners. They must understand that.
Give more time to architects and let
them directly communicate. Speed isn’t
everything, speed on drawings affects
quality. People aren’t given enough time
to think.

82

 

Yes and No. We basically verify the
quantities

S3

 

Q18

On university projects,
are construction
documents reviewed
adequately by the
university in detail
prior to bidding?
Explain.

No, MSU doesn’t understand a lot about
rooﬁng. Architects don’t design as per
MSU standards, more conﬂicts with
Architectural trades. Don’t know ,
constraints of rooﬁng projects. Original
standards are Ok!

SI

 

They spend time on it. But somehow
things always slip through. Like I said
give architects their powers like earlier,
don’t shiﬁ these vital responsibilities to
Construction managers. Sometimes
architects don’t even come on site, they
are out of state and never communicate.
What answers will new hires on CM
teams give us?

82

 

N/A

S3

 

 

Q19

 

Has your organization
been involved with
projects which have
used commissioning
services? Have these
been effective in
reducing change order
rates?

No

S]

 

Yes worked very well. Also involve
more experienced people when drawings
are at 80% completion stage bring
qualiﬁed people, job site people and
some subcontractors. Get people talking
like before.

82

 

 

N/A

 

S3

 

111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q20 If you have used Yes, worked on partnering. Not 81
"partnering" effective in reducing CO's
agreements on
projects, have those Yes. It WOI'kS. But nobody partners With S2
projects typically employees. Get everybody involved, it
experienced lower saves time in the long run.
change order rates
than others? Has No S3
partnering been
effective in reducing
change orders?
Q21 Are probed meetings Yes, nearly always. They have been 81
or wakthrus conducted effective in reducing CO's. An
for university addendum or preconstruction meetings
projects? Always? need to be published. This helps in
Describe? Have they coordination
been effective in Yes. Yes. Sometimes they are not very 82
reducrng change order __good
9 .
rates. Yes, sometimes. They are not always S3
effective in reducing CO's. Many may
not point out deﬁciency in cashing out
CO's later. If there was a glaring error,
contractor will not bring it out. If
clariﬁcation is required, they will ask,
for example. Material already present in
built work
Q22 Which design Architecture profession. More the SI
professions cause the experience of architects, the better it is
most change orders for '
your organization? N/A 82
Explain. Site work S3
Q23 Based on your work Don’t know. Design should be closely Si
with large owners and watched
contractors, what Deﬁne the leader, who is making all the $2
organizational traits or decisions and what kind of decisions.
processes contribute to MSU has made good progress over the
excessive numbers of last 5 years. The PRs and PMs are very
change orders? good assets now. It wasn’t so earlier.
But they need to make more progress.
They should deﬁne their processes
clearly. It’s nothing to do with
organization. It’s everything to do with
people and attitude.
N/A S3
Q24 Based on your work Don’t know. Too many people in the pic 81
with large owners and may not talk enough.

 

 

 

 

112

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

contractors, what Large owners have talented and 82
organizational traits or experience people. They are supposed to
processes contribute to make quicker decisions. Why debate on
reduced impacts of prices over and over again after
change orders? negotiations. Even after work is done we
can’t bill for it and for so long.
Sometimes in large organizations
documents even get lost. Subs are not
allowed to directly communicate with A
owners so no body knows if the GC is
messing up or the owner. "Talk more
within departments" and deﬁne
processes. Assign deﬁned
responsibilities and trust them with it.
Lack of experience in site work. S3
Qualiﬁed ﬁeld supervisor and
construction reps. Don’t start work
unless CO's approved. XXX has good
process.
Q25 What impact do the Large impact. Architects use incorrect Sl
design/construction material or designs to some degree on
standards of Michigan every job. Don’t know about number of
State University have changes.
on the number 33d MSU has good standards. Of all the $2
types 0f change universities MSU understands its
OYdCTS? Explain. projects better. But the architects that
are employed, does MSU make sure
they understand them too?
N/A S3
Q26 How are overhead and Not in contract. For CO's it is dictated in 81
proﬁt normally the contract. Disagreements are
determined on your common, 15% is not fair
university projects?
Are rates typically By contract. MSU has been a good 52
311003th in the teacher.15% is ﬁne, but when owners
construction contract? extend processing time and don’t
Are disagreements consider you on your years of
OVCT mark-ups for experience and loyalty on bid day, it
overhead and proﬁt 0“ shows disrespect.
change orders Yes, Yes. No disagreements with MSU. S3
common?
Q27 Are disagreements Not an issue. Not a factor except 8]
over extended general delivery change.
conditions costs, Yes but we don’t charge them to MSU SZ
ﬁgfgfgﬁmggﬁfy‘” No, MSU understands well 53
common? Do owners
generally under stand

 

indirect costs which
you incur on changes?
Explain.

 

 

 

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q28 Can you comment on Don’t know the total process. Proj rep 8]
the effectiveness of doesn’t process paper work. Need
Michigan State commitment on time. Penalty charge for
University‘s change late payment will force them to approve.
order process? What
should be changed? We don’t know if MSU sits on change 82
orders or the contractor is not paying us.
Other owners care for project relations.
lf contractors put unrelated items in
change orders and due to some problem
on some other subs items our items get
held up. Both contractors and owners
should be good leaders. If you expect
110% , you get it only if you treat
people with respect for their time and
work. Don’t disrespect RFls.
Works pretty well. We work closely S3
with one of the departments and we
have no complaints.
Q29 From your perspective Better review or architectural 81
do you have any documents. Closer coordination of MSU
suggestions that could and architect. Requires clearer design
be employed by intent.
Michigan State Respect everyone’s time. Trust more. 82
University to reduce Deﬁne your responsibilities as leaders.
change orders 0’ their Deﬁne your process. Have prequaliﬁed
impacts? contractors for certain projects and look
at the subs they bring to the table before
accepting. Low bid isn’t everything.
Clean your documents and specs and
have open communication.
Soil conditions improve S3
Q30 Do you provide Yes, more commitment. Sl
constructronservrces Yes. Inviting bids from prequaliﬁed 82
for unrversrtres other contractors and subs for certain projects.
32".} Mrchrgan Shtate Let the people who just entered as
r “we’s‘btly. °’ °‘ '3' bidders for MSU learn and aim for
arge pu) 1c sector performing better and to get into the
owners. Can you prequaliﬁed list. MSU understands its
comment on what project very well, better than most
aspects of therr change others
order management '
N/A. MSU does good job, it is very S3

 

processes should be
considered for
adoption by Michigan
State University?
Explain.

 

thorough and stream lined

 

 

ll4

 

 

 

Q31

 

Do you have any other
comments regarding
change orders that you
would add?

No. Incomplete drawings. Approval
should be done with more authority,
such that payment process should not be
delayed. Deﬁne what CQ's are, so that it
will be easy to bid for changes on
incomplete drawings Vs more complete
drawings. Payment process is
Reasonable.

Sl

 

MSU is extremely picky, to the extent
that it is counterproductive. Time taken
to process change orders is so long that
it shows that such an important process
is not getting the attention that it

requires. Don’t avoid necessary changes.

The product should satisfy the end user,
those are legitimate. Avoid unnecessary
changes like drawings errors, omissions.
MSU interferes in the construction a lot,
which is good and bad. But when you’re
done you’re done, why argue over
changes then, you were involved so
closely. Change orders are an indication
of an unclean system of construction
management and drawings.

82

 

 

 

 

115

 

CONTRACTOR INTERVIEWS

116

CONTRACTOR INTERVIEWS - TABLE A.3.2

 

Feed back from Contractors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Question Response Response
Code code
Q1 What is the title PM and safety administrator C1

of your position - - - - .

within your ﬁrm? Vrce presrdents(preconstructron, estimating) C2
Project Directory C3
Senior Estimator, Project Manager for GC C4
Proj gr C5
Licensed structural engineer. Sr Project Mgr C6
& VP & Proj Eﬂ

Q2 Can you provide Data omitted for conﬁdentiality C1

approximate

recent Data omitted for conﬁdentiality C2

construction data

for your

company (or

department) such

as approxrmate Data omitted for conﬁdentiality C3

number of

projects, types of

projects, dollar Data omitted for conﬁdentiality C4

value and or

project proﬁles? ____ C5
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality C6

Q3 Do you conduct Every project >3 1 0,000. Use master builder C1

any formal post software. Process of formally keeping

construction records.

analysis of Formal Analysis at preconstruction, C2

projects with midconstruction, post construction. Not

respect to budget, aggregated post construction. Financial status

schedule, change reports go through change orders, schedules,

orders, or projects

rf f

fl; 53:2“ 0 Yes, Gather info for future projects. Analyze C3

involved? sqft cost, man hrs, reevaluate the schedule,

D escribe: Are informally ﬁnd out causes of CO

project records lntemally Yes, not formally. When owners C4

aggregated for ask for CO, you tend to push more number of

the purposes of C05, which is not a good thing

determining
No autopsy done C5

 

average change

 

 

 

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

order rates? No formal program. Quality analysis. Lessons C6
learned on job in general, not speciﬁc to
Change orders
Q4 Has any analysis Not as a company, but individually PMs C1
been undertaken have. Have studied about 500 items for
to determine negotiation.
change order No C2
9
causes. Can you Not really, errors & omissions, poor quality C3
descnbe thrs . . . .
.7 desrgn, owner scope, ﬁeld condrtrons, srte
process. What . .
. . work. Give arch ample trme to follow, pay
were rts ﬁndrngs? . . .
W architect upfront for more detarled analysrs,
ere , . .
. Contract language doesn t require architect to
recommendations . . . . .
made and do any detarled analysrs. GrveOunrversrty.
. personnel ample trme for detarled analysrs
rmplemented?
No formal analysis. Lessons learnt report C4
No C5
drawings, lack of coordination of drawings, C6
owners scope changes, ﬁeld conditions
C7
Q5 Have you Reason codes being assigned. Mostly same: C1
standardized scope, doc, and ﬁeld.
systems for
classifying N0 C2
causes (“Ch as Yes, all 3. Done only for marketing purposes. C3
5°01”, document Owners ask for CO% and where the costs can
error or ﬁeld be reduced
conditions)?
Descrrbe. N 0 C4
No. A/Es cause errors and omissions. C5
Personally I classify as owner, ﬁeld and scope
No because we don’t want to get into ﬁnger C6
pointing at to who was at fault.
Q6 Have you drawn Owners change scope, lack of info/ Cl

 

any conclusions
with respect to
the dominant
causes of change

contradiction/vagueness, ﬁeld conditions, no
of layers of people who make changes but
arrive late on projects, not updated standards.

 

 

 

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

orders? What are Scope changes, Field conditions, document C2
they? errors. Varies with jobs and parties. Usually

projects for big owners have scope changes.

For bonded projects usually we have ﬁeld

changes and errors. Scope changes depend on

end users involvement in programming and

architects. More time required on planning

and mock up construction would bring in end

user input.

- C3

Lack of information and details, (smaller C4

dollar amount), Architects drawings,

coordination between NE and M,E. Scope

changes by owner(large dollar amount)

CM more, GC, DB least. Method of C5

contracting is major source. Dimension

issues. 3 weeks - 1 month time given to

contractor. CM can’t check the drawings as

well as A/Es.

Lack of skill in drafters, people unaware of C6

building systems. Coordination is biggest

problem in fast track projects. Same details

are put in and are used over and over again,

without thinking if they are applicable.

Documents are not laid out in a way that it is ,

easy to verify.

Q7 If you can either New 3, complexes 6, renov 7, science 7. C1
from statistical A __= 25% d = 7% C2
data or from your
experience 540% C3
mdlcate the usual 5, 7-10, 7-10, 7-10, 2, 5, 5-7% C4
change order rate
percentages of 10, 12-13, 12-13, 15-17, 25, 25 C5
original project 8, 10-15, 10-15, 10-15, smaller amounts, C6
budget for some smaller amounts. Sports 12-20 depends on
Of the following quality of does_
project types?

Q8 Has any analysis Not typically. While bidding consider 7% C1
been conducted contingency, we don’t bid for extras.
which helps you Photocopying costs alone are a lot. Not a
to predict change predictor. Variability is accounted for in bids
orders rates for
prOjects? If so Deﬁne the change order process, deﬁne C2

 

can you describe
your process or

 

change orders

 

 

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

methods? What No detailed analysis. We look at contingency C3
are your change of a project. Analysis done job speciﬁc, for ex
order rates? depends on what time of a year, schedule
constraints, rule of thumb
No, Details missing, may be more errors in C4
drawings
No C5
No C6
Q9 Is that rate of don’t know. C1
:22??? orders Some may see it as acceptable, some don’t. C2
acceptable by Sophisticated owners accept C0 C3
owners? Explain. Knowledgeable owners accept it, now and C4
then it’s a problem
Yes, A/Es are considered for changes, as it C5
reﬂects their design. Volume of CO's, speed
of processing is important.
No. but money is an issue with them. C6
Q10 Are you aware of 3% perhaps C1
any ”thth CII don’t know what the rate is actually C2
industry average
rates for change Don’t know. There might be published data, C3
orders? but be wont rely.
No, may be meaningless, it depends on how C4
contractors report it. There is no point in just
reducing change orders, the quality has to
improve ﬁrst.
No C5
Maybe C6
C7
Q13 Are project How they are spent is important. Maybe spent C1
contingencies on scope changes not having enough on docs
established by and errors. No but don’t think it should be. If
owners generally they had passed through the process, they
reasonable or are should not be disputed.
they unrealistic?
Reasonable but should be quoted upfront C2
Hard bid (owners wont disclose contingency). C3
CM projects owner, architect, CM decide
contingency)
reasonable. C4
Generally reasonable. C5
Reasonable. C6

 

 

 

 

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q14 When owners No C1
award , No. although there is a question on budgeted C2
construction cost and actual cost, which is not enough to
contracts, are draw conclusions and hence is inappropriate.
change order
hrstorres Of No performance data is solicited. Informal C3
genera information is sought.
contractors
considered in No of CO's can’t determine the quality of C4
determmmg If 005. For CM Yes. Yes
they are
"qualiﬁed" for N0 C5
the work. H0)” ‘3 Not really. Personal experience, size, ﬁnances. C6
ﬂ“? rrrforgnatron Want t know original budget and change
solicited. orders which is unfair. What about scope

changes due to owners, that isn’t a fair
representation of our reputation.

Q15 In your opinion No C1
do gonstrutetron No. Probably more since it institutes a more C2
“113:3“ rrms rigid process. Cannot afford to have
w I? . . relationship based decisions.
participate rn
ISO ﬁrogms It’s relatively new to construction. Yes, it C3
3:51:06); calf; e should reduce CO
order rates ong No, not at all. If architects implement, then it C4

. may improve CO's.
pr0jects?
No C5
Not really, Can reduce errors maybe. ISO C6

 

 

cannot control change order process as it has
many variations. Nobody knows right answers
in construction industry. A Framework does
not really apply.

 

 

121

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q16 When yes, unfair. C1
interviewing for Pvt owners dont ask for questions regarding change order C2
construction history as they expect change orders. When there is a
management lumpsum fee there is no need for change orders by
services, are construction management services.
perfodn::nceha Questions are barely related to analytical data. C3
recior or ‘1’] nge Performance records are answered by owners (informal,
or er: “that, y like how will you protect me from C0, saving costs?)

, consr ere y
owners when
making their same as before C4
selection? How is No C5
that information Yes. But the best thing to do is Give the best to the owner C6
solicited? in terms of quality and money, not just educe change
orders or payment.

Q17 Do you have any Yes. Gc more, then CM, then DB. C 1
Opinion or Design build- least only scope changes but owners have C2
analysis on less control on design. CM more thean DB less than CM.
whether the Plan review is better, owners control is more. In GC most
pr0ject delivery number of Cos. Plans and specs are black and white.
method such as
2:5'3" :22: Yes, got analytical data. CM, DB, GC (Lowest to c3
mana ement highest), CM is cost effective, level of service, program

enerfl or management is better. GC's look for proﬁtability. DB
Eontracting reduces ﬁnger pointing.
inﬂuences change lGC, 2CM,3DB high to low C4
order rates? N0 C5
Explain. Cant compare and doesn’t matter. The dialogue between C6
parties is important. However in DB owner has less
control on projects.

Q18 Do you have any Should be intuitively, but ideally it wont happen. C 1
O‘hmtll? n (iii GC scrutinize scope incredibly. CM more scrutiny C2
w eader e t' on change order process. SC locate potential CO but
sprg.®(vma “21“) will not inform GC & will show on bids. Variation
9 f1] receive is a red flag- need to keep it in mind but is not
ghahlgectfrsder necessarin a good predictor.
rates? Are they a
300d pr edlctor 0f Yes. Not sure regarding good predictors, large C3
Change orders on spread indicate unclear drawings. In low bids, bidder
a pmJCCt' will look for opportunity for Cost

No, not really, but there is a perception that very low C4
bidder can dig for CO's. If there is an error, we will
aggressively follow it to makeup for losses, if we are

low bidders or we made a mistake on bid day.

No C5

 

 

 

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes it is indicative. Poor set of drawings C6
indicate change order rates better.

Q19 How common is Most common. Cl
it for change _ C2
orders to be
caused because Fairly common C3
the designer and Its common C4
owner failed to
communicate on 35% are due to bad programming. Frequent C5
aspects ofthe Common. 20% - 30% of changes. C6
design, leading to
scope changes C7
necessary to
make the design
work properly for
the owner?

Q20 Are construction Nobody's perfect. Standard of care of architects is Cl
documents very high. With budget cuts it is difﬁcult.
including Coordination however is always an issue.
engineering
documents It’s getting increasingly worse. QC is poor. MSU C2
adequately does a good job on choosing A/E.
reviewed by ME
ﬁrms prior to Depends, they look at it differently compared to C3
bidding? Explain. contractors. Architects look for completion and if

their designs are efﬁciently expressed

They do a good job, but they have their stumbling C4
blocks. Coordination with other designers is poor

No CS
No. more time should be allotted to NE. C6

 

 

 

 

123

 

ARCHITECT INTERVIEWS

124

ARCHITECT INTERVIEWS - A3.3.

 

Feed back from architects/ engineers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Question Response Response
Code code
Q1 What is the title of VP A1
your posrtron wrthrn Senior associate. (civil engineer) A2
your ﬁrm?
Q2 Can you provide Data omitted for conﬁdentiality A1
approximate recent
construction data for
your company (or
department) such as
zggizgenrtZTEEigzi-r Data omitted for conﬁdentiality A2
projects, dollar value
and or project
proﬁles?
Q3 How are typical Estimating, proj mgmt, engineering is Al
design projects outsourced, project supervision project
staffed when controller, safety rep and warehouse
working on control. Proj mgr, controller involved in
university projects? CO tracking '
What are the
speciﬁc
responsibilities of PM, Lead discipline, (structural, A2
the ofﬁces or engineering, architectural etc) . Generally
individuals all projects are staffed like this. For MSU
involved in your projects specially we use people who are
construction project familiar with MSU jobs.
administration
process?
Q4 Do you conduct any No Al
formal ”St . Yes internal. Post project evaluation, peer A2
construction analysrs . . .
. . revrew of project all looked at. Written
of projects With
and documented.
respect to budget,
schedule, change
orders, or

 

performance of the
parties involved?
Describe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q5 To what extent does Yes, we record everything we quote. A]
your ofﬁce monitor When a CO comes in, we check with
change orders on quote. Check outstanding items before it
projects? Are is too late to get paid for. Items notiﬁed
project records earlier, but are not approved like ﬁeld
aggregated for the orders
purposes of
determining average
change order rates? Project representatives from owner’s side A2

take a lot of responsibility. We still take
responsibility to monitor change. We keep
track of it for use on proposals. Owners
ask for it in proposals.

Q6 Has any analysis No Al
been undertaken to Inforrnally. Our goal is to keep change A2
determrne change (I . . A .
order causes? Can or er to minimum. ggressrve on.

. ' . documentation. Analysrs is not client

you describe thrs . .

specrflc. Pr0jects vary so much that we
process? What were , -
. . don t track causes. Contrnuous
rts ﬁndings? Were . .

. improvement process program rs used to

recommendations . -

implement some recommendations.
made and
implemented?

Q7 Have you Field work orders, but don’t get addressed A1
standardized to CCD, CO
systems for .
classifying causes Clients have classiﬁcation. We only track - A2
(such as scope, dollar amounts and how they relate to our
document error or C1?-
ﬁeld conditions)?

Describe.

 

126

 

 

  
    

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q8 Have you drawn any errors, omission, incomplete drawings. scope Al
conclusions with changes, end user changes. Jobs where bids are
respect to the dominant called with incomplete drawings will have ﬁeld
causes of change changes, and too many RFIs are brought out, that
orders? What are they? t cred ’

Not necessarily dominant. General trend is that A2
schedule driven push change orders up. Design
process, review/bid shortened in such projects.

Q9 If you can either from less than 5, <5, 20, 5, na, na Al
statistical data or from 5, 5,10, 10-12, 15, 15 A2
your experience
indicate the usual
change order rate
percentages of original
project budget for some
of the following project
types?

Q10 Has any analysis been Ino AI
conducted which helps yes there are statistical summaries. % given A2
you to predict change earlier or lower than that.
orders rates for
projects? If so can you
describe your process
or methods?

Q11 Is that rate of changes "pricing is a problem, 15% overhead is poor. State A1
orders seen as of MI is 27.5%
acceptable by owners? es and no. A2
Explain. A3

Q12 Are you aware of any No A1

lpublished industry AIA, EJCDC have lots of data. % given earlier A2
average rates for would be comparable.
change orders?

013 Are performance ln/a Al
records of consultants Yes we ask for changeorders. Based on previous A2
(engineering, landsca work, based on relation, quality reputation ismore
architects, etc important than change orders. We don’t work
monitored or tracked with new contractors. Will work only through
formally or informally some previous contact, experience or known
with respect to change member of that organisation.
orders? If yes, can you
describe how they are ,—
monitored by your
organization?

Q14 What are the typical 60-90 days, sometimes 4-5 months. Bulletins are Al
durations for faster, takes 30 days. CCDs and bulletins force us
processing change to work ahead, but payment is late, therefore we
orders? Do these need to markup more on Cos, deduct Cos
durations contribute to
additional costs such as Depends on amount and complexity of change A2
for extended general rder. Between identifying problems to MSU takes
conditions, ripple froma a couple of days(purchase order) to couple
effects or impact of months( For formal/maior Droiects)
change orders?

 

 

127

 

 

Q15

Are project
contingencies
established by
owners
generally
reasonable or
are they
unrealistic?

Don’t know.

Al

 

We try to advice on what is realistic. But they insist on zero
and zero is not reasonable. '

 

Q16

Who
determines the
testing
program for
elements such
as soils
testing,
environmental
conditions?
How are they
determined?
Have testing
programs
generally been
adequate or is
this an area of
concern or
cause of
change
orders?

N/A

Al

 

Joint decision. MSU provides.

A2

 

Q17

How are your
design
consultants
hired for
projects?
When
selecting or
considering
design
professionals
are their
performance
records for
errors,
omissions and
change orders
considered? If
they are
considered
when hiring,
how is this
information
solicited?

Only for specializations, check on quality of drawings

A1

 

A2

 

 

Q18

 

When

 

N/A

 

A1

 

128

 

 

advising
owners on
award of
construction
contracts, are
change order
histories of
general
contractors
considered in
determining if
they are
"qualiﬁed" for
the work.
How is this
information
solicited?

It is certainly a factor. Contractors sometimes have very
aggressive reputations for change orders, but their work is
good quality and good on schedule. So it is only an
awareness factor. NO. Change is nothing more than an
indication of the circumstances in the project.

 

Q19

In your
opinion do
construction
or design
ﬁrms which
participate in
180 programs
usually have
reduced
change order
rates on
projects?

Not at all, like partnering it’s a dog and pony show, only a
marketing strategies

A1

 

Same parallel as CIP. Firms that aggressively involve a
quality program makes things good for everybody.

A2

 

Q20

When
advising
owners in
awarding
construction
contracts or
trade
contracts, are
change order
histories of
speciﬁc
subcontractors
or trade
contractors
considered in
determining if
they are
"qualiﬁed" for
the work.
How is this
information
solicited?

N/A

A1

 

Not much info on that.

 

 

Q21

 

Are you ever
involved in
assisting the
owner in

Yes, no

A1

 

 

Yes. Yes.

 

A2

 

129

 

 

selecting
construction
managers?
When
selecting or
considering
construction
managers are
their
performance
records for
change orders
considered?

 

 

Q22

 

Do you have
any opinion or
analysis on
whether the
project
delivery
method such
as design
build,
construction
management
or general
contracting
inﬂuences
change order
rates?
Explain.

Yes, CM has less CO, they work for owners, but more
disagreements with subs, bids will be higher. GC bids are
better, but have more CO, GC thinks for subs, better
drawings, subs would rather work for a GC. DB has less
Cos, only scope Changes, prices are higher, less C0.

A1

 

 

Yes. GC is good is adequate time is given to designers to do
their jobs. In DB owners are not involved when job begins
later as awareness increases scope changes come in.

 

A2

 

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q23 Do you have any - A1
Opinion on whether no, owner may think that way, if bidder is A2
the spread (variation) low on a job or misses an item, they will try
of bids received to make it up.
inﬂuences change
order rates? Are they
a good predictor of
change orders on a
project?

Q24 How are building could be, it shows on the job. Occasionally to A1
programs (needs often, not consistently.
briefs) established Very strong emphasis of our approach to A2
and documented? design. Direct meetings with ownes, written
Are responses to review comments. Most projects
misunderstandings weve worked on we had direct contact with
about program end user
occasionally or
commonly a cause of
scope changes by the
end user department?

Describe.

Q25 Are construction n/a _ A1
documents including Yes. Different levels of review, discipline A2
those of your design speciﬁc, independent review, QA QC,
consultants formally standards and design document clash checks,
reviewed by your constructability reviews.
organization in detail
prior to bidding? Are
checklists used?

Describe this process.

 

 

 

 

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q26 On university Yes, errors and drawings. Conﬂicts between A1
projects, are standards and drawings. No language in
construction contract that says what takes precedence.
documents formally
reviewed by the
spigotrzrgégigztzarl Yes. When time is available they do a through A2
Describe this job. Follow up is usually face to face. Multi
process. disciplined review team. If there is something

done that confounds MSU standards it is
notiﬁed in written format.

Q27 Has your No Al
organization been Yes. Yes effective in getting the system A2
involved wrth. working properly Not change orders
unrversrty pr0jects ' '
which have used
commissioning
services? Have these
been effective in
reducing change
order rates?

Q28 If you have used Yes, not at all. Partnering is introduced after A1
"partnering" bidding, but discrepancies will remain and
agreements on cost you money. More communication will
projects, have those help, partnering does discuss on approval
projects typically time, but doesn’t get implemented
experienced lower
change order rates
than others? Has
partnering been Few projects. Good idea to improve project A2

 

effective in reducing
change orders?

 

communication. I don’t know about change
orders. Processing time is discussed in these
meetings, how to reduce change orders, it also
defrnes accountability and responsibilities. Set
expectations on timely communication.
People follow it to the end.

 

 

132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q29 Are pre bid meetings Yes, always, only if it’s mandatory it will A1
or wakthrus help. Spend more time on preconstruction
conducted for stage, better to qualify contractors and
projects? Always? negotiate with them. Sometimes owner force
Describe? Have they with out a bid date.
been effective in
reducing change
order rates?

Necessary for contractors to submit better A2
bids. It’s to everybody's advantage . If

contractors asks for information prior to

addenda date.

Q30 Which CSI divisions 9 to 16 A1
seem to cause the Don’t know. A2
most change orders
for your
organization?

Q31 Which design Schedule impact is more A1
professrons because Biggest challenge is scope change. Anything A2
the most change . .

you can do in desrgn process works to
orders for your , .
. . everybody s advantage. Most of the times end
organrzatron? . . ,
user rs not a technical person and doesn t see
a difference till it is built.

Q32 Which construction Carpenters A1

trades tend to be Don’t see a trend. Every trade has its own A2

 

most frequently
involved with
change orders for
your organization?

 

challenges.

 

 

133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q33 Based on your work Yes, MSU has most number of Change A]
with other large orders, walk through should be mandatory.
owners, what Specify who reviews at MSU. Speciﬁcally on
organizational traits renovations projects, so many things go
or processes unnoticed. Architects need to be more
contribute to thorough. Owners know more about the
excessive numbers building than architects, therefore they must
of change orders? communicate. walkthroughs should be

mandatory for GCs and Subs while

considering bids.

Owner scope change. Poor set of construction A2
drawings. If bids come low owner tends to

brings in things those they it could not afford
earlier. Scope changes increase. Nothing to do

with organization I guess.

Q34 Based on your work More time in bidding, not get bulletins, CCDs A1
with other large at end of projects, answer them upfront
owners, what
organizational traits
or processes Large owners may have poor communication. A2
contribute to They should have internal commitment to go
reduced Impacts 0f through changes fast. Sheer volume of
change orders? projects handled by MSU makes them

different from other large owners. Possibly
they are understaffed as well.

Q35 What impact do the Not really, subs don’t get standards. Mention A1
design/construction that standards on speciﬁcations are online at
standards of meeting minutes and walk through.

Michigan State
University have on
the number and ,
Helps reduce them if owner Clearly A2

 

types of change
orders? Explain.

 

communicates with consistency and designers
know what MSU needs. Standards are also
present online.

 

 

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q36 How are overhead Yes, should get more, state of mi 20% A1
32362322: 2:112:13; Yes. Based on prevalent wage rate and A2
university r0' 3 ct 3? business requirements. There are but it is a
Are rates tgpicjzall ' reason for disagreement all the time. 15% is
allocated in the y enough. With state projects maybe contractors
construction make less money and hence need more proﬁt
contract? Are on change orders. MSU allows reasonable
disa cements over markup, but if contractors are upset over
the cgcintractor's processing time they should voice their
mark-ups for concerns clearly to MSU.
overhead and proﬁt
on change orders
common?

Q37 Are disagreements N0, mainly it spoils customer relations A1
ngdnzzmggzgl Yes but not prevalent. It could also be due to A2
conditionsg or loss of contractor’s poor initial schedule. Contractors

roductivity claims deal with projects pretty aggressively if they
Sommon? Ex lain still see a problem with these things and don’t
' p ' discuss it, it is their problem.

Q38 Can you comment Refer to previous answers Al

on the effectiveness Process is good. Needs to be documented and A2

 

of Michigan State
University's change
order process? What
should be changed?

 

needs speed in processing. For each
department deﬁne an acceptable period of
time for processing and strive to reach it. If
contractor is too laid back initially it turns into
a problem later on and then they pursue it,
when it is too late.

 

 

135

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q39 From your Preconstruction and walk thrus, architect Al
perspective do you should be pre qualiﬁed like subs and GCs
have any
suggestions that i
could. be. employed Its is a balancing act. Go through a thorough A2
by Michigan State design process and give time change orders
Unrversrty ‘0 reduce go down, but if you take away the schedule in
change orders or doing so change orders go up. 1 think one
therr ImPaetS? should not push the schedule too hard. They

must also spend time on review process.

Q40 Do you provide Process takes too long, there is something Al
architectural or wrong
engineering services
for universities other Yes. Pvt sector are budget driven and hence A2

 

than Michigan State
University or other
large public sector
owners? Can you
comment on what
aspects of their
change order
management
processes should be
considered for
adoption by
Michigan State
University? Explain.

 

are more competitive. If there is an open item
they will discuss it and ﬁx prices
aggressively. Public owners take their money
lightly.

 

 

136

 

 

 

Q41

 

Do you have any
other comments
regarding change
orders that you
would add?

 

 

If liquidated damages are there and not A1
meeting contract time, they should pay

premium for acceleration, give incentives for
ﬁnishing early. Prequaliﬁcation of architects
Everybody in process has a responsibility and A2

when we have adequate/ reasonable time for
design, our statistical data show that change
orders are low. We look forward to fast track
projects, but risks go up and everybody
should be more responsible and alert.

 

 

137

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY INTERVIEWS

138

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY INTERVIEWS — TABLE A3.4

 

Feed back from MSU administrators

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Question Response Response code
Code
Q1 What is the title of Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U1
your p osrtr on wrthrn Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U2
your ﬁrm?
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U3
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U4
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality US
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U6
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U7
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U8
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U9
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U10
02 Can you identify the Response already given U1
Ogle? or departments 40 projects, 300M annual volume U2
w mm? 19““ . Health Care, Historic preservation,
cons c ron services Heavy Commercial, K-12, Institutional
for your unrversrty (or
d art t ? . . .
ep men ) EAS, housmg, construction and desrgn, U3
and land management
purchasing contracts and grants, land _ U4
management, interior design, housing and
food services, maintenance.
University housing and interior design, U5
CP& P, Physical plant, power plant, land
management.
Information already provided. U6
lnforrnation provided earlier U7
Information provided earlier U8
Information provided earlier U9
Information provided earlier U10
Q3 Can your ofﬁce Unofﬁcial, yes. Just informal discussions. U1
provide general recent
commemn .data for Formal analysis at preconstruction, U2
your unrversrty (or midconstruction, post construction.
department) 39°11 as Financial status exports go through
number 0f prOJects, change orders, schedules, projects
31113731 dollartvalue Information already provided. U3
:‘lii‘1oﬁcl25p?r Iierizot where Given earlier U4
could we obtain this Information already provrded. US
Information already provided. U6

 

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

information? Information already provided. U7
Info provided earlier U8
Info provided earlier U9
Info provided earlier U10
Q4 Does an organizational Yes, Reason codes. MB or CR assigns U1
chart exist which Reason code.
outlines your No U2
:niversity's (01' lnforrnation already provided. U3
e artment's .
coiistruction )project Already given. U4
management parties? Given earlier US
If so, can we obtain a Information already provided. U6
COPY Of this chart? If Information already provided. U7
not, can you identify Info provided earlier U8
the offices which are , _
involved? Info provrded earlier U9
Info provided earlier U10
Q5 What are the speciﬁc - U1
responsibilities of the - U2
ofﬁces or individuals Information already provided. U3
involved in your. Given earlier U4
construction project _ U5
management process? Architect, designer, PIA, open orders U6
most, bid work for $8000+, all paper
work is performed by PIA.
Easy, preliminary planning aﬁer U7
programming is developed for
occupany,several org consulted
procure projects, monitor budget, prepare U8
contracts for signature
Information provided earlier U9
Information provided earlier U10

 

 

 

 

140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q6 Has your ofﬁce Discipline coordination. Non-compliance to U]
conducted any university construction standards. Missing
analysis or review of code compliance issues. Field conditions.
its construction Level of scope of execution by contractor.
project management Industry understanding on projects.
processes? Can you Scope changes, Field conditions, document U2
describe this analysis errors. Varies with jobs and parties. Usually
process? Were projects for big owners have scope changes.
recommendations For bonded projects usually we have ﬁeld
made and changes and errors. Scope changes depend
implemented? Will on end users involvement in programming
you describe this and architects. More time required on
process 311d its planning and mock up construction would
ﬁndings? Is it a No U3
report available for No. U4
“View informally. U5
nothing formal main stream system U6
no formal, the construction process is U7
reexamined on onﬂng bases, YES
yes, informal studies, having PO issued in U8
direct pay vouchers
no. informally U9
informal, discuss to ﬁnd easiest ways U10
consistent evaluation. Yes, famis
Q7 Do you conduct any No answer U1
formal post a = 2.5% d = 7% U2
construction analysis No U3
of projects with No formal. U4
respect to budget, Yes. Project closeout debrieﬁng, physical U5
schedule, change lant with client. No.
orders or nothing formal. U6
performances ofthe Yes on projects that exceptionally good and U7
parties involved? bad. N0
Describe. Are yes, less things learnt. Final budget report U8
ﬁndings 0’ a report excess funds to appropriate parties
available for our no U9
review? yes, informally. YES U10

 

 

 

 

141

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q8 If an analysis has been No U1
gondugted, can youl Deﬁne the change order process, deﬁne U2
680“ .e, m genera change orders
terms, its ﬁndings?
N/A U3
N/A U4
No. US
N/A U6
Solicited ideas about what factors went well U7
contractors thrown on a project they don’t
have the experience, poor design docs,
incomplete and inattention by A/E
See above U8
No U9
Charges posted to the wrong accounts, things U10
shouldn’t be there, errors
Q9 To what extent does No answer U1
your office monitor Some may see it as acceptable, some don’t. U2
change orders wrthrn
your department or Don’t U3
process? Are I’m-'eCt What they are and how much they are. No . U4
records aggregated for N / A
the purposes Of For every item. No. No. US
determining average . _
change order rates? Review/discuss questions wrthrn dept. No U6
Are these change For budget impact, type scope, design, etc., U7
order rate statistics or YES, not this dept, NA
analysis available for
our review? Start with attending progress meetings, U8
bulletins and CCDs are logged in excel and
famis. Reason codes track time. YES
A lot managed directly. NO. NA U9
Fully total against ledger, total against U10
contractor >NO
Q10 Has any analysis been - U1
undertaken to C11 don’t know what the rate is actually U2
determrne change
order causes? Can you N0 U3
describe t1“? process? Response given. Discussed with ﬁrms. U4
What were rts ,
ﬁndings? Were Yes. Done by consultant s reason codes. U5
recommendations Skewed based on source (who assrgns the
made and codes) no.
implemented? Is a N0 U6
copy of the report Yes U7
available?
No U8

 

 

 

 

142

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scope changes by client, unforeseen U9
conditions, consultants poor design
- ' U10
Q11 Have you standardized Design engineers-—very informally (known for U1
systems for classifying missing contract items). University project
causes (such as scope, managers--informally.
document error or
ﬁeld conditions)? End of project review of Subcontractors not U2
Describe. speciﬁc to CO. Inforrnally assess SC for CO
and work ethics
Yes, reason codes U3
Yes. U4
Yes. US
No U6
Yes U7
Yes U8
No U9
Information already provided. U10
Q12 Have you drawn any No answer. No U1
conclusioriiwrth Put Cos are quick in negotiations due to less U2
gespec (t) e f hierarchy in approval (1 week processing + 30
:mrnan gauiewh t days payment). They can contribute to
c at]? :1” ers t a extended general conditions. The lst CO may
are e) omrnan not have a major effect but the 5th will have a
causes. cumulative effect. Impacts include, ﬁnancial
burden on SC, relationships breakdown,
detrimental to administration. Owners have to
understand that SC payment is important. If
delay in payment is anticipated they include it
in their cost. If they trust the process time
they will quote realistically.
Unforeseen conditions, errors and omissions, U3
scope
Document errors. U4
Field conditions, documents. U5
Field conditions U6
Depends on proj, customer change scope, U7
renovations, hidden conditions, new design
error
All play a role U8

 

 

 

 

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scope changes, consultant design U9
Scope, ﬁeld conditions U10
Q13 If you can, either from Experience/Rule of thumb. 10-15% U1
statistical data, or from Reasonable but should be quoted upfront U2
your experience
indicate the usual 34%, 3-7%,3-20%,3-12%,10,12 U3
change Order rate. _ 2-3, 34, 2-3, 3.4, N/A, N/A. U4
percentages of original
project budget for the 5, 5010, 10, 10+, 10 or less, 10+ U5
0f the following No,no,10,no,no,no U6
t .
pm“ types 4-5,4-5,7-8,7-8,10 and 8 U7
4-5,6,7-8,10,3,5-6 U8
No, no, 10-15,no,no,no U9
N/A U10
Q14 Has any analysis been No U1
contiucteddwllrctl: helps No. Although there is a question on budgeted U2
y 0: o ptre :5: c ange cost and actual cost, which is not enough to
or er ra es or draw conclusions and hence is inappropriate.
pr0jects? What are
your change order
rates? N0 U3
No. consultants are informally asked their U4
experience with change order rates.
No. US
Historical data, perform lots of same type of U6
buildings
no U7
Yes, historical data, 7% U8
Nothing formal U9
No, 5-6% small projects U10
Q15 Is that rate of change No U1
orderstasglen): l . No. Probably more since it institutes a more U2
accep e. XP am. rigid process. Cannot afford to have
relationship based decisions.
N/A U3
N/A U4
N/A U5
Yes, know expect U6
N/A U7
No could be lower, trying to avoid scope U8
chaﬂes
N/A U9

 

 

 

 

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes U10
Q16 Are performance No. N/A. U1

rec-(tirds “p.201“; Private owners don't ask for questions U2

pa res mom ore or regarding change order history as they expect

tracked formally or .

. f 11 'th change orders. When there IS a lump sum fee

rn ormtat y :1 there is no need for change orders by

respec o c ange construction management services.

orders? If yes, can you

describe how they are

monitored for the Informally, mentally. U3

followrng groups of

project participants? NO- U4
Informally for all listed. U5
No,no,no - only negative performance, no neg U6
per, no neg per, NA
Informal U7
No, informally U8
No U9
No U10

Q17 Please outline the No answer U1
process 0f recervmg, Design build- least only scope changes but U2
revrewrng and h 1 tr 1 d - CM
. han e owners ave ess con 0 on esign.' more

apgrovrngthc g than DB less than CM. Plan revrew 18 better,

or ers w: in your owners control is more. In GC most number

organrza ion. of Cos. Plans and specs are black and white.
Chart U3
Already provided. U4
Given earlier U5
Bulletin, quote, review, pay or reject U6
N/A U7
Info already provided U8
Items discovery, discussion, issue change U9
orders or reject or resubmit
Info already provided U10

 

 

 

 

I45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q18 What are the typical No, experience tells you what the spread U1
durations for; CC scrutinize scope incredibly. CM more U2
prgces: 13g change scrutiny on change order process. SC locate
3’ 63" ° :3: t t potential co but will not inform oc & will

:33: onslcon ts u ch 0 show on bids. Variation is a red ﬂag- need

:5 fgxﬁeﬁ: d sue to keep it in mind but is not necessarily a

generally conditions, good predictor.

ripple effects or

impact change orders? _
2 months, yes sometimes U3
2 months, yes. U4
2-3 months. Yes. U5
2days, no U6
3-4 months, usually not, primarily U7
contractor is authorized to proceed via CCD
Two weeks is what we try, 80% of them, U8
No, not directly. Rarely pay extended

_general conditions

2days. U9
1-2 weeks or as long as one month, NO U10

Q19 How are project - U1
contingencies U2
established for "
projects? What are Based on MP's of project, approved budget U3
typical rates? allowance, 8-15%

Designated by board of trustees to have U4
10%, may increase if unknown conditions

exist.

By designer, new 5%, renovation 10% US
10% based on historical data U6
Sometimes, nature of the project, new = U7
lowest 57, renovation medium 8-12,

underground high 10-15%

Project manger recommends a number U8
10% or less, historical data U9
Info already provided U10

 

 

 

 

146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q20 What happens to Comments from management often U1
unspent project submitted to NE. NE responds in writing
contingencies as the to each issue.
project progresses? It’s getting increasingly worse. QC is poor. U2
Are they generally MSU does a good job on choosing A/E.
available for use with
the later project phases Sits there. Depends on funding sources U3
to allo’w for changes in Don’t know. Not generally. U4
sco e.

p Sits there. Yes. U5
Sits there, possible U6
Remain in construction account until U7
project completes, YES
Sits there. Depends on from where funding U8
comes from. 30+ sources
Sits in account, yes U9
Information already provided U10

Q21 Who determines the Not all. Schematic review. Design and U1
testing program for development review. 30%, 60% and 90%
elements such as soils review.
testing, environmental MSU better than most owners. It’s good. U2
conditions, or
hazardous materials? Easy, standards, adequate U3
How are they A/E. based on soil borings. 0k. U4
determined? Have NE in consultation with Univ construction U5
testrngljlirobgrams supervisor. Past experience. Empirical ,
genera y 6.6” , information. Inadequate for complicated
adequate or rs this an underground work.
area of concern or
cause of change
orders? Go through physical plant, go through U6

physical plant, great

Architect, code requirement, adequate U7
usually included in contract for controlling,

contract doesn’t chance on testing

Designer U8
Physical plant, adequate U9
- U10

Q22 How are design Yes. No answer. U1
professronals hired for Not analyzed with CO. They have been U2

 

projects? When
selecting or
considering design
professionals are their
performance records
for errors, omissions,
and change orders

 

effective in customer satisfaction.
Commissioning ﬁnds out flaws & more
money is spent on C0 & ﬁxing goes over
the years and is paid later. Testing brings
out more Cos but its not bad

 

 

147

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

considered? If they are A quality based selection process. Yes. Ask U3
considered when about claims outstanding, change orders
hiring, how is this rate done during the interview
information solicited? _
Based on fee. Below 50,000 dollars. U4
Selection based on experience and
availability. Above 50,000 there is a
speciﬁed formal selection process
advertised in Michigan contract and
builder. Experience based on building type.
6 % present, reduced to 64% and they are
interviewed. informally.
Qualiﬁcation based selection. Yes. Thought US
he request for proposal and past
experiences.
Easy at phys plant, informally U6
QBS, YES, determine based on contact U7
with previous clients
N/A U8
Information already provided. U9
? U10
Q23 When awarding No answer. U1
constlrluctron cgmtracts, Good at negotiating CO. OK-but may not U2
are c an ge or er reduce CO. SC and owners beneﬁt from it.
histories or general
contractors considered No U3
in determining if they
are "qualiﬁed" for the No U4
work? How is this No U5
. . . . 9
information solrcrted. No U6
No U7
No U8
Yes, opinions from previous projects U9
? U10
Q24 In your opinion, do Yes. Yes. A published time for pre-bid U1
construction, design or walkthru is established. Obligatory
construction attendance.
management ﬁrms Yes. Yes U2
which partrcrpate in N / A U3
ISO programs usually
have reduced change No U4
order rates on projects N US
undertaken for your 0
university when N0 U6
compared to non 180 No U7

 

 

 

 

I48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ﬁrms? No U8
More U9
No U10

Q25 When awarding No answer. U1

construction contracts 15 1 6 2 9 U2

or trade contracts, are ’ ’ ’

change order histories N0 U3

of speciﬁc No U4

subcontractors or trade

contractors considered N0 US

in determining if they lnforrnally U6

are "qualiﬁed" for the ,

work? How is this No, cm be consrdered U7

information solicited? No U8
Yes, opinions from previous projects U9
? U10

Q26 How are construction No answer. U1

managers hired for M, E, P Lack of coordination between these U2

projects? When three parties and with A/E. They are not

selecting or involved in design process early on.

considering Unforeseen conditions,

construction . Quality based selection process. No. U3

professronals are their Advertising, Solicit proposals, shortlist.

performance records Same as A/E process. No informally. U4

for errors, omrssrons Qualiﬁcation based selection. No. US

and changeqorders quality based selection process. Informally U6

consrdered. QBS, based on info from past clients A U7
No U8
Na U9
7 U10

 

 

 

 

I49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q27 Has your Yes. Very inefﬁcient depends on nature of U1
organization used es. Rarely, for simple structures DB will be U2
design build ﬁrms for Yes. Once, specialized construction, where U3
projects? If so, there is limited designers and contractors
describe frequency with that expertise.
and project types. Once. U4

Yes. One. U5
no U6
rarely, pole barns, specialized medical U7
facilities

es, pharmaceutical, pole barns U8
once, bad experience U9
? U10

Q28 Have you been Yes and No. as long as we can maintain U1
generally satisﬁed control. There are problems with sharing
with projects control.
delivered through the Clearly deﬁned decision network. CM U2
design build project allowances. 100% free discretion of owners.
delivery method? Should be used to handle changes.

Explain. No. Very little control over the process. U3
They pay for change orders they didn’t
believe were warranted.
No. No selection process told who to use. U4
There is a tough time buying into MSU
construction standards.
n/a U5
U6
no, owner had less day to day control of U7
roject, bad for knowledgably owners
Ir’io, GMP, disputes in scope U8
INo, DB team is thrown ﬂether U9
Ihard to control U10

 

150

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q29 Do you have any U1
opinion or analysis on Deﬁne process U2
whether the project Yes. More change orders with GC. They U3
delivery methOdi SUCh throw the bids together and it is more
35 designbuild, adversarial by design.
construction Process doesn’t inﬂuence much as the team. U4
management, or No. US
general contracting N 0 U6
2:32:2325 $213312“ Design build the nature pay for CO in U7

' p ' advance, hidden contingencies built in.
Neither reduce owners cost.
Can’t guarantee CM will come less than GC. U8
Fearless likely to bust the budget
All can have CO problems, has more to do U9
with design time spent preconstruction
No, not much difference U10

Q30 Do you have any No. Experience tell you what the spread is. U1
opinion on whether Project speciﬁc.
the spread (variation) Needs updating but they are fairly ok. U2
0f bids received Reduces CO, less guessing by AfE,
inﬂuences change contractors and owners.
order rates? Are they a No. No. U3
good predictor of Yes, can be. U4
change orders on a Yes. No. US
project? Yes, yes U6

Yes, its an indication of document quality U7

U8
Not really U9
No, no U10

Q31 Is the contractor's Yes. 15 and 5. 15% on self performed work. U1
overhead and proﬁt 5% on subcontracted.
mark Up typically Dictated by contract. Causes disputes U2
contractually sometimes.
speciﬁed? What are Yes. 15 and 5 U3
the standard speciﬁed Yes. 15 and 5 U4
rates? If not, how is Yes. 15 and 5. U5
overhead and mark up
incorporated into the Yes,5% on subs, 20% materials U6
contractor's change Yes, 155 U7
order pricing?

N/A U8
Yes, 5% subs, 20% materials U9
Info already provided U10

 

 

 

 

151

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q32 Has overhead and Occasionally , some contractors think it U1
proﬁt mark up been a should be higher.
source of dispute on productivity losses common. Affects U2
projects? Explain. seguencing. General conditions always .
Yes. Contractors feel it is inadequate. U3
s. Contractors don’t read the contract. U4
Yes. Contractors feel it is inadequate to US
cover costs.
no U6
yes, not adequate of co for work to be done U7
out of sequence
no U8
not generally, contractually no when going U9
into a project
? U10
Q33 How are extended U1
general conditions Natural distrust. Reduce negotiation time by U2
items or reduced having upfront costs.
productivity claims Negotiated a s separate change oaﬁer the U3
incorporated into fact. Yes, difﬁcult for a contractor to prove
change order pricing? his case, sets the stagﬂir conﬂict.
Has this been a try not ot do/ negotiate. Varies by project. U4
source of dispute on Can the contractors justify time? Yes us
projects? Explain. 'ustifying the true impact of scope or work.
no U6
reluctant to add time for CO/issue which U7
ignored. Yes, bemore diligent about time
impact ~
make contractor show there is a problem. U8
YES, but few. Historical relationships
na U9
? U10

 

152

 

 

 

034

 

How are building
programs (needs brief)
established and
documented? Are
misunderstandings
about program
occasionally or
commonly a cause of
scope changes by the
end user department?
Describe.

Description at conceptual stage, how much
dialogue exchange between parties.
Meeting minutes, problems statements,
memos, reports, emails. Personnel turnover,
how instigated.

U1

 

GCs track CO, PRs have to push. Too many
layers of approvals. MSU must plan for
CO. Sometimes takes about 6 months to
process CO.

U2

 

Established by department and documented
in word form their needs. Yes. Not a total
understanding of what the needs are.

U3

 

A document is written. No, unless you have
personnel changes.

U4

 

NE and end user. Occasionally A/E didn’t
explain or capture the intent.

U5

 

Meetings, memos, email. YES, expectation
is the architects know what to do

U6

 

Done by facility planning and space mgmt
process. NO

U7

 

Contractually adding to project completion
date for each person’s piece as designated
amount of time. Limit the number of .
bulletin items on a bulletin and should have
the change orders processed in certain
amount of time.

U8

 

Consultants should know. YES, people
clients don’t know exactly what they want

U9

 

 

?

 

U10

 

153

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q35 Are construction Not all. Schematic review. Design and U1
documents formally development review. 30%, 60% and 90%
reviewed by your review. Comments for maintenance are
organization in detail submitted to NE , who respond to each issue.
prior to bidding?
Describe this process.
See other interview responses, and not always U2
done.
Yes. Each discipline goes through the U3
documents for completeness.
Information was provided earlier. Done at the U4
50 —9O %. No longer at 30, 60, 90 % design
completion stages. Distributed to staff
positions, (M,E,S) also to shops, telecom, ﬁre
marshal, custodial, client. It’s done in a
meeting with all parties.
Yes. AfE walk thrus to the university and then US
break up into disciplines.
Yes,PIA and architect review and comment U6
Yes, reviewed by Ale and maintenance shop U7
supervisor. Large projects and independent
review ﬁrm
Expected time we offer them equals quality U8
Big projects self performed U9
- ' U10
Q36 Does your Yes. Yes most projects have at least one. U1
Siliziilsllfgiiztori‘3‘rijction Decentralize control on C0. too many levels U2
standards or of authority and approvals.
speciﬁcation WhiCh Yes . Occasionally. U3
establish requirements ,
for design and Yes. No. Occasronally. U4
speciﬁcation of Yes. No. U5
projects by designers? .
Is failure to follow Phys‘ca‘ Plan" “a“ be U6
these standards by Yes, yes they deviate from our const U7
designers a frequent standards
source of change No U8
9 .
orders. Explain. Physical plant, yes, contractors think their U9
work superior to standards. Try to trick Msu,
see if they caught
- U10

 

 

 

 

154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q37 Do you believe there U1
rcshglrfferznce in Yes. Higher when used outside, because of U2
. ge or If rates failure to use standards. Not familiar with our
desrgn ed wrthrn your b 'ldin s the don’t 8 end enou h time
organization when ur .g in y . l dap g
compared to when you assessrng rstorrca ta.
use outside design
ﬁrms? Explain. Yes. Much lower when designed in house. U3
Yes. We review our standards and recurring U4
design ﬁrms, familiar are better.
Yes. Interior designer, single designer, no US
miscommunication between buildings.
Same. U6
In-house lower, no const standards U7
No U8
Yes, experience take time to ask questions to U9
design and solve problems
Yes, outside larger projects, more things U10
easily missed
Q38 Has your organization Yes. Don’t know. U1
utilized Yes. No. Problems are ﬂushed out in designs U2
commissioning that are incorrect and don’t work as intended.
services? Have these Yes. No. Adds due to problems that are U3
been effective in identiﬁed during start up phase.
reducing change order Yes. No comment. U4
rates? Yes. Yes. US
No U6
Yes, yes U7
Yes, reduces them if agent use them in design U8
No, U9
No U10
Q39 If you have used U1
"partnering" Yes. Yes. Team player mentality, informal U2
agreements on a cements and negotiations.
Prejeetsi have those Yes.Dont know. Don’t know. U3
pror'ects typically Don’t know. No comment. U4
experienced lower No. No. US
change order rates l,no,no U6
than others? Has No, not that can be identiﬁed U7
partnering been No U8
effective in reducing
change orders? Sort Of U9
Yes, less conﬂicts more agreements. Needed U10
for new contractors not familiar with MSU
expectations
Q40 Are prebid meetings Yes. Yes. A published time for pre-bid U1
or wakthrus conducted walkthru is established. Obligatory
for projects? Always? attendance.
Describe? Yes. Yes. Designer meets with contractors on U2

 

 

site and allows questions.

 

 

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Yes. U3
Yes. Yes. NO response. U4
Yes. Yes. Show up to site and architects U5
explains projects.
Yes,yes,show up and allow questions U6
Yes,yes,architect meets contractor for U7
questions
Na U8
Yes, yes, walk through and ask questions U9
Info already provided U10
Q41 Which CSI divisions U1
cagse Te most change 15 and 9. 15 mechanical systems are U2
or ers 0: yorlwh d expensive, difﬁcult to design and its large
“ng.23 ion. y 0 division. 9 because most changes affect
you think these ﬁnishes
divisions have the '
most change orders?
2 and 15. 2 has unforeseen conditions. 15 has U3
complex mechanical SYSTEMS HARD TO
DESIGN.
Not speciﬁc. U4
2 and 25 hidden conditions. US
15 because of cost of items U6
2,15. 2 unanticipated conditions, 15 complex U7
structures
2 soils most likely, unknown conditions U8
Depends on projects, depends on CSI U9
divisions as a percentage of the whole
projects
16 U10
Q42 Which design U1
professions cause the Mechanical U2
most change orders for
your organization? CIVll and mechanical. U3
Not speciﬁc. U4
Civil and mechanical. U5
? U6
Mechanical U7
No U8
Architectural. Elec/Mech must install U9
percodes
? U10

 

 

 

 

156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q43 From your perspective Having enough time to do a thorough review U1
do you have any of the docs. Post bid, contractor looks at how
suggestions that could he will get from point A to point B.
be employed to
reduce change orders
3:35:13 21:31:22.: Yes. Quality assurance, quality control need U2

p p J ° to be designed in the project (during design).
Stupid mistakes make up a lot of change
orders (errors and omissions). More time built
in the schedule for internal design reviews.
Using ready check to review documents U3
consistently. More time on ﬁeld investigation
on existing conditions. Disallow scope
changes.
The size of the addendums associated with the U4
project indicate a possible problem. Better
communication with team members.
More thorough reviews of plans and specs. US
Better review of docs,better communications U6
Provide adequate time for doc review U7
Improve processing time, administrative U8
effect and will create better good will -
Hire good consultants, review does for U9
maintenance perspective to understand if it
actually works, more people take seriously the
importance
Reduce number of items in CO, on bulletins, U10
write clear descriptions

Q44 What change order Solvable at preconstruction phase. How and U1
management process what are CCDS used for, identifying things
improvements could before it is an emergency.
be made that would
reduce the impact 0f Contractually adding to project completion U2
change orders on date for each person’s piece as designated
PTOJeCtS? Either amount of time. Limit the number of bulletin
preconstruction 91‘ items on a bulletin and should have the
during construction change orders processed in certain amount of
contract time.
administration?

Analysis of the reason codes. Target areas of U3

 

 

concern for pre and post. During construction:
quick responses to contractor’s questions.

 

 

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preconstruction a person with intimate U4
knowledge of project should determine if it is
valid. During construction, contractors should
have quick pricing for extras, ideal would be
one pay application period.
Preconstruction will have plan review, post US
construction more timely and less.
None, good existing system U6
Better way to communicate the budget status, U7
simplify the steps, clear expectations, locking
unit prices, better personnel to perform plan
reviews, better commitments from these
people
U8
Change order slow the project down. T and M U9
based on unit prices
Submit complete info when submitting CO U10
Q45 Do you have any other U1
cgmmentsdregatidrtng Change orders are a fact. Mistakes are U2
c “1312:2196“ a you inevitable, what makes mistakes so long time
wou ' to solve are people's egos. Analysis of every
project should be done to keep data to know
what projects need. '
They are an inefﬁcient way to deliver a U3
project, but they are necessary.
No. U4
Would like to streamline the process at the U5
university
Necessary evil, maintain relationships U6
Give them the importance they do and handle U7
timely
Discourage scope changes, sometimes its best U8
alternative
No U9
? U10

 

 

 

 

158

 

APPENDIX IV
UNIVERSITY INTERVIEWS .

159

UNIVERSITY INTERVIEWS — TABLE A4.1

 

Feed back from University Administrators

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

02:83:“ Question Response Resggzrse
_ _ - U1
What rs the trtleof Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U2
Q1 your posrtron wrthrn . _ ,
your university? Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U3
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U4
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U1
Can you identify the Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U2
ofﬁces or departments
Q2 2:213:31! airlifervices Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U3
for your university (or
department)?
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U4
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U1
Can your ofﬁce , . ,
provide general recent Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U2
ygﬁiﬁciiiggiﬁtaior Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U3
department) such as
Q3 number of projects,
annual dollar value
32%:gojeﬁt where Data omitted for conﬁdentiality U4
can we obtain this
information?
Does an organizational U1
chart exist WhiCh Not available U2
outlines your U3
university's (or
department)
Q4 construction project
management parties?
If so can we obtain a Yes U4
copy of this chart? If
not can you identify
the ofﬁces which are
involved?
Q5 What are the speciﬁc U1
responsibilities 0f the DOA. Major projects - project manager, no
ofﬁces 01' individuals authority work with DSF U2
involved in your Refer to chart U3

 

 

 

 

I60

 

 

construction project
management process?

When we have a new project, Univ
architect assigns job to PM. PM handles
concept, program deﬁnition, end user
coordination, works with CM, Arch, other
designers at conceptual stage, PM works
through construction and closeout stage.
CM and architect make their separate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

estimates and discuss later, so architects U4
intent comes out clearly and everybody’s
ideas are brought out. The same team
(C,SC,TC,CM,Arch) works from start to
ﬁnish. Owners goes though each and every
RFI, Project begins when 100% budget is
committed and 70% is in hand.
Audit Internal processes - Documents U1
Heavy State process - State approach has U2
Has your ofﬁce been reviewed. None within
conducted any analysrs Internal modifying as appropriate. RFI,
or revrew of rts . . . . .
. . monitor audrt, predict audrt ﬁnancral by U3
construction pr0ject
state agency
management
processes? Can you
describe this analysis ‘
Q6 process? Were We have a quality manual. Approval
recommendations signature sheets and checklists for
made and conceptual, design, schematic, construction
implemented? Will drawings. We track project costs and
you describe this administration costs and there are separate U4
process and its forms depending on dollar amounts. we
ﬁndings? Is a report implemented this system and it works very
available for review? well, we have client satisfaction and lower
change order rates.
Do you conduct any Recommended a one place - no formal U1
formal P9“ . process. Vendor Performance program
construction analysrs
0f projects With In house postmortem. Informal, provide no U2
respect to budget, vendors list
schedule, chan e . . . .
Q7 orders, or perfogrmance No formed, budget reconcrlratron rs always U3
.Of the parties . Project closeout : over/ under budget
involved? Describe. .
. evaluation, sq footage, and change orders.
Are ﬁndings or a Th' . da b h' h . U4
report available for our rs goes ".“o a ta SC W [C ls
. ,7 referenced in future. Results vary.
revrew.
Q8 If an analysis has been U1
conducted can you _ U2
describe in general Not applicable U3

 

161

 

 

terms its ﬁndings?

Evaluate performance of architects,
contractors and call a meeting to talk about

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what the univ thinks, sothey get a chance U4
to improve and they are generally pleased
with it.
Not aggregates. Guestimate - 7 - 10% U1
To what extent does 4
your ofﬁce monitor Forms are copied. And at end of projects U2
change orders within poor coding. Can request monthly report
your department or
process? Are project Monthly report, excel sheets U3
records aggregated for
Q9 the purposes 0f Is price reasonable is it documented.
deterrnrnrng average Monitor changes through our system. Once
change order rates? a month issue change orders, so contractors U4
Are these change order have more conﬁdence. If change orders
rate statistics 01' value is less than 250,000 VP of business
analysrs avallable for Op signs it, If more P signs it.
our revrew?
Use F amis U1
No. May do for campus project when
Has any analysis been needed budget sensitive usually response to U2
undertaken to questions
determine change
order causes? Can you Grouped by 7 categories, customer request, U3
describe this process? C&O, flCld, design dCﬁCICDC)’ for recovery
Q 1 0 What were rts
ﬁndings? Were . ,
recommendations No formal analysrs, mechanical and
made and structural changes. Coordination is an
implemented? Is a issue. Mechanical engineers don’t listen
very well. We have desrgn standards and U4
copy of the report , , , ,
available? sometimes they don t read it, that s a
' bigger issue than inadequacy of design.
Standards will be online very soon.
6 Room Codes at change order level not U1
items
Have you standardized 10-15 categories - unforeseen conditions, U2
systems for classifying errors and omissions, scope, coordination
Q11 causes (such as scope, U3
document error or ﬁeld
conditions)? Describe. Same. Only have difference in owner
initiated and contractor initiated. Hold U4
architects accountable for bad design and
errors, but not for omissions.
Q12 Have you drawn any Design Documents/ Coordination U1
conclusions with t . . . .
respect to the Most Signiﬁcant coordination, ﬁeld and U2

 

 

scope

 

 

162

 

 

dominant causes of

scope,e&O, ﬁeld. customer requesting big

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

change orders? issues, no statistical data U3
What are the
' dominant causes? '
Our process is good so far, catches most
changes early and hence can be avoided.
Have human errors and there are some
obvious design errors sometimes, but rarely
occurs. Poor coordination between designs U4
, should overlay drawings and talk more.
We don’t hire contractors to do quality
reviews of architects work, they are here to
build. Our industry has a problem, people
do not admit mistakes.
If you can either from New buildings - 5%, science - 5%, U1
statistical data or from renovations - 10%, new infrastructure - 3%
your experience U2
““1103” the usual <3%, N/A, <3%, - , < 5%, <5% us
013 change order rate
persentages of original 3, 3, 7 (GMP) and 5 (CM), 7-5 (as before),
PTOJCCt budget for service agreements 3 yr contracts for heavy U4
some 0f the following infrastructure new and renovation
project types?

Has any analysis been - U1
conducted which helps U2
you to predict change Just experience U3
orders rates for

Q14 projects? If so can you
describe your process
or methods? What are NO- U4
your change order
rates?
U1
is that rate of changes Inevrtable, 01‘ U2
Q15 orders seen as Generally it has gone up since expanding. U3
acceptable? Explain. Architect services to other A/E
N/A U4
Vendor Performance U1
Coordination is main problem, not held U2
Are performance accountable, use incentives
records of project Brief check sheet exists evaluation form U3
parties monitored or
tracked formally or
infomany with Yes all. As mentioned before evaluate them
Q16 respect to change through formal forms and send these
orders? If yes, can you evaluations to the parties and meet with
describe how they are them to discuss things. Their change order U4

 

monitored for the
following groups of
project participants?

 

histories are tracked for fairness, timeliness
but not necessarily for number. We seek
references though from whom we get this
information informally.

 

 

163

 

 

U1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None because DSF U2
C.O physical plant form. PP. (RFP)
prepared by inspector bulletin. Developing U3
compose and complete speciﬁcations
Most change order are done well in
advance, so there are no grievances. PM,
Business manager, Director of QA and
construction, Univ architect and Vice Pres
review and sign changes. Architect uses
Please outline the AIA document though none of our
process of receiving, agreements or contracts are AIA. we write
reviewing and our own contracts. Contractor initiates

Q17 approving change change through RFI, MM or Proposal
orders within your request and issues it to architect and owner.
organization. they review it simultaneously Architect U4

then gives a formal recommendation to
owner stating why it is accepted or
rejected. our review form is attached to
Architects AIA form . We have ﬁle color
system which identiﬁes any high priori out
the same day from the ofﬁce. It takes
sometime to get signs from the VP. but we
issue change orders monthly. If it gets
delayed occasionally because both the P/
VP are out for several days, then the ‘
contractors understand.
2 Months + 30 days after invoice U1
2 months - 6 months from proper . Yes they
What are the typical do create issues. No CCD process done U2
durations for verbal to get work done
53:16.3 13% i223: e From acceptance, 30 days max. Verbal or U3

018 durations contribute to sped note
additional costs such
as for extended general Less than 2 weeks to 2 months. Contractors
conditions, ripple are satisﬁed. We try to keep our change
effects or impact orders less than 250,000 so that VP signs U4
change orders? them instead of P who is out very oﬂen.

We do not use CCDs as they have to be
signed by the president.

Q19 How are project Project by project this differ U1
contingencies Major projects, previously discussed U2
established for , _
projects? What are Estimate between arch and construction U3

 

 

office

 

 

164

 

 

typical rates?

Start with 10% estimate contingency , 5%
design contingency and 5 % owner scope
change in conceptual design stage, which
comes down to 0% owner scope, 5%
estimate contingency, 3% change order

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

contingency at the end of design drawing U4
stage and in construction stage we have
only 3% change order contingency and no
other contingency. scope changes are
avoided.
What happens to Stay with project returns to department U1
“SPF!“ PTQJeCt Always spent - usually projects run over U2
contrngencres as the spent on project U3
pr0ject progresses?
020 Are. they generally _ Nothing is returned till project closeout.
available for use With Yes sometimes if programmatic changes U4
the later PtOJCCt phases are proved. If there are savings owner
to allow for changes in retains the savings.
scope?
Who determines the In consultancy with CP&P U1
testing program for. State with consultant, varies system and
elements such as 50115 . . U2
. . Situation
testing, envrronmental
conditions 0" . Preconstruction controlling. Design of U3
hazardous materials? record plus inspector. Been adequate
Q21 How are they
determined? Have
testing programs
generally been Geotech consultants are hired mostly tough
adequate or is this an separate agreements, sometimes through U4
area of concern or architects. YCS.
cause of change
orders?
How are design Prequaliﬁed list upto 50,000 fee picked by
professionals hired for OP. To competitive over 200 for state U1
projects? When federal
selecting or by state U2
considering design U3
professionals are their
022 performance records Prequaliﬁcation, 6-8 ﬁrms are invited to
for errors, omissrons response to RFP. Evaluate based on
and 9113383 orders strength of team, past project type
constdered? Ifthey are experience, check whether the team people U4
consrdered when have work with each other before,
hiring, how is this references.
information solicited?
When awarding Starting to U1
construction cdontracts, Low bid methods, not prequaliﬁcation U2
023 hitcciriﬂgjfcgreneeral State law required low bid only U3
contractors considered
Not necessary. U4

 

in determining if they
are "qualiﬁed" for the

 

 

 

165

 

 

work. How is this
information solicited?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In your opinion do No experience, but not important U1
construction, design or No improvement U2
construction Not applicable U3
management ﬁrms
which participate in
Q2 4 ISO programs usually
have reduced change
order rates on projects Don’t know U4
undertaken for your
university when
compared to non ISO
ﬁrms?
When awarding Vendor Performance program considered
construction contracts in through past performance ’ U1
or trade contracts, are
change order histories Prime contractors - no low bid method U2
Of speciﬁc Could re'ect sub'ect es for a enc low
Q25 subcontractors or trade bids J J ’ y g y U3
contractors considered
in determining if they
ﬁrkqugggei: at}: the No performance is considered. U4
information solicited?
How are construction RFP process - YES U1
managers hired for By state via qualiﬁcations, political, legal U2
projects? When 9
. QBS U3
selecting or
considering
Q26 construction
professionals are their We seek this info from references but we
performance records are more interested in Performance and U4
for errors, omissions prequaliﬁcation.
and change orders
considered?
YES U1
Yes, rarely U2
Has your organization not allowed for state projects for design U3
used design build build
QZ7 ﬁrms for projects? if _ . .
so describe frequency Yes 2 projects. Dorng it because some
and project types? trustees wanted it. Not very comfortable U4
with it, as owners are less involved and
informed.
Have you been 50:50 Yes. Not on state funded project U1
generally satisﬁed Yes very good [12
Q23 wrth projects delivered Mixed views, some successful, some not U3
through the desrgn
build project delivery Outstanding in commercial not comfortable U4
method? Explain for university projects
029 Do you have any GMP U1
oprnron 0t analysrs on Not really function of delivery method U2

 

166

 

 

whether the project

GC for general buildings is test, nature of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

delivery method such ro'ect U3
as design build, p J
construction ,
:ﬂﬁf33ggﬁng CM at risk lower, Hard bid higher, DB too U4
inﬂuences change early to say.
order rates? Explain.
Intuitive it does, when very low bid U1
Spread is not a prediction U2
Do you have any No U3
oprnron on whether the
spread (variation) of
bids received Can be. But for is it is not an impact. We

Q30 inﬂuences change bring in two of the lowest bidders and ask
order rates? Are they a for breakups. They are prequaliﬁed and we
good predictor of discuss if they may have missed items, but U4
change orders on a we don’t disclose numbers. Finally results
project? are published, we chose them based on

performance, and hence it doesn’t affect us.
Is the contractor's Yes U1
overhead and proﬁt change orders matter - 15% U2
gtgtmfany Yes for cost plus basis items - 10%, not too U3
speciﬁed? What are much

031 $231119: :3 lspecrﬁed On lumpsum we don’t know and don’t

h d d ow :1 care. otherwise as in contract for change U4
fxggjma [$211169 orders in hard bids, 15% for subC 10% for
0
contractor's change sub SUbC 5 /°’
order pricing? us
Has overhead and Yes U1

Q32 proﬁt markup been 3 “0t really U2
source of dispute on U3
projects? Explain. NO. U4
How are extended Temporary Facilities U1
general conditions Can be care by care basis U2
rtems or reduced No, on occasions U3
productrvrty claims

Q33 incorporated into
change order pricing?

Has this been a source N0 U4
of dispute on projects?
Explain?

Q34 How are building Exterior Dengn Standards U1
programs (needs brief) Maj or projects, works with user U2
established and department. Scope changes not an issue
documented? Are 2 phase space management dept works with
misunderstandings academic program (Architect ofﬁce U3

 

 

 

 

167

 

 

about program
occasionally or
commonly a cause of
scope changes by the

converts to building turned areas),
department reviews documents)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

end user department? As described earlier, PM does that. U4
Describe.
Distribution Matrix. Internal review
distribution matrix. University architects, U1
but small staff standards. Zone ofﬁce
Are construction Review charettle, pm consultants,
documents formally opportunity to review physical plant U2
035 reviewed by your constructability.
organization in detail Hope to get documents 15% Design
prior to bidding? development, 60% concept development. U3
Describe this process. senior staff reviews. Each review has
options
Yes. As mentioned earlier through our U4
checklists and quality system.
Does your Yes standards exist. Not really U1
organization have . State Melines, universityﬁ guidelines U2
”thth construction Web address, on occasions will U3
standards or
speciﬁcations which
establish requirements
for design and
Q36 speciﬁcation of
projects by designers? Yes. Sometimes. U4
Is failure to follow
these standards by
designers a frequent
source of change
orders? Explain.
Do you believe there is Not currently designing for outside. Little
a difference in change in house design, but few changes - 2 sort U1
orders rates designed build
Q37 Withil} YO?! Not applicable U2
organization when Not applicable U3
compared to when you _ .
use outside design Ho rn-house desrgn we do not want any U4
ﬁrms? Explain. liabrlrtres.
Used commissioning generally helpful U1
. . Yes they have used. A/E should do
Has your organization . . . . ed thers with in U2
utilized commrssronrng, expenenc o
commissioning house servrce
Q38 services? Have these Not used to date, but may be ﬁnds errors, U3
been effective in that would not have been found
reducing change order We use consultants sometimes, but it hasn’t
““357 helped much except for helping users know U4
how to use the systems.
Q39 If you have used Yes, formal and informal U1
"partnering" No improvement U2
agreements on 1 time U3

 

168

 

 

projects, have those
projects typically
experienced lower
change order rates than

No. takes too much of peoples time and no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

others? Has partnering one has that kind of time. U4
been effective in
reducing change
orders?
Yes, clearly identiﬁed in bid docs and RF Is U1
Yes U2
Are prebid meetings or For renovation projects but not new U3
Q4 0 wakthrus conducted buildinL
for projects? Always?
Describe? Yes. Yes. Not mandatory. lf GC couldn’t
make it to the walktrhu and requests to see U4
the site, we allow them to.
Which csr divisions WE , , U1
cause the most change MEP - rarely sorls, quality not there
orders for your because of expertise. Electrical more U2
Q41 organization? Why do careful
you think these 15 but not data to support, 14? U3
divisions have the Don’t know, haven’t done a formal U4
most change orders? analysis, but guess that it is div 15.
Which design WE U1
Q 42 professions cause the U2
most change orders for Initials instead of names U3
your organization? Mechanical. U4
Coordination by AE + GC U1
From your perspective Quality of documents, lack of U2
do you have any accountability or repeat work
suggestions that could Mandatory 30 day review, documents U3
Q43 be employed to before goes to bid, could improve standards
reduce change orders Our systems work well for us. People need
frequency and their to talk more, coordinate better and U4
impact on PYOJCCtS? architects should clearly show their intent
on paper.
What change order Earliest management/ look ahead for future U1
management process problems
improvements could Post mortum, make staff ensure U2
be made that would Make tougher, review period , standards,
reduce the impact of estimating process U3
Q44 change orders on
projects? Either Preconstruction meetings with GCs, Subc,
preconstruction or C to make sure everyone’s expectations are U4
during COHSU'UCUOD the same. Change orders are going to
contract happen no ones perfect.
administration?
Q45 Do you have any other U1
comments regarding U2
Simgeaggers that you 4% renovation, 1-3/4% new major, 2% U3

 

 

whole project

 

 

169

 

 

 

 

 

Change orders have a negative connotation,
we understand we are doing well, but there
is always room for improvement. Its about
excellence not about perfection.

 

U4

 

170

 

APPENDIX V

CHECKLIST DEVELOPMENT/VALIDATION INTERVIEWS

171

TABLE A5.1 - CHECKLIST DEVELOPMENT INTERVIEWS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question Question Response Response
Code code
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality Pl
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality P2
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality P3
What is your position and title Data omitted for conﬁdentiality P4
1 within the university? Data omitted for conﬁdentiality P5
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality P1
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality P2
Data omitted for conﬁdentiality P3
How many years have you been Data omitted for conﬁdentiality P4
2 working with MSU? Data omitted for conﬁdentiality P5
Yes, all levels (also works with
different work disciplines Pl
Yes, all stages (not detailed
level) P2
All stages, areas of expertise.
Not my project, at 50% contract
docs P3
Yes, all stages.(from conceptual
to contract does) sometimes may
not involve in ﬁnal contract docs P4
Yes, all stages. Conceptual to
construction. We don’t have
different disciplines expertise
Are you personally involved with like in physical plant, so we do
3 plan review? In what capacity? everything P5
P1
No formal checklist, shops are
asked to write comments P2
Two people have informal
checklist in our dept P3
No formal procedure. Check for
clearances, compliance with msu
Do standard plan review protocols sthaniarﬁ). Dimension s 1:“ efnot P4
and processes exist within your c ec e ecause 0 ac 0 me
4 department? Explain Not formally P5

 

 

 

 

172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P1
As above P2
As above P3
We get set of docs and 2
weeks of time - make
written comments -
submitted to NE - they
are supposed to respond
(who may not) - we
review - necessary action P4
3 of us in staff when time
permits, plans are passed
to get different
perspectives. I have been
doing this work from so
Can you describe your (departments) long, that I don’t need a
5 plan review processes and protocols? checklist, P5
P1
We use MSU standards P2
We use MSU standards P3
Do you use a standardized departmental . .
or personally developed checklists for 2n mcforrnal checklist. P4
plan reviews to reduce/ prevent design oor rna ion rs issue
6 errors and omissions? No P5
P1
On web P2
On web P3
Check the attachment P4
7 Can you provide a sample of it? N/A P5
P1
N/A P2
N/A P3
At what stages in plan development is Refer to 3 P4
8 the checklist implemented? N/A P5
P1
N/A P2
N/A P3
Is this checklist based on design N/A P4
discipline, work scope or other criteria? N/A P5
10 What are the factors to be considered Pl
during the development of checklists Conceptual level -
for the following plan development programming req by dep
stage? Conceptual, schematic, design are addressed. Facility
development and contract docs mgmt dept is involved in
all programming + ind
dept (dean or chair) +
P2

173

 

 

Physical plant rep (not
always)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As above P3
Refer to 3 P4
Conceptual and schematic
blend together - at this
stage make sure that
relationships are well
deﬁned, analyzing trafﬁc
patterns and pathways.
Design level + contract
docs blend together - at
this stage check if the
earlier discussed things
are place properly and ﬁts
the project P5
P1
More detailed review,
more time - depends on
the project P2
Depends on the project P3
5 min - few days
(depends). In general day
or two or may be few
How much time is typical spent by you hours P 4
or your department in reviewing plans
at each of the following stages? Varies all over. For all
Conceptual, schematic, design levels together, it takes
11 development and contract docs few weeks to 8 months P5
P1
No. P2
No P3
No - many thiﬁs to do P4
Depends on how it comes
Is this amount of time adequate? out. If its good, then its
12 Explain. adequate. Generally yes P5
13 What barriers add to difﬁculty in P1
conducting plan review? Explain
Time, hierarchy P2
Too many levels of
approvals. Priorities are
dictated by someone else P3
Time - too many projects
at a time P4

 

 

 

 

174

 

 

 

Time - too many projects
at a time and
administration some times
gives ridiculously short

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

time P5
P1
No barrier P2
Little bit of resistance
from people who already
use their own process P3
Simple, which should
generate results, should
be accessible. It shouldn’t
be complex and speciﬁc.
As small as possible P4
What barriers exist which would limit
the use or effectiveness of plan review Time to do it, and make a
14 checklists? checklist P5
P1
It will be helpful P2
ln-house training will be
helpful P3
Would plan review training be useful in It will be helpful P4
15 reducing errors and omissions on plans? Oh yeah P5
P1
Keep it general P2
Do not be speciﬁc, let it
help the process P3
Discussed earlier P4
Shouldn’t be done in
vacuum, should go
through plan reviews and
then switch the process
and develop checklist.
Just analyzing and
developing will not help.
When I retire, I should
Can you provide any additional write a checklist. How
comments regarding the use of plan many times did I build a
review checklists, which will be helpful running track, sparty
16 as we develop a checklist for MSU? move, tennis court? None. P5
17 Are you aware of any plan review P1
checklists or research on checklists
developed by any other organizations? N0 P2
No P3
No P4

 

175

 

 

No

P5

 

What suggestions do you have for how
a checklist should be oganized?

P1

 

Based on design
discipline

P2

 

CSl divisions wise
doesn’t work, discipline
level will be good

P3

 

What is building for?
Whats proj for? 4
different levels of
implementation

P4

 

It should be made in the
perspective of the builder

P5

 

19

What suggestions for what should be be
included in a checklist?

P1

 

Comply with MSU
standards, should mention
this.

P2

 

Can access to all plan,
should be generic

P3

 

Make it general

P4

 

Earlier discussed

P5

 

 

20

 

What suggestions do you have for how
a checklist could be implemented
within the appropriate MSU
departments?

P1

 

Should be informal,
shouldn’t be focused on
each item ~

P2

 

Should work as a
guideline, say "look at
dimensions", be general

P3

 

Each person involved
should have it. Make a
project record
individually or together.
Touch in base with
maintenance while
reviews it will help

P4

 

 

Checklist should be
provided and it’s the
responsibility of the
respective proj rep to use
it or not. Resource is
given, its upto you how
will it be used. If they are
experienced, they may
not.

 

P5

 

 

176

 

TABLE A5.2 PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST VALIDATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERVIEWS
Question Question Response Response
Code ' code
1 What is your position Data omitted for V1
and title within the conﬁdentiality
university? Data omitted for V2
conﬁdentiality
Data omitted for V3
conﬁdentiality
2 How many years have Data omitted for V1
you been working with conﬁdentiality
MSU? Data omitted for V2
conﬁdentiality
Data omitted for V3
conﬁdentiality
3 Are you personally All stages V1
involved with plan All stages V2
revrew? In what
capacity? All stages V3
4 Did you receive the Yes V1
questionnaire that I sent
you, and did you have Yes V2
time to review it? reviewing “OW V3
5 Do you have any No, need to spend V1
questions or do you more time
need clariﬁcation on
any items or aspects of N0 V2
the proposed checklist? No V3
6 Are there any items No, its good as a V1
which you feel are general format
missing and would be
important to include in N0 V2
the ﬁnal form of the Snow melting V3
checklist? system, water
quality system,
equipment areas
7 Will use of this In theory it should V1
checklist be helpful in help.
avoiding design errors
and omissions prior to Always helpﬁrl. V2
bidding? This checklist will
be tool to remind
Yes V3
8 What barriers exist Let this checklist Vl
which will make allowed to be
implementation of this tailored
checklist difﬁcult?

 

177

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing V2
Time V3

9 Do you think it is Yes . V1
important to tram staff Not really, just V2
before rrnplementmg 'd'
this checklist? Pm“ me

' rnforrnatron
Yes V3

10 What do you think are It should save V1
the potential beneﬁts of money
this checklist?

It would help in V2
reducing mistakes

Deﬁnitely reduce V3
change orders

1 1 Should use of this Not mandatory. It V1
checklist be mandatory? should be left to

the discrete of

professionals

No, it should just V2
be a

recommendation

No, depends. _ V3
Should be left on

the person

reviewing

12 Do you feel use of this It would add time, Vi
checklist will add or but don’t know
reduce the amount of how much
staff time spent for
reviewing a particular It should reduce V2
set of plans? Can you time
estimate how much
might be added or Add, may be 25% V3
subtracted from your more time.
typical current paciﬁc?

13 Do you have any No Vl
additional suggestions No V2
or comments?

No V3

 

178

 

APPENDIX VI
CHARTS OF CSI DIVISION ANALYSIS

179

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.3. CSI l-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

140000
1 20000
100000
80000
60000
40000

20000

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.4. CSI l-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

180

 

 

\ W -¢ 6 b N W
o o o" of s es s e 9" es?" ere
e39

00"

FIGURE A 6.5. CSI 1-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000

 

so
0* e"

FIGURE A 6.6. CSI 1- COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

181

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.7. CSI 2-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

1400000
1 200000
1 000000
800000
600000
400000

200000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.8. CSI 2-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

182

 

s?"
9°“ ee’

0" o“ s9 <9 4° one re‘ e? 6" e“ 9" eo°¢ 69*

FIGURE A 6.9. CSI 2-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

300000
250000
200000
150000
100000

50000

FIGURE A 6.10. CSI 2- COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

183

 

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.11. CSI 3- C.O. ITEMS PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.12. CSI 3- COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

184

25

20

 

o
'5 v6 ‘0 b N '1; '5 ‘3
o dyes s? e er} or re e e“ agreed;
o°° e"

FIGURE A 6.13. CSI 3-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

300000
250000
200000
150000
100000

50000

 

-50000

FIGURE A 6.14. CSI 3-COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

185

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.15. CSI 4-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

250000

200000

150000

1 00000

50000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.16. CSI 4- COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

186

25

20

 

0

5 6 b . €> ﬁt 5
octoeeeeeees 9e steepiene
%\

FIGURE A 6.17. CSI 4-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

180000

160000

140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0

 

'5 5 O . \b \ W 5
o o“ 9f or. s e or to one off
¢§

FIGURE A 6.18. CSI 4-COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

187

 

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.19. CSI 5-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

250000

200000

150000

I 00000

50000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.20. CSI 5- COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

188

 

30

25

20

 

0
"2 e) 6 "to '5 b b N W
o ¢Qs§9 s s see as or sentence
o°° est

FIGURE A 6.21. CSI 5-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

180000
160000
140000
120000

100000

 

FIGURE A 6.22. CSI S-COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

189

 

 

Field

Desiyi

FIGURE A 6.23. CSI 6-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

 

Scope

Field

Design

FIGURE A 6.24. CSI 6-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

190

 

0
D4 DS Documents F6 Field 81 S4 Scope

FIGURE A 6.25. CSI 6-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

 

gp¢

FIGURE A 6.25. CSI 6-C.0. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

191

 

{aseos’eeesa
eon

.eoeaa
.esoo.
.sse..a

 

Scope

Field

Design

FIGURE A 6.26. CSI 7- ITEMS PER
GROUP REASON CODE

 

Scope

Field

Design

FIGURE A 6.27. CSI 7-C.O. COST PER GROUP REASON CODE

192

 

FIGURE A 6.28. CSI 7-ITEMSPER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

 

FIGURE A 6.29. CSI 7-C.O. COST PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

193

 

 

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.30. CSI 8- ITESM PER
GROUP REASON CODE

140000 .

120000

20000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.31. CSI 8-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

194

c9!

 

FIGURE A 6 32 CSI 8-ITEMS PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

 

 

FIGURE A 6.33. CSI 8-C.O. COST PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

195

45
4o
35
30
25
20
15
10

5

0

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.34. CSI 9- ITEMS PER

GROUP REASON CODE
1 00000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
1 0000
0
Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.35. CSI 9-C.O. COST PER GROUPED REASON CODE

196

 

 

0'50“

e to b x “it ‘3
yes s on e e a“ e entered"
9°“ 9“"
FIGURE A 6.36. cs1 9-ITEMS PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE
40000

35000
30000
25000
20000
1 5000
10000

5000

 

.s e} at a} e"

'5 e b
6‘

FIGURE A 6.37. CSI 9-C.O. COST PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

197

 

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.39. CSI 10-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

40000
35000

30000

20000
15000

1 0000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.40. CSI l0-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

198

 

 

FIGURE A 6.41. CSI l0-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000

2000

 

FIGURE A 6.42. CSI 10- COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

199

 

....
Nwszuiaxrootoo

p.‘

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.43. CSI 11-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

1 0000
9000
8000
7000
6000

4000
3000
2000
1000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.44. CSI ll-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

200

If,
I;

x

I...

I... p
I. wk «WW.

I’ve

 

3..-.

Documents Field Si 82 Scope

D4

FIGURE A 6.45. CSI ll-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

2::

 

 

INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

FIGURE A 6.46. CSI 11- COST PER

201

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.47. CSI 12-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

30000

25000

20000

1 5000

10000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.48. CSI 12-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

202

 

Scope

S1

Documents

 

FIGURE A 6.49. CSI 12-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

 

 

8] Scope

Documents

INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

FIGURE A 6.50. CSI 12- COST PER

203

 

FIGURE A 6.51. CSI l3-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

 

FIGURE A 6 52 CSI 13- COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

204

30000

25000

20000

1 5000

1 0000

5000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.53. CSI l4-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

205

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.54. CSI 15-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

700000
600000
5 00000
400000
300000
200000

I 00000

 

0 ,

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.55. CSI lS-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

206

 

70

60

50

40

30-

20

10

 

0

FIGURE A 6.56. CSI lS-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

500000
450000
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0

-50000
6»

     

  

  

'\ bx
9" 9“ o" 0&9 ‘3’ Q {‘5 % a? zooq"

Ca

00

FIGURE A 6.57. CSI 15- COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

207

 

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.58. CSI l6-C.O. ITEMS PER GROUPED REASON CODE

400000
350000 -'
300000
250000
200000 _
150000 "
100000 ‘ _ ‘

50000

 

Design Field Scope

FIGURE A 6.59. CSI l6-COST PER
GROUPED REASON CODE

208

 

 

st ﬁe'bb_\bx'»'b 5
oooo‘oyoeeﬁéseeekeggsj

9°“ 9‘"

FIGURE A 6.60. CSI l6-C.O. ITEMS PER INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

1 80000
1 60000
140000
1 20000
1 00000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0

-20000
'\
Q

    

6 b bx
6’ 0 <5” «'06 a” % $0.0”

FIGURE A 6.61. CSI l6- COST PER
INDIVIDUAL REASON CODE

209

 

 

APPENDIX VII

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME CHECKLIST

 

210

OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY ARCHITECT
DQCQMENT QUALITY AS§URANCE PLAN

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to provide the University's design consultants, the
staff of the Office of the University Architect, and Facilities' Operations staff with
the design review issues frequently overlooked or for those items requiring special

attention in order to achieve a high level of quality documents.

2. SCOPE
The scope of this document describes the expectations of the University for
the contents of Schematic Design, Design Development, and Construction
Document drawings and specifications. All "No" responses of the quality
checklist require a written explanation including what is necessary to achieve

the item listed.

Note: This guideline does not relieve the Contractor nor the Design Consultant of
their responsibilities as described in their contract with the University.

211

QUALITY CHECKLIST

A.

Conceptual Design Drawings Checklist

 

1)
2)
3)
4)

5)

6)
7)

8)
9)

10)

Does design conform to existing master plan?
Does site plan show utilities and circulation?
Does site plan show topographic features?

Are small-scale line drawings of plans and sections adequate
to define horizontal and vertical relationships?

Do plans show existing and proposed facilities in their relative
arrangement?

Do plans accommodate the handicapped?

Is there a general description of architectural, engineering,
structural and mechanical systems to be used?

Is there a listing of minimum codes to be used?

Do square footage areas correlate to the program
requirements?

Does cost correlate to established budgets?

Schematic Design Drawings Checklist

1)
2)

3)

Have applicable codes, standards and rules been cited?

Is there a differentiation between new construction and
existing items?

Architectural:

a) Is life safety plan information provided?
b) Is occupancy classification indicated?

c) Are separations (fire and smoke) shown?

d) Are sprinkler requirements explained?
e) ls construction type stated?
f) Are typical exterior wall and roof sections shown?

g) Are the numbers of floors described?

h) Is the square footage per floor shown in accordance
to the program?

i) Does cost correlate to established budgets?

j) Are overall plan dimensions indicated?

212

L.L.L.L.LLL LLL

L_-L_ l_L_l_[_L_l_L_l_ [_1_
L_? L. LLLILLLQLLL

LLLL’LLLLLL

[_3L_

 

4)

5)

6)

Civil/ Structural:
a) Are the design parameters given?

b) Is a topographical survey provided?

c) Is a narrative of drainage concept provided?

d) Is a statement on flood considerations provided?

e) Is a statement of availability of utility services
provided?

f) Is the building system narrative provided?

g) Are the proposed road and parking described?

h) is a soil report provided?

i) Are overall plan dimensions indicated?

Mechanical:

a) Are the design parameters given?

b) Is the source of utility services shown?

c) the design of any specialty systems provided (i .e.,
laboratory gases)?

d) Are the energy requirements included? .

e) Are the energy management/ temperature controls

and and/ or building automation systems described?

f) Are indoor environmental requirements described?

Electrical:

a) Are the design parameters provided?

b) Is the source and voltage of electrical service
provided?

C) Is the fire alarm system described?

d) Is the security system described?

e) Is the communication system described?

f) Is the lighting system described?

g) Is the computing data networking system described

213

.-

L’LL.LL LL? L LLL LL LLLL LLLLL‘:

L7 LCCLI LL

LLLL

L LTL‘L‘ LL LLLL' L

Design Development Drawings Checklist

1)

2)
3)

4)

5)

7)

8)

9)

Does the design development submission represent the
philosophy of design?

Are the outline specifications included?

Do the drawings show overall floor plans, outside elevations,
location and orientation on the site?

Are the system schematics shown for the facility?
a) HVAC

b) Plumbing

c) Electrical Power Distribution

(1) Fire Alarm

e) Security
f) Site Water
g) Site Storm Sewer

h) Site Sanitary Sewer

Does HVAC schematic diagram depict the following?
a) Approved results of the life-cost analysis.
b) Approved results of the energy analysis.

c) Are schematic diagrams shown for campus type of
utilities for the following?

d) Chilled Water

e) Steam

f) Fire

g) Domestic Water Distribution

Do the outline specifications describe the following?

a) Scope of project.

b) Applicable codes.

0) Applicable rules.

d) Applicable standards

e) Applicable regulations.

f) Each discipline with required design values shown.

Are the project location, Architect and Engineering firms'
addresses and telephone numbers shown?

Architectural:

a) Are occupancy types and floor areas indicated?

214

L LL L‘LLLL LLLL LLL LLLLLLLLL L LL

Li L LLLLLL LL‘LL'

L LL LLLLLLLLL L LL

 

 

10)

11)

b)

Are square footage calculations shown for every
space in accordance with program requirements?

C) Is a description of the shape and facade of the
building provided? -

d) Are all code-required features shown?

e) Is the fire protection system described?

f) Are the insulation "U" values shown?

g) Are the glazing type "U" values shown?

h) Are the exiting requirements stated?

1.) Are the required numbers of exits clearly
shown?
2.) Are the capacity calculations clearly shown?

i) Are dimension strings indicated on column grid?

Civil/ Structural:

a) Is a site plan shown?

b) Is a grading plan, including contours and finish
floor elevations provided?

C) Is a utility plan included?

d) Is a statement of loadings provided?

e) Are preliminary foundation plans shown?

j) Are preliminary floor and roof plans shown?

k) Is a soil report relating to foundation design
provided?

l) Are dimension strings indicated on column gird?

Mechanical/ Plumbing:

a) Are HVAC and plumbing plans showing preliminary
layout of equipment areas provided?

b) Is a description of HVAC controls included?

c) Is a description of energy management system
included?

d) Is a description of the building automation system
included?

e) Are the critical interfaces with life safety systems
such as fire/smoke dampers, firestopping and fire
control interlocks described?

f) Are special plans and criteria for mechanical/

plumbing systems shown (i.e., kitchen hoods, paint
storage ventilation, fuel systems, and compressed gas
systems)?

215

L L LLLL LL LLLLL L LL'LLLLLLLL

LL LL LLL L LL LLL LLL L L

L L LLLL

12)

13)

g) Are fire protection plans shown?

h) Were the NF PA requirements for construction phase
submittal reviewed?

i) Do the drawings reflect the approved scheme
resulting from the energy and life cycle cost analysis?

Electrical:

a) Is the lighting layout provided?

b) Are the calculations to show foot-candle intensities
in each room provided?

c) Do lighting illumination levels comply with the
requirements of the Energy Analysis?

d) Are the preliminary electrical equipment locations
shown?

e) Are the phase and voltage electrical characteristics
shown?

f) Is the type of wiring system indicated?

g) Are the preliminary communications and data plans
shown?

h) Are the preliminary fire alarm plans shown?

i) Are the preliminary security plans with card readers
shown?

j) Is a narrative on proposed power distribution system
provided?

Cost:

a) Does cost correlate to established budgets?

D. 100% Construction Drawings Checklist

1)

2)

Are the following shown?

a) All necessary information previously described.
b) All necessary details.

c) All sections.

d) All schedules.

e) All system diagrams.

f) All construction types.

g) All wall ratings - fire and "U" values.

h) All listed firestop systems.

Do the documents clearly depict the following?

a)

All design and construction requirements.

216

LL LLLLLLL LL LLLL
L L LLLLLLLLL LL

L L LLLLL L L
L L LLLLL L L

.- .
—‘ L
I. . .

3)

b)

C)

d)

e)
f)

g)
h)

i)

j)
k)

l)

m)

n)

0)

Adequate information to permit accurate Contractor
take-off and pricing.

The finalization of the previously submitted and
approved design phases.

The agreed upon responses of earlier design review
quality comments.

All items provided by Owner installed by Contractor.
All items installed by Owner.

Project name, project number and project location.

Compass orientation the same on all plan view sheets.

All easements, right-of-way, and interfaces with
public, city or county utilities.

All proposed alternates shown clearly and accurately.

All previously approved energy and life-cycle cost

analyses, schemes and architectural features.

All necessary building code approvals.

Drawing sheet signed and sealed by Architect or
Engineer?

Do square footage areas correlate to program
requirements?

Does cost correlate to established budgets?

Architectural:

a)

b)

C)

d)

Are wall details shown that ensure the minimum "U" ‘
value is met?

Are roof details shown that ensure the minimum "U"
value is met?

Floor Plans:

1.a) Are all dimensions and all spaces identified?
1.b) Are all walls dimensioned from column lines?
2.) Are rated partitions identified?

3.) Area ADA handicapped features identified?

4.) Is the location of all drinking fountains, fire
extinguishers, hoses, etc. shown?

5.) Is all built-in equipment identified?

6.) Is the orientation (north arrow) shown on all
plans?

7.) is the scale shown for all drawings?
Elevations:
1.) Are all elevations of the building shown?

2.) Are all materials labeled?

217

LL L LL LLLLL. L' L LL LLLL LLLLL L L L

LLL L" LLLLL’ L' L L

L L LL

LL L LL LELLL

4)

3.) Are all vertical dimensions shown?
4.) Is the roof slope identified?
e) Reflected Ceiling Plans:

1.) Is the plan fully coordinated by CAD overlay
with mechanical, electrical, data, and
sprinkler system drawings?

2.) Are all ceiling materials identified?

3.) Is the design intent of ceiling grid clearly
shown?

f) Scale of Plans:

1.) Are all plans shown at "1/8 inch equals one
foot” scale, except for enlarged plan view for
equipment rooms, stairs, etc?

g) Sections and Details. Identify:

1.) All exterior wall sections minimum
3/4" = 1'-0".

2.) All interior wall sections minimum
3/4" = 1'-0".

3.) All roof edges, expansion joints, penetrations
shown with isometric drawing of scupper or
any non-standard situations.

4.) All head, jamb and sill details shown for all
doors and windows.

5.) All expansion joints shown

h) Schedules and Legends. Identify:

1.) Finishes

2.) Doors and windows

3.) Toilet accessories

4.) All abbreviations

i) Miscellaneous:

1.) Show mounting heights for all handicapped
items; toilet room accessories, ramp slopes,
stair design, seating capacity.

2.) State on the drawings the code and year
that applies to the project.

3.) Show design loads on drawings.

Civil/ Structural:

a) Show anchor bolt embedments and projections.
b) Provide footing elevations.

c) Identify connections and services.

218

LL

LL LL_L L; LLLL

LLL L LLLL
LIL L LLLL

LLL

L ILLLL LL

LL LsLlL

LLL

5)

e) Indicate top elevation of all catch basins and
manholes.

f) Match contours with top elevations of catch basins
and manholes.

f) Is the type of pipe specified?

k) Are the datum elevations correlated with the USGS
elevations?

i) Are the finish floor elevations shown?

j) Is the finish floor elevation above 100-year flood
elevation?

j) Are pavement sections shown?

m) Are control joints shown in all slabs?

n) Are proper control joints shown in all masonry walls?

0) Are all structural elements properly and accurately
dimensioned from column grid lines?

Mechanical/Plumbing:

a) Are all fire/ smoke dampers provided in all rated
walls/ ceilings?

b) Is a detail shown for sealing all wall and ceiling
penetrations?

c) Is the water heater relief piping and discharge point
shown?

d) Is all ductwork designed in compliance with ASHRAE ‘
and SMACNA?

e) Are all systems in compliance with University
standards?

f) Are all plumbing systems in compliance with
applicable codes?

g) Is the following equipment provided in all attics?
1.) Access opening, platforms, and walkways
2.) Lighting
3.) Auxiliary pans/drains for air conditioning

equipment

4.) GFI convenience outlets

g) Do all kitchen hoods conform to mechanical and fire
codes.

h) Are all air conditioning condensate lines with
discharge shown?
1.) Does the discharge conform to code?

j) Are all required backflow prevention devices shown?

k) Does the fire sprinkler system show:

219

LLLLLLLL LLLLLL LLLL LL LLLL

LLLLLLLL L LL L L L

LLLL LL‘ LL LL

 

6)

1.) Details of water source?

2.) Type of sprinkler system?

3.) Plan of sprinkler system?

4.) Are risers shown?

5.) Are connections to existing systems shown?

6.) Are all valves and controls shown?
Is the temperature control system provided?

m) Is the energy management system provided?

n) Is the building automation system provided?

0) Are temperature control energy management and
building automation systems' schematics shown on
the drawings?

p) Are the sequences of the HVAC systems' of operation
provided?

Electrical:

a) Is an electrical site plan shown?

b) Was a CAD overlay made of the electrical work to
ensure no conflicts with other work or equipment?

c) Is lighting system in accordance with University
energy guidelines?

(1) Does all electrical work comply with the latest
National Electrical Code?

e) Are all conductors copper?

f) Is the electrical legend complete?

g) Are all panelboard schedules provided?

i)

i)

1.) Do they show voltage and phase?
2.) Is the rating of the main disconnect shown?
3.) Are all circuit numbers shown?

4.) Are the number of poles shown?

5.) Are all trip-amperes shown?
6.) Are all volt-amperes shown?
7.) Are all wire sizes shown?

8.) Are all conduit sizes shown?

Is lighting fixture schedule shown?

1. Are all fluorescent lamps and ballasts of the
energy-saving type?

Are riser diagrams shown for the following:
1 .) Electrical service?

2.) Fire alarm system?

220

L LLLLLLLLLL

LL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL_LL;L
LL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLQLLIL

LL

w

L LLLLLLLL

 

1)

j)

k)
l)

m)

0)

P)

Q)
r)

S)

1i)

U)

V)

W)

3.) Intercom system?
4.) Telecommunications system?
5.) Computer data system?

Is the following transformer data provided?
1.) Voltage?

2.) Phase?

3.) KVA rating?

Is the division of work between contractor, University
of Notre Dame Utilities and AEP clearly shown?

Is the voltage and KVA rating of all generators shown?

Is the voltage and KVA rating of all transfer switches
shown?

ls sufficient space shown as required by the National
Electrical Code for the following:

1 .) Panelboard locations?
2.) Switchgear locations?
3.) Transformer locations?

Are ensurences made that no water lines are above
electrical panels or switchgear?

Are all locations of mechanical equipment and their
circuits shown? '

Are all circuits for kitchen equipment shown?

Are all rooms designated as shown on the
architectural plans?

Is the lighting layout coordinated with the
architectural reflected ceiling plan?

Is all grounding shown?

Is all the electrical equipment shown on the floor
plans?

Are all circuits shown on the floor plans?

Are specifications provided for the following?
1.) All electrical equipment.

2.) The fire alarm system.

3.) The intercom system.

4.) The lightning protection.

5.) The security system.

6.) The telecommunications system.

7.) The computer data system.

8.) The firestopping details.

221

LLLLLLLL L LL L LL L- L' LLL

LLLLLL LLL

LLLLLL LLL

JLLLLLLL L LL L LL? L L LLL

 

 

9.) All grounding, including equipment grounding. 'g _ _—]

222

APPENDIX VIII

PLAN REVIEW CHECKLIST

223

Plan review checklist

Checklist to assist plan review process - Design discipline speciﬁc

Purpose

The purpose of this checklist is to assist university staff in conducting plan reviews, and
will help to identify design and coordination issues which are sometimes overlooked. This
checklist should act as a supplement to current plan review processes.

Organization of the document

This document is organized at four broad categories and is speciﬁc to each design
discipline level:

Conceptual designdevelopment level

Schematic design development level

Design development level and

Contract documents level.

Instructions for plan reviewers

This document can be used for design review and is organized at four different levels. Plan
reviewers should check the listed items during the plan review process. All “No” responses
should be provided with written descriptions explaining the necessary action to be taken to

correct the items listed.

224

CONCEPTUAL

I) Is conceptual design in accordance with the master plan?

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

Source: QC C

Does the site plan show utilities and traffic patterns?
Source: QCC

Do the plans clearly indicate the existing and proposed
facilities of the site?
a) Are the locations of telephone poles, electrical lines and

any other facilities clearly indicated?
Source: QC C, supported by Database analysis

“Are small—scale line drawings of plans and sections adequate

to deﬁne horizontal and vertical relationships”?
Source: QC C

“Is there any general description of architectural, engineering,

structural and mechanical systems to be used”?
Source: QCC, supported by Interviews

Are square footage areas in conformance with

programming?
Source: QCC

225

YES NO

[31:]
LIL.)

12:11:!
LIE]

|:||:|

LJLJ

LIL—l

SCHEMATIC

1) Are all applicable codes and standards indicated?
Source: QC C

Architectural
1) Are the functional requirements of all rooms provided?

a) Does this information clearly specify the function of the room?
Source: Database analysis

b) Does it describe any technical requirements such as

D

[:1

communication systems, which should be considered while designing? [:I

Source: Database analysis

c) Does this layout address the common areas to be built?
Source: Database analysis

2) Is the occupancy of rooms described?
Source: QCC

III
III

3) Is the square footage per ﬂoor shown in accordance to the program? D

Source: Database analysis

4) Are all dimensions of spaces and elements provided?
Source: Database analysis

5) Are typical sections of walls and roofs shown?
Source: QCC

6) Is there any description explaining the ﬁre protection systems?
Source: Database analysis

7) Are there speciﬁcations of services to be provided?
Source: Interviews

Civil/Structural

1) Are all dimensions and requirements provided?
Source: Database analysis

2) "Is a soil report provided?" (Foundations and excavations)
Source: QCC

3) "Is a statement of availability of utility services provided"?
Source: QCC

4) "Is the building system narrative provided"?
Source: QCC

226

1:]
III
III
E]

HEIDI]
DUDE!

D

DDDDDDDD [I

Mechanical

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

Are the design requirements given?
Source: QCC

"Is the source of utility services shown"?
Source: QC C, supported by Interviews

Is the description of mechanical equipment/systems provided?
Source: QC C, supported by Interviews

"Is the design of specialty systems provided" (if any)?
Source: QCC, supported by Interviews

Is the square footage (area) of mechanical spaces provided?
Source: Interviews

"Are the energy requirements included"?
Source: QCC

"Are the energy management/temperature controls

and/or building automation systems described"?
Source: QCC

"Are indoor environmental requirements described"?
Source: QCC

Electrical

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

"Are the design parameters provided"?
Source: QCC

Is the square footage of electrical spaces provided?

(communication room, electrical vaults)
Source: Database analysis

"Is the source and voltage of electrical service provided"?
Source: QCC

"Is the ﬁre alarm system described"?
Source: QC C. supported by Interviews

"Is the security system described"?
Source: QC C, supported by Interviews
"Is the communication system described"?

Source: QCC, supported by Interviews

"Is the lighting system described?
Source: QC C, supported by Interviews

"Is the computing data networking system described"?
Source: QCC

227

DUE) DUE] DD LID DECIDED

DUE] DUI] DE! DE) DDDDDD

DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

1) Is the design development submission in correlation with the
brieﬁng needs?

Source: Database Analysis

2) Do the outline speciﬁcations describe the following?

a) Does it address the scope of the project?
Source: Database Analysis

b) Applicable local codes

Source: Database Analysis

3) "Do the drawings specify all ﬂoor plans, sections, elevations,

orientation and location on the site"?
Source: QCC

4) Do plans address schematic layout of the proposed utilities in
the drawings?

Source: Database Analysis

Architectural

1) Are the following speciﬁed?
a) Is the occupancy of rooms speciﬁed?
Source: QCC

b) Are ﬂoor areas clearly speciﬁed?
Source: Database Analysis

c) Are names and the function of each room speciﬁed?
Source: Database Analysis

(1) Do plans indicate all walking areas (common areas) clearly?
Source: Database Analysis

e) Are there any ﬁinctional conﬂicts in the room?
(i) Are the square footage areas of individual areas
in conformance with the programming needs?

Source: Database Analysis

(ii) How many telephone outlets are needed for particular room?
Source: Database Analysis

(iii) Are pathways/walkways checked to know if it can accommodate

the equipment moved in that way?

Source: Database Analysis

228

D
D

U I] DI]
D I] DC]

I] I] [I [I
I] D [I I]

D
[I

D
[I

El

(iv) Are there any insufficient physical spaces, or unusual corners?
Source: Database Analysis

2) Are the insulation values speciﬁed?
Source: QCC

3) Are the ﬁre protection systems described?
Source: QCC

4) Are door and window frames correctly placed as per requirements?
Source: Database Analysis

5) Is the correct door type provided?
Source: Database Analysis

6) Are frames provided for all doors? Is there any missing data?
Source: Database Analysis

7) Do all doors have required frames?
Source: Database Analysis

8) Are doors correlating with elevation?
Source: Database Analysis

9) Do plans and speciﬁcations correctly name doors and windows?
Source: Database Analysis

10) Are door swings placed in correct direction?
Source: Database Analysis

11) Are threshold and weather-stripping provided to required doors?
Source: Database Analysis

12) Are ﬂoor stops’ and wall stops’ provided for all required doors?
Source: Database Analysis

13) Is hardware sufficient for all doors and windows?
Check the hardware schedule in speciﬁcations.

Source: Database Analysis
14) Does provided hardware match doors and windows?
Source: Database Analysis

Civil/Structural

1) "Is a site plan shown"?
Source: QCC

2) Is a preliminary soil analysis provided? Does it also deﬁne the

report of the foundation design?
Source: QC C. supported by Database analysis

229

El DDDUDDDDDDDDD
El DDDDDDDDDDDDD

[I
D

D
[I

3) Are plans provided showing ﬁnished ﬂoor elevations?
Source: QCC

4) "Is a statement of loadings provided"?
Source: QCC

5) Are preliminary drawings of the following shown?
a) Foundations

b) Beams and columns

c) Floor and roof plans
Source: Database Analysis

6) Are beam sizes checked for the structural stability, which

address issues such as reinforcement?
Source: Database Analysis

7) Are structural members such as beams adequate?
Source: Database Analysis

8) Are all dimensions shown?
Source: Database Analysis

Mechanical

1) Do plans show preliminary layout of the equipment areas provided?

Source: Database Analysis

2) Do plans show location of equipment?
Source: Interviews

3) Do plans indicate air distribution devices, return grills and
supply diffusers?

Source: Interviews

4) Is the appropriate water quality provided by the plumbing system?
Source: Interviews

5) Do plans show the route of ducts?
Source: Database Analysis

6) Is a preliminary layout and description of the following provided:
a) HVAC

Source: Interviews/ Database

b) Energy management system
Source: Interviews/ Database

c) Building automation system

Source: Interviews/ Database

230

ISL]
[:ICI

LIL]
LIE]
C113

LIL)
[231:]
131:)

,IZICI

CID

LIE)
LIL—.1
DC)

l:|l:l
LIL.)
[___]LJ

 

 

d) Fire/smoke dampers, ﬁre stopping and ﬁre control interlocks
Source: Interviews/ Database

e) Specialty equipment
Source: Interviews/ Database

0 Plumbing system

Source: Interviews/ Database

g) Sprinkler systems

Source: Interviews/ Database

h) Snowmelt system
Source: Interviews/ Database

1) Are there any places in the plans where the ducts are

obstructed by beams?
Source: Interviews/ Database

Electrical

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

"Is the lighting layout provided"?
Source: QCC

Compliance with foot-candle intensities
a) "Are the calculations to show the foot-candle intensities

in each room provided"?
Source: QC C, supported by Database analysis

b) Are void spaces taken care off? Do these places need lighting

or is it too dark?
Source: QCC. supported by Database analysis

c) Are corridors well lit? Do these walking areas comply with

calculated foot-candle intensities?
Source: QC C, supported by Database analysis

(1) Are the light types and ﬁxture types comply with the calculation

of foot candle intensities, which suits ﬁmctionality of the room?
Source: QC C, supported by Database analysis

"Do lighting illumination levels comply with the requirements

of the Energy Analysis"?
Source: QCC

Are preliminary lighting equipment shown?
Source: QCC

Are the technical details such as voltage electrical

characteristics, power distribution system speciﬁed?
Source: Database analysis

231

I] DECIDE)
D DECIDE!

[J
[J

‘ [:1

El
El

[I DE) 1] E]

[I

1] Bl] [I E]

 

 

6)

7)

Is the type of wiring system speciﬁed?
Source: Database analysis

Are preliminary plans of the following shown:

a) Communication systems
Source: Database analysis

b) Fire alarm systems
Source: Database analysis

c) Security systems
Source: Database analysis

232

Lil:

1:11:
CHI]
LIL—l

 

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

Architectural

1)

2)

3)

4)

Speciﬁcations - Pay attention to the following:

a) Are there any repetitions of speciﬁcations from similar project?
Source: C ivitello change order discovery checklist

b) Any manufacturer’s speciﬁcations followed?
Source: C ivitello change order discovery checklist

(i) If yes, for above two questions, was it made

sure that this would suit this particular project?
Source: C ivitello change order discovery checklist

c) Are there any vague or ambiguous speciﬁcations, which

are difﬁcult to understand?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

Code Compliance
a) Are all applicable codes followed?

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

b) Are codes and standards of university followed?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

Match lines and orientation

a) Are there any match lines in the drawings?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

b) If yes, are they in the same location?
Source: C ivitello change order discovery checklist

c) Is the orientation shown in all plans?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

d) Is the orientation on the same place on the each plan?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

e) Do all drawings show the scale?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

Floor plans
a) Are all ﬂoor plans provided?

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

b) Are all dimensions speciﬁed?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

233

I] [I UDDDD DD [I [1 DD

D D DDDDD DC] [I [1 [ID

 

5)

6)

0) Do all ﬂoor plans show the location and ratings of all

ﬁre-rated walls?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

I:

d) Is square footage of each ﬂoor plan shown on the related ﬂoor plan? I

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

e) Are there any discrepancies of walls with the column lines?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

1) Are the locations of specialty amenities shown in the

plans such as drinking fountains, ﬁre extinguishers?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

g) Are handicapped features shown (if necessary)?

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

Elevations

a) Are all elevations shown?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

b) Are all materials labeled?

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

c) Are all dimensions shown?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

d) Do the elevations deﬁne overall building height and

ﬂoor-to-ﬂoor heights?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

e) Does wall section show proposed materials & ﬁre-rated systems?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist

Ceiling Plans
a) Are all dimensions in ceiling plans provided, such as

ceiling heights, mechanical and electrical equipment?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

b) Do ceiling plans show the sprinkler heads layout, walls,

and show all dimensions?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

c) Are all the materials identiﬁed?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

(1) Overlay mechanical, electrical, sprinkler systems and
structural layout to check for the conﬂicts. Any

problems found?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

234

DE) DUI] DD D

[J
Li

D
D

[JD DUI] Ell] DELI

[I

 

7)

Does legends and schedule show:
a) Finishes
Source: Ci vitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

b) Doors and Windows — does the door schedule specify

the applicable hardware, ratings, and types of the doors?
Source: Ci vitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

c) Toilet accessories
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

d) Indicate abbreviations
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

Civil

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

Are the elevations of footings clearly shown?
Source: Database analysis

Do the foundation drawings show the slab elevations and
specify the type of foundation?

Source: Database analysis

Do the foundation drawings indicate all dimensions?
Source: Ci vitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

Footings

a) Is a footing schedule provided?
Source: Database analysis

b) Does schedule show footing sizes?
Source: Database analysis

c) Does it specify the reinforcement?
Source: Database analysis

d) Does it show the depth of footing?
Source: Database analysis

"Are the ﬁnished ﬂoor elevations shown"?
Source: QCC

"Are structural elements accurately dimensioned from column
grid lines"?
Source: QCC

Review should check for:

a) Column layouts to ﬁnd out if there are any discrepancies
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

b) Beam layout to ﬁnd out if there are any discrepancies
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

235

DE) El DECIDE] [JD 1]

DUI] [1
DUI] D

[ID [I DECIDE] DD El

 

8)

Are all dimensions and speciﬁcations related to structural
details provided?

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

Mechanical

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

Are all equipment and systems in compliance with university
standards?

Source: Interviews

Is all the equipment stated during the design development stage
shown in the drawings? Are mechanical plans provided for

each ﬂoor?
Source: Interviews

Are all rooms identiﬁed as per mechanical equipment/systems

location?
Source: Interviews

ls sufficient space provided to access ﬁre/smoke detectors and

controls?
Source: Interviews

1:)

III

Is owner training being provided for special equipment (ex: autoclave)? I

Source: Interviews

Are the water relief piping and discharge point shown?

Source: Interviews

Fire sprinkler system
a) Is the layout of sprinkler system provided?

Source: Interviews

b) Is the type of sprinkler system speciﬁed?

Source: Interviews

c) Are the details of water source mentioned?
Source: Interviews

d) Are all connections shown?
Source: Interviews

e) Are valves and controls shown?
Source: Interviews

Equipment
a) Is the temperature control system shown?

Source: Interviews

b) Is the building automation system shown?
Source: Interviews

236

DC) DECIDE) E]

D

DD DDDDD [11:11] 1] D

 

9) Duct

a) Is the size of duct reviewed to avoid conﬂict with ceiling size?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

b) Is routing of duct correct?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

c) Are there any conﬂicts of ducts with structural members such as

beam, columns, and trusses?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

d) Are there any conﬂicts with piping, lighting, sprinkler systems?

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

e) Is there any colliding of ducts with construction members?
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

 

0 Are ﬁre/smoke dampers provided wherever required?

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

10) Is there any specialty equipment used at ceilings?
Source: Database analysis

11) If yes, consider the requirements and check for an unusual

projections over the ceiling. Does it ﬁt in the approved ceiling height?
Source: Database analysis

I] IDEIDEI U1]
El DDDDD DE]

12) Overlay the electrical and mechanical plans to check if there
are any conﬂicts of duets with:
a) Pipes

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

 

b) Beams

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

c) Electrical equipment
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

13) Overlay the structural plans and ducting plans to ﬁnd the

conﬂicts (consider insulation thickness for pipes and ducts)
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

[I DUE)
1:) DUI]

14) Review of various kinds of piping to check for the conﬂicts
among different types of pipes (consider insulation thickness
for pipes and ducts)

a) Review of sanitary piping

Source: Database analysis

D1]
D1]

b) Review of steam piping
Source: Database analysis

237

 

c) Review of condensate piping
Source: Database analysis

d) Review of storm piping
Source: Database analysis

e) Review of gas service piping
Source: Database analysis

15) Is required piping provided for emergency showers and

reﬁigerators? (Exclusive for science buildings and laboratories)
Source: Database analysis

16) Do drawings for each ﬂoor plan indicate the ﬁre sprinkler pipe
layout?

Source: Database analysis

17) Does the layout indicate all the pipe sizes and pipe material type?
Source: Database analysis

18) Does distribution system airﬂow match with equipment capacity?
Source: Database analysis/ Interviews

238

DC]
LIL—.1
CID

LIE)

1:113
LIL.)
CID

Electrical

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

Are the electrical systems in accordance with the university

standards?
Source: Database analysis

Does the legend specify all details?

Source: Database analysis

Does plan layout show the connection of ﬁre sprinkler systems

with alarm system?
Source: Database analysis

Are lighting plans provided for each ﬂoor?

Source: Database analysis

Is electrical service provided to all mechanical equipment?
Source: Interviews

Review the following in panel board schedules:

a) "Do they show voltage and phase"?
Source: QC C

b) "Is the rating of the main disconnect shown"?
Source: QC C

c) "Are all circuit numbers cited"?
Source: QCC

d) "Are the trip amperes shown"?
Source: QC C

e) "Are all wire-amperes shown"?
Source: QC C

1) "Are all conduit sizes speciﬁed"?
Source: QC C

"Are riser diagrams shown for the following":
a) Electrical service
Source: QC C

b) Fire alarm system
Source: QCC

c) Communication systems
Source: QC C

(1) Computer data systems
Source: QC C

239

DUDE) DECIDED Ell] DUB

DUDE DDDDDD Ell] DUE]

8) "Is all grounding shown"?
Source: QC C

9) Are speciﬁcations provided for the following:

a) The electrical equipment
Source: QC C

b) The ﬁre alarm system
Source: QC C

c) The intercom system
Source: QC C

d) The lighting protection
Source: QC C

e) The security system
Source: QC C

t) The telecommunications system
Source: QCC

g) The computer data system
Source: QC C

h) The ﬁrestopping details
Source: QCC

i) All grounding equipment
Source: QC C

10) Is lighting layout checked for conﬂicts with structural members

ducting, and ﬁre safety equipment? Overlay the respective plans.
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

11) Are the correct type of light ﬁxtures provided?

Source: Database analysis

12) Consider the heights of the light equipment ﬁxtures above the
ceiling, and check if there are any conﬂicts with the duct size

and ceiling spaces.
Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

13) Overlay the lighting plans with ceilings plans to check if there
are any conﬂicts:
a) between various types of lighting ﬁxtures

b) lighting ﬁxtures placed in corners or the place where the ceiling
shape changes

Source: Civitello change order discovery checklist/ Database analysis

240

[ID DDEIDDDEIDD D

D
D

D
I]

[I
[I

[ll] DDDDDDDDD [I

 

l4) Overlay the lighting plans with architectural plans to check if
there are conﬂicts with:
a) Walls

Source: Database analysis

b) Interior design elements
Source: Database analysis

c) Cabinets
Source: Database analysis

15) Overlay the plans with HVAC to check for conﬂicts with:
a) Duct work

Source: Database analysis

b) Grills

Source: Database analysis

c) Diffusers

Source: Database analysis

d) Size of light ﬁxtures above the ceiling, such that it

does not become a hindrance in duct routing
Source: Database analysis

16) Also check for the conﬂicts with light ﬁxtures with smoke

detectors, and ﬁre sprinkler systems
Source: Database analysis

17) Is the ﬁre alarm system colliding with regular electrical

appliances?
Source: Database analysis

241

D I] [1 DUB DUI]
El D D DELI DUI]

REFERENCE

Anderson, S., and Oyetunji, A. (2003). “Selection Procedure for Project Delivery and
Contract Strategy ". Winds of Change: Integration and Innovation in Construction,

Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress held in Honolulu, Hawaii, ASCE,
VA.

Alsugair, A. M., (1999). “Framework for Evaluation Bids of Construction Contractors. ”
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2.

Bridgers, Mark W., Daniels, David M. (2001)
(http://www.fminet.corn/global/Articles/ChangeOrderpdf) date visited: 09/14/04

Battersby, L. C., and Yates, J. K. (2003). "Designer Construction Knowledge and Its
Effects. " Winds of Change: Integration and Innovation in Construction, Proceedings of
the Construction Research Congress held in Honolulu, Hawaii, ASCE, VA.

Brown, M. G. (2001). "Choosing a Company's Building Design: Models for Strategic
Design Decisions .”
http://business.fullerton.edu/ioumal/papers/ndf/past/vol22n0102/0481 1 06.13de date
visited 04/09/04.

Bubshait, A. A., and Al-Atiq, T. H. (1997). "ISO 9000 Quality Standards in
Construction. " Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 6.

Calder, D.A. J. PB. (1997). "Construction Quality Auditing. " Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 6.

Civitello, Jr. A. M. (2002). "Contractor's Guide to Change Orders. " 2nd Ed., Prentice
Hall, New York.

Crowley, L. G., and Hancher, D. E. (1995). "Evaluation of Competitive Bids. ” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 121, No.2.

CSI, (www.mpvccrg/glossamhtm) date visited: 10/15/2004

Diekrnann, J.E., and Nelson, MC. (1985). "Construction Claims: Frequency and
Severity. " ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 111, No. 1.

Dozzi, P. Hartman F., Tidsbury N., and Ashraﬁ R. (1996). “." Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 122, No. 1.

Drexler, Jr. J. A., and Larson, E. W. (2000). "Partnering: Why Project Owner-Contractor

Relationships Change ". Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 126,
No. 4.

242

 

 

EAS (2002) (http://www.pp.m_su.edu/eas/) date visited 09/14/04

Gutman, R. (1988). "Architectural Practice: A Critical View”. Princeton Architectural
Press, New York, NY. -

Glavinich, T. E. (1995), “Improving Constructability during Design Phase.” Journal of
Architectural Engineering, Vol. 1(No. 2).

Hassanen, M. Bouchlaghem, D., and Austin, S. (2003). "Framework for IT and
Information Management: A report describing the development of Delivery 1.", Winds
of Change: Integration and Innovation in Construction, Proceedings of the Construction
Research Congress held in Honolulu, Hawaii, ASCE, VA.

Hatush, Zedan, and Skitrnore, Martin. “Evaluating Contractor Prequaliﬁcation Data;
Selection Criteria and Project Success Factors. ” Construction Management and
Economics. 1997. vol 15, 129-147

Hegazy, T., Zaneldin, E., and Grierson, D. (2001). "Improving Design Coordination for
Building Projects. " Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127, No.
4.

Ibbs, William (1997) “The Impact of Timing on Labor Productivity".
(http://www.ce.berl_<elev.edu/~ibbs/BRICS/Materials/Impact of Change 3 Timingpdf)
date visited: 09/14/04

Kamara, et.al. (2001); Salisbury, (1990) as quoted in Seay P. C. Anumba C. J., Hill R.,
and Bouchlaghem D. (2003). "Improving Construction Client Satisfaction through
Functional Brieﬁng. " Winds of Change: Integration and Innovation in Construction,

Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress held in Honolulu, Hawaii, ASCE,
VA.

Kartarn, N. A. (1995). "Making Eﬂective Use Of Construction Lessons Learned In
Project Life Cycle. ” www.bnet.com, date visited: 03/17/2004.

Lee, S. Pena-Mora, F., and Park, M. (2003). "Quality and Change Management
Framework for Concurrent Design and Construction.” Winds of Change: Integration
and Innovation in Construction, Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress held
in Honolulu, Hawaii, ASCE, VA.

Mendelson, R. (1997). "The Constructibility Review Process: A Constructor's
Perspective. ” Journal of Management in Engineering.

Michigan QBS (1984). “Qualiﬁcation-Based Selection of Design Professionals. "

Mrozowski, T. (2004) “Change Orders Research and Philosophies. ” Michigan Chapter
Meeting.

243

O' Brien, J. J. (1998). "Construction Change Orders. " McGraw-Hill, New York.

Potter, K. J., and Sanvido, V. (1995). "Implementing a Design/Build Prequaliﬁcation
system. ” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 11, No. 3.

Potter, M. (1995), "Planning to build: A Practical Introduction to the Construction
Process. ” Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA),
London.

QCC, “Quality Control Checklist. ” University of Notre Dame.
(http://t_1rchitect.nd.edu/irnages/quglitvassurance.pdf) date visited: 02/24/04

Redicheck Associates, website: (http://redicheck-review.com/) date visited: 03/17/04
Seay, P. C., Anumba, C. J. Hill, R., and Bouchlaghem, D. (2003). "Improving
Construction Client Satisfaction through Functional Brieﬁng". Winds of Change:
Integration and Innovation in Construction, Proceedings of the Construction Research
Congress held in Honolulu, Hawaii, ASCE, VA.

Short, D. L. www.tempetcompa_1ny.conr/eggrticlehtm. date visited 3/17/2004.

Tarek H. (2001). “Improving Design Coordination for Building Projects. 1. Information

Model. ” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127, No. 4,
July/August 2001.

244

1‘".

.5.

. f .

s, I} -v~’.li"

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

EIHIWIHHHIIIII’IHIMIHNIU "Milli 1W