User:Aic2009/Constructability Review/Thoughts Email- Fleming

Reading court cases and the explanation for constructability review today I have the following random thoughts to record for discussion. So I wrote them down to share with you.

Constructability Review by a contractor in a review for an owner has multiple definitions. Why: because no two projects are normally alike or so similar in design that a contractor can find all issues with the documents. It is also user defined as to what level to take a review is dependent on the owners needs and the cost element to review each discipline to what level of detail.

It is an investment of time that has a cost per man hour element.

The measure of one’s review is a direct correlation to at least two factors: (probably many more)

1.) Investment of qualified experts time to review the design at a certain point 2.) Reviewers knowledge of the project or project type

As an example: I could not do a Constructability Review of a nuclear submarine design ready for construction. I have no education, support or experience in the area. But a qualified Nuclear Submarine constructor could. So to the point of expert in the subject matter the owner has selected a contractor organization/ or Team with subs, based on their level of expertise for the price agreed to.

If a company has been chosen for a project they would only be selected if it were determined to be qualified in the area of business the owner is building for. (say Commercial Construction, Federal Construction, etc.)

So there is an expectation by the purchaser of services (ie: owner) that if a contractor was selected for a project they will have a  level of expertise and assemble the required experts within the construction community(subs or in house)  to review the design documents at certain phases of the design and to issue an opinion / report that signals the owners that the design is in fact constructible at a certain value for the work based on current and local market conditions.

But again, constructible means at what level? It fits on the property, the equipment fits in the building, the services provided are correctly selected? But does it go to the level that states the systems would fit within a ceiling space if properly constructed? The “line in the sand” of sufficient checking for “Constructability Review” is also driven by the amount of time and willingness of client to pay for a complete review of the design.

So to some extent the definition of this term may want to have an element of “User defined” which is what we are seeing in many of the CM @ risk documents we have reviewed to date. UT System defines what it expects, University of California defines what it expects at each level of review. So Owner defined elements play a significant role in defining the expectations of the review The more substantial the owner, the better defined expectations are listed within the specifications.

That being said, the more critical definition may not be the front end but rather the level of review expected by end user as an industry definition. We should be able to define a base standard and then leave room for “add on” clauses for user defined segments. That may help get the definition into one agreed upon wording.

What I am saying here is that we could state the obvious such as:

Constructability review is the process used by the contractor to consider the elements of the design and report to the owner that to the best of their collective knowledge, the work can be constructed per codes and regulations, within a defined time frame and for an approximate current market cost of $______________. The level of detail of this specific contractibility Review is defined as follows: 1.)	……… Meets codes 2.)	………. Can be built within ____ months of Notice to proceed. 3.)	Is site adapted to current site 4.)	 Can be built for a value not to exceed $xx M. 5.)	Has been checked for  the following elements: a.	Foundation coordination but not engineering design strengths b.	Structural Elements Compatibility but not structural engineering strengths c.	Mechanical Systems selection and layout coordination but not mechanical engineering design review and assumptions d.	Electrical Systems selection and coordination but not electrical engineering load and circuit sizing.

In other words consider that not one definition would fit every building undergoing a constructability review because the owner could opt in the front end documents to demand the review go as far as having a contractor check load and selection requirements.