Constructability REVIEWS:CASE STUDY OF BID DOCUMENT ERRORS AND OMISSIONS 2

Constructability Defined

Again, the specific objective of a Constructability review program is to minimize the occurrence and scope of potential change orders and schedule delays during construction by ensuring that ALL the construction documents are fully coordinated, complete, and buildable.

 

When saying ALL Construction Documents, it is indicating that the scope of the review cannot be limited to a review of the Contract Documents provided by the architect. Traditionally, owners provide integral portions of the Contract Documents such as survey, as-built, geotechnical, hazardous material, environmental, and other pre- construction documentation. Often times Constructability reviews are conducted on behalf of an owner and erroneously exclude the "owner-furnished" bid package elements.

 

All elements that make up the contract documents need to be concurrently reviewed - drawings, as-built conditions, specifications, geotechnical reports, environmental documents, site topographic and utility surveys, etc.

 

We use the term buildable to help define and limit the scope of the Constructability review to a review of those elements which make a design buildable. This is important in order to eliminate the document review redundancies that can occur.

 

In the case of the LAUSD projects, the jurisdictional review agency, Division of the State Architect, looks for code-related errors and omissions in the construction documents and would often outsource the reviews to design engineering firms. Or an owner may conduct independent "peer" reviews by engineering or architectural firms to validate design and engineering assumptions.

 

We were careful to focus our efforts not on the code or engineering aspects of the documents, but the portions of the documents that really make it buildable for a contractors and subcontractors. Typical questions while conducting the review include:

 

Are there a sufficient number of wall sections/elevations,

Are there a sufficient number of details,

Is sufficient information provided in the sections/elevations/ details,

Are the plans, sections, elevations, and details coordinated between

architectural, structural, civil/site, and MEP drawings?

 

These questions are indicative of the type of questions that should be asked and answered when validating whether documents are buildable.

 

Constructability Review Methodology

The methodology or approach to conducting a Constructability review should be consistent with the goals of the review. As stated above, the focus should be to concurrently review all documents and focus on their buildability.

 

The right personnel and tools are necessary to effectively execute the review.

The approach adopted for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) program was to establish multi-disciplinary review teams with construction- experienced personnel, create and provide the reviewers with comprehensive Constructability management tools, conduct Constructability audits on projects under construction or completed to ascertain and prevent recurring bid document errors, and conduct site visits to verify site topographic, utility, easement, surrounding public utility, and other existing conditions.

 

Multi-Disciplinary Reviews: The success of a Constructability review lies in the quality of the personnel assigned to participate in the Constructability review.

Individuals with direct construction field experience should be selected to perform Constructability reviews. The initial Program, Design, and Peer reviews are typically done by architects and engineers and are viewed from a "designer's" perspective while the Constructability review team views the documents through a "builder" perspecitve.

 

Multi-Disciplinary Reviews: The success of a Constructability review lies in the quality of the personnel assigned to participate in the Constructability review.

Individuals with direct construction field experience should be selected to perform Constructability reviews. The initial Program, Design, and Peer reviews are typically done by architects and engineers and are viewed from a "designer's" perspective while the Constructability review team views the documents through a "builder" perspecitve.

 

Constructability Management Tools: The review team needs to have management tools that act as a guide to finding missing or uncoordinated contract document information, including a detailed Constructability scope of work.