Kia ora from the new Editor

First of all, my sincere thanks to Colin Orchiston for the sterling job that he has done as the Communique editor for the past 10 years. His pearls of wisdom ranged from regular reminders about all aspects of risk management to eerily well-timed ‘tales of woe’ that I’m sure helped many of us avoid a few close calls. Colin will remain on the Claims Committee so his valuable knowledge and experience will continue to be available and drawn upon.
For the majority of you who don’t know me, I have worked for many years at Studio of Pacific Architecture which is now a relatively large Wellington/Auckland based practice that designs everything from modest house alterations to large urban design masterplans. This has given me a broad insight into the many ways in which risks arise in the practice of architecture, and how these can be avoided or managed.
I don’t intend to make any dramatic changes to Communique’s content or format, but I welcome any suggestions on how it could serve our membership better.
Feel free to email me at editor.communique@gmail.com.
Ngā mihi
Michael Davis

Making sure that your team members read Communique

Everyone on your team can help with the management of risk so we recommend forwarding Communique to them. Unfortunately, we are unable to manage customized distribution lists for every member practice so if you aren’t comfortable with a manual approach, we recommend that you set up an auto-forward rule in your email system.

Website Update

As announced in the last Communique we have been making improvements to the speed, security, and graphics of the website, and the rebuilt site will switch to a new platform later in July. Once live you will receive an invitation to join.
Please log into the site via the invitation (as per image above) so that you can gain access to archived issues of Communique amongst other things in the Members Area.

Code Compliance Certificate vs Certificate of Compliance

A few eagle-eyed members spotted a minor error in the May Communique. The term Code of Compliance Certificate should have simply read Code Compliance Certificate (ss 91 to 95A of the Building Act).  It’s worth noting that there is also the Certificate of Compliance (CoC) (s139 of the Resource Management Act)  which is a way to confirm – prior to completing documentation - that your proposed design complies with the District Plan and won’t need a Resource Consent. This can be useful risk mitigation if you anticipate a protracted documentation stage or a delay in applying for a building consent.

Value Engineering

Many of you will be familiar with the term Value Engineering (VE) which is supposed to be about looking at the long-term value of all aspects of projects vs their construction costs. Ideally this is done as early as possible in the design stages and in theory could lead to an increase in construction costs, for example by selecting a more expensive cladding material that requires less maintenance. Unfortunately, the reality for many projects is that the term Value Engineering is used for what is in fact cost cutting, and is frequently carried out late in the design process or even post-tender and in some cases while construction is underway. The later that it takes place, the more risk that consultants face.  
The risks are essentially twofold.
First of all, there is the risk that you do not explain to the client the full implications of the change, and later on they are disgruntled by some design/quality/performance or maintenance issue that they had not fully understood. The way to mitigate this risk is to make sure that you provide a detailed report or written record of the potential downsides of all of the proposed cost savings. In an extreme case you may want to get the client to indemnify you for any issues arising from a particular design change. This usually gets the message across that the item is a step too far.
The second area of risk arises from the redocumentation required to make the change(s). As part of the assessment of costs and benefits for the proposed changes it’s important to factor in the many ways in which a simple change will ripple through all aspects of a project. It’s important to make sure your fee will cover the often-unexpected amount of work required and the increased risk of making the change out of the normal design/documentation sequence. This can be part of the assessment of the likely net saving.
To fully determine the work involved and your fees, and demonstrate these to your client, it is helpful to develop a simple spreadsheet with headers that cover the following:

  • Changes to Drawings (the later in the design stages, the more drawings will be affected)
  • Changes to Schedules
  • Changes to Specification sections
  • Changes to Warranties
  • Changes to the Construction Contract (if already in place)
  • Implications for Resource Consent (ranging from re-checking compliance to a possible amendment)
  • Implications for Building Consent (e.g. the requirement for an amendment, Producer Statements etc)
  • Extent of Consultant coordination and documents to be coordinated and reviewed
  • Implications for compliance with Fire Design Report, Acoustic Report, Greenstar etc

Such a spreadsheet can also be used for QA purposes when you actually come to do the agreed redocumentation work.
Ideally VE happens early and targets the greatest contributors to cost which are typically floor area (m2); volume (m3); and an efficient structural solution.

Shop Drawing Reviews

A recent notification concerned an issue that had largely arisen from a shop drawing (AKA fabrication drawing) review and so it’s timely to remind members of architects’ and designers’ responsibilities when reviewing these documents. Thanks to Claims Committee member Alec Couchman for his contribution on this topic, and also acknowledging the NZIA Practice Note PN 4.206.
A reminder that shop drawings are mostly used for those items where specialist design is required and so the consultant team are reviewing the drawings against the intent of the design documentation. They range widely and can include kitchen joinery, aluminium windows, timber trusses, precast concrete elements, seismic joints, HVAC ducts and equipment, right through to unitized façade systems.
Key things to keep in mind with the shop drawing process include:

  • Use the Specification P&G sections and the trade sections to clearly set out expectations for what the drawings should include (including for example adjacent interfaces) and the timing and process for review and resubmittal. Note that shop drawings cost money and so be circumspect in what you request.
  • On the matter of timing make sure that the shop drawing reviews are sent back to the contractor in a timely manner to avoid a possible Extension of Time claim.
  • For BIM projects be clear about the review status of any model information, how it will be provided to consultants and how it will be reviewed.
  • Make it clear that if drawings are to be reviewed by more than one consultant (e.g. architect and structural engineer), any comments will be coordinated but not necessarily combined. As the principal consultant, the architect may have to forward the contractor’s shop drawings onto other relevant consultants – including the Fire Engineer etc, or request the contractor to do this.
  • Use the terms ‘reviewed’ or ‘examined’ and do not use terms like ‘approved’ or ‘checked’ in any correspondence.
  • Shop drawings should be marked as ‘no further comments’ or ‘work may proceed’ only when all comments have been completed, and/or all accompanying material like calculations or other supporting information have been provided and reviewed appropriately.
  • Think about the many items that are impacted by the detail and dimensions of the item being drawn. An obvious one is lifts which impact on lift pit and shaft detail and dimensions. In some cases these might already be built.
  • Be wary of generic/stock drawings being provided in lieu of project specific shop drawings, e.g. for lifts. These do not take account of the supporting structure, fixing points, dimensional setouts and so introduce the risk of a problem on site.
  • Keep good records of the reviews and ensure that the final shop drawings are issued to the consultants and principal as a record set.

Changes to NZACS 2024-2025 Subscription Payment dates

Your annual subscription covers your NZACS membership and insurance premiums. You can choose to pay this using a 3-instalment option, where the cost is split into 3 equal payments.
The instalment due dates for your 2024 insurance renewal are changing. The first payment is due 15 December 2024, then 15 February 2025 and the final payment 15 March 2025.
This option is a benefit to NZACS members. Other insurance policies require payment in full at the start of the insurance period or the policy is cancelled for non-payment. The 3-instalment arrangement is a benefit that only applies if a member pays the subscription when due.
If you anticipate cash flow issues for the December 2024 insurance period there is also a payment plan option for monthly payments by direct debit, via a funding company. Note however that this attracts some additional costs.

AI and Data Privacy

A number of members are no doubt using applications like ChatGPT which offer some impressive benefits. It’s worth taking the time to do some online research to get your privacy and data protection settings right. For example you can choose that your data doesn’t get retained and used by ChatGPT to improve their future models.

Copyright © NZACS 2024