Re: Wacky things on bid spec's
This raises an important question..
is there a protocol for how long after the job is done before it's ok to tell the customer what changes you recommend?
after the bill is paid? after the warranty is up? never?
obviously we don't want to burn any bridges with consultants, but after all is said and done the customer usually blames the installer for any shortcomings (at least in the range of jobs that I do where the folks that actually end up running the new building aren't usually consulted by the consultant :roll: )
You being up a great point and one that is a struggle from both sides. There are two factors that I often see happening.
The first factor is who is the "customer". In many cases the 'End Users' may not be the Owner or the decision makers. This can be bad in that their input is sometimes not considered as it should be, in fact in some cases there may not even be any end users or operators at the time a facility is first discussed and designed. But it can also sometimes be good, for example keeping an individual from making it 'their' system or keeping an eye on the bigger picture (e.g. the corporate project where the executives specifically wanted a meeting room space that could be used without a technician while the techs kept trying to get the Contractor to change things so that nothing could be done without their being involved).
The second is that there is often a long period of time, sometime several years, between the initial discussions of what is wanted and the opening of the building. Needs, users, the intended use, people, etc. can all change and evolve over that time. I see this a lot with projects like community centers and public performing arts center where as a result of people changing and there typically not being a Facility Manager or TD when the design starts, the initial vision for the building and systems evolve significantly between the the venue is first conceived and when it opens. I have a project finishing up right now that is a community center with a theater that was initially programmed to be used for a wide range of events by a wide variety of users with no dedicated house tech staff. Of course a few years later it is now opening with an experienced Facility Manager, a resident theater company with their own designers, and TD and contracted tech resources. Luckily all of the theatre tech consultants on the project had been through this situation before and designed a facility flexible enough to support the changes that have occurred, but sometimes changes happen that are so significant or so unexpected that they do become a problem.
I can't speak for all Consultants but I want to maintain a relationship with the Owner and End Users (okay, maybe not all of them). I want to have a chance to explain why something is that way it is. I also want to know if something should have been done differently or could have been done better, it's the only way I'll learn from it. The way I usually approach things is to tell the Owner and End Users that if you have a question on how something was done, talk to the Contractor but if you have a question on why something was done, talk to us. If it is an issue of why it is that way and how to change it, then let us work together. I also like to be involved in training so that I can help clarify the roles and answer any "why" questions that may come up.
All of this gets to the point that if there appears to be changes required then it may help to work with the Consultant. They may be able to explain why something is the way it is and that may either change whether any revisions are appropriate, help justify why they are appropriate or affect what is suggested. Working together could benefit everyone.
If the Consultant elects to not be involved or the Owner no longer wants them involved then I would say to feel free to suggest changes, however it might benefit you to try to find out as much as possible about why things are the way they are first so that you can offer a better informed response.
Do not do what I had one Contractor do where every time an issue came up they responded that this was why they should have just hired them and not wasted money on a Consultant - and said this with the Consultant in the room. What made that even worse is that the Contractor was responding to issues being raised by people that were not the decision makers and for which many ran counter to what the Owner wanted.
