The minimum acceptable level, quality, and nature of a construction manager’s documentation will mirror that which a diligent general contractor should provide. Otherwise, a construction manager will generate far and away much more documentation. It should be said that insofar as pertains to documentation, quality trumps quantity. In other words, it shouldn’t be created for its own sake, or just to feign real action. Furthermore, architects have a general antipathy for over-documenting general contractors.
The dynamics of sharing certain information on a construction management project have different parameters than they do on traditional contracts. For instance, information exchanged between the architect and contractor. It is generally poor practice to involve the client in decisions involving technical matters, or means and methods. An owner will likely see considerably more documentation from his construction manager, than he would from a general contractor. This can change the way contractual parties communicate: especially if the construction manager coordinates the design team. In some cases, the construction manager may control the design team; although that arrangement is rare in the residential sector. Consider the following dilemma:
Three general contractors were asked to make a presentation to an architect for consideration of the award of a residential contract. The architect agreed to sponsor one of them. The contract – a stipulated sum, was let before the design documentation was complete. As the project development did not progress substantially, the designer established a pattern of negligence in not furnishing the required design information, some of which was driven by client inaction. The contractor diligently notified the designer of all approaching and missed deadlines, as they happened. These notices, sent only to the designer over a period of ten-weeks or so, amounted to a stack of paper ¾” in thickness.
It soon became painfully evident to the client that the project was foundering. Not being satisfied with the designer’s response as to why such was the case, he asked the general contractor directly. The general contractor was reluctant; however, he was forced to admit that he had maintained certain documentation and correspondence with the architect regarding the matter, which, of course, the client quickly demanded. Twenty-four hours later, the designer’s contract was terminated; however, the general contractor remained.
Under the circumstances, this general contractor felt he had acted reasonably: he was reluctant to hang the designer out to dry by forcing issues, or notifying the client of the lack of progress, especially since the designer had recommended the contractor. Had this been a construction management contract, this scenario would have never taken place. In lieu of that, a competent, designated owner’s representative in the loop could have advocated for the client.
