Help me think this through

Construction & Evaluation
1

“An architect submits a drawing set for a large mixed-use project to the AHJ for building permit plan check. The AHJ is experiencing delays and estimates building permit approval will take 10 months. To make up for the delay, the owner distributes the same drawing set for competitive bidding and provides a 90-day review period for submissions. The architect is concerned about the potential for plan review comments that may result in design changes and increased construction costs. How should the architect address this concern?

 A. Provide a contingency for additional architecture design fees in the bidding forms.

 B. Include an allowance for future plan check revisions in the Division 01 specifications and allowance form.

 C. Advise the owner to extend the open bid review timeline to match the estimated building permit approval date.”

Here is what happens in my head when I read this:

The Architect submits the CDs to the AHJ for building permit - and is told it will be TEN MONTHS to review? Does that kind of thing happen?

So the owner “to make up for the delay” puts out the bids for 90 days. In what sense does that “make up” for a ten month delay? I mean I guess - now we only have…SEVEN MONTHS to go… (?)

Now the really weird thing happens:

The Architect decides he’ll “address the concern” of what happens (in 10 months) if the AHJ sends the plan review back with “comments” (read: revise and resubmit…and wait even longer…)

And so here’s what NCARB says the architect does: B “Include an allowance for **future plan check revisions*** in the Division 01 specifications and allowance form.*”

So - If I’m bidding on this project I know that in seven+ months:

1. The market will be different - the owner could say, “Hey - steel frame instead of concrete…” And even if the structure stays the same the prices will all be different.

2. Some weird geopolitical thing could happen and now there is a huge shortage of XYZ that’s all over the project.

3.On top of that - the AHJ can come back and say there is some aspect of the building that won’t meet code and I don’t know what it might be.

How am I supposed to contractually BIND myself to deliver this project under these circumstances.
I’d have to say, “Here’s my bid, but I need the contract amended to re-bid in SEVEN MONTHS when we actually know if this is even going to be allowed to be built in the first place….”

2

@aidenjh Here are a few considerations to address the great points you bring up:

While a 10-month AHJ plan review is not typical in smaller jurisdictions, it is possible in larger metro areas. There are many factors involved, such as staffing, backlog, and complexity of the building. Regardless, try not to get too hung up on the “realistic” aspect of information presented in ARE scenarios.

The owner providing a 90-day review period for submissions is not as crucial as the note where the owner distributes the same drawing set for competitive bidding… This means that the owner is running bidding in parallel with the AHJ review to compress the schedule, and that is what matters here. Also, we aren’t told what the planned AHJ review period was without delays, so we don’t know that the discrepancy between 90 days and 10 months won’t make a difference.

With that said, the real concern here is: who pays for the potential post-bid changes and how do we manage it? The architect is worried because design changes required by AHJ comments could increase the construction cost after bidding. Including an allowance for future plan check revisions provides a buffer for this; contractor would have an allowance in their bid, so ultimately the owner would absorb the cost.

In practice, contractors may be unlikely to hold their bids that long or might attach escalation clauses. An owner or architect might also need to rebid later if major revisions or economic conditions occur.

For ARE purposes, the key takeaway here is to recognize that Division 01 is where you handle procedural and cost allowances to manage unknowns.

Kiara Galicinao, AIA, NCARB
Product Coordinator
Black Spectacles

3

OK. I appreciate your perspective on this. I guess I was just kind of incredulous that the project was viable in any form with those time issues. But then again - I just don’t have the experience to really understand what goes on out there in projects like this.