Theatre consultant recommendation

[robartsd]

Fire sprinkler contractors - grrrrr. I don't doubt the usefulness and the need for fire sprinklers, but trying to get them to layout and install sprinklers in anyway other than code minimum at lowest cost is really hard. I work to convince structural engineer to have holes fabricate in loft block beams - which costs next to nothing if planned - for sprinklers so they don't obstruct rigging, and getting the sprinkler contractor to use them is a lot harder than pulling teeth.

I worked with a fire sprinkler company several years ago when I was drafting owner-builder plans for residential and light commercial projects. I remember talking with the engineer and installer about precise placement of the sprinkler heads and noting that to them coordinating the head placement with other elements on the ceiling for reasons other than code requirements costs extra. I have no idea what their response to being asked to place the pipes in a certail place would have been. Might be useful to develop a information packet that includes photos of pipes damaged by rigging system cables. I'm sure you already see to it that the contract documents specify that the sprinkler system pipes are to route through the beams.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

I'm sure you already see to it that the contract documents specify that the sprinkler system pipes are to route through the beams.

Yeah, and then the submittals come ignoring that and the inevitable meeting and the sprinkler contractor usually says "you really meant that?" like I simply did a sheet of details for sprinkler coordination for the fun of it. And sprinkler submittals get reviewed by the fire code people, so the contractor sends then there first and now its claims for delays and extra costs associated with the code review and someone - no of the theatre - asking if it's really necessary the battens go all the way as high as shown or could we just leave a half dozen out.

 

[MNicolai]

Yeah, and then the submittals come ignoring that and the inevitable meeting and the sprinkler contractor usually says "you really meant that?" like I simply did a sheet of details for sprinkler coordination for the fun of it. And sprinkler submittals get reviewed by the fire code people, so the contractor sends then there first and now its claims for delays and extra costs associated with the code review and someone - no of the theatre - asking if it's really necessary the battens go all the way as high as shown or could we just leave a half dozen out.

We see similar shenanigans. The inevitable next step is a volley of emails and phone tag where we illustrate we did our due diligence in informing the relevant trades where coordination was necessary, and at that point the general contractor and/or construction manager and/or architect and/or owner and/or other stakeholders (i.e. the State) have to decide if they'll stand their ground with the offending contractor and force them to abide by spec at the contractor's expense, or allow a change order to the offending contractor's favor, or reject the coordination and in doing so allow the deviation from spec (which happens more often than you'd expect for a myriad of reasons -- project schedule, budget, not being a big enough issue to warrant getting lawyers involved if it looks like lawyers getting involved is what it's going to take).

I have a philosophy that anyone going into technical direction or theater management should have to take a crash course in how a theater gets built. There's a fair chance at one point or another they'll be a part of the process for remodeling, upgrading, or building a theater. Most often, you don't know what you don't know about the construction process until something goes haywire, and the consultant isn't often the final say in the matter. The projects where I've seen the most emphasis on proper functionality of the theater is where the owner is hands-on in ensuring their own destiny, or hands-on in deferring to the consultant's expertise. Whenever the owner is hands-off, their expectations end up far out-of-alignment with the architect's, and once that happens then all bets can be off on what the final product given to the owner will look like.

 

[AlexDonkle]

I'm sure you already see to it that the contract documents specify that the sprinkler system pipes are to route through the beams.

What's in the specs and what actually gets built don't line up as often as you would hope, especially when it comes to non-standard disciplines like acoustics and rigging coordination.

Yeah, and then the submittals come ignoring that and the inevitable meeting and the sprinkler contractor usually says "you really meant that?" like I simply did a sheet of details for sprinkler coordination for the fun of it. And sprinkler submittals get reviewed by the fire code people, so the contractor sends then there first and now its claims for delays and extra costs associated with the code review and someone - no of the theatre - asking if it's really necessary the battens go all the way as high as shown or could we just leave a half dozen out.

Gotta love contractor's "extra cost" to do what is clearly shown in the specs and drawings they bid on.

 

[MNicolai]

What's in the specs and what actually gets built don't line up as often as you would hope, especially when it comes to non-standard disciplines like acoustics and rigging coordination.

Gotta love contractor's "extra cost" to do what is clearly shown in the specs and drawings they bid on.

There are plenty of contractors who will bid grossly lower than the other bidders, get the contract, and then make their bones on all the change orders they'll file after they've had the contract for a few months. Either because they don't know what they're getting into or because they've become jaded enough to believe that that's the only way they can bid jobs competitively and still get paid a fair rate to perform the full scope of work. By bidding it knowing where they can get away with negligence and make it up in change orders.

It only takes one or two religiously low bidders in a region to poison the well for everyone. The more-qualified contractors either stop bidding because they won't waste their time bidding against notoriously low bidders, or they'll cut corners wherever they're okay cutting corners so that they can be more competitive without totally whoring themselves out for no money.

 

[RickR]

A certain contractor in my area has been asked (by several architects) not to bid on projects here. They've done 2 of my projects with exactly this strategy. Months of delays, massive extra work for the entire design team, just to get them to do what the plans say.

So what is a consultant worth in those cases?

 

[MNicolai]

A certain contractor in my area has been asked (by several architects) not to bid on projects here. They've done 2 of my projects with exactly this strategy. Months of delays, massive extra work for the entire design team, just to get them to do what the plans say.

So what is a consultant worth in those cases?

Depends on your construction manager and how bulletproof your contract documents are. Even then, usually the only leverage the CM has is to withhold payment or pull the contractor's bond. Withholding the contractor's bond happens only ever in a blue moon it seems though and withholding payment can get sticky quickly, especially if it's "Pay when paid." Under "Pay when paid", nobody gets their final payment until the project is complete, and if the project is otherwise complete except for one trade, the CM would rather get paid and get the other trades paid and never see the work completed than drag out the payment process for months until the contractor finishes the work. If they finish the work.

I know my particular state is stickier yet for state projects. Not only can completion for one trade hold up payment for all trades, but then all trades have their state contractors' and A&E points withheld. If you have too many points unavailable, you can't bid on new projects. So one contractor at the end can make it so an architect can't pursue new State projects until that project gets closed out.

So at the end when the contractor starts complaining about how rigorous the testing/commissioning/documentation processes are, the project team has financial incentive to absolve the contractor of those requirements for the sake of getting the project closed.

There's no substitute for getting a qualified contractor the first time 'round. No spec or consultant can guarantee the success of a project.

I've heard more than a couple times someone say "If you've got a good contractor, you don't need a contract. And if you have a bad contractor, your contract won't do you any good."

EDIT:
I should add -- not all projects are this bleak. In fact, most go off with only minor, to-be-expected complications along the way. I'm just trying to shine light on that the construction process has a lot of moving parts that can affect the outcome of the project. I'm absolutely serious when I say that the more hands-on the customer is, the better. There are a number of different firms and people looking out for the success of any given project, no one is in a better position than the customer to keep an eye out for their own short and long-term interests.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

I can't speak for other trades but as regards the work for which we preiare plans and specs, like rigging, theatrical lighting, lifts, seats, pit fillers, and so on, we include a lot of contractor qualifications and pre-qualify a group of contractors. It has resulted in few misunderstandings about the design intent. I did loose one battle 20 years ago to not allow a notoriusly short cutting rigging contractor to be awarded the work. The system still has problems and probably will be replaced long before its expected life, but at least the details of project have helped me disqualify that same company a number of times.

 

[MNicolai]

We also include qualifications but are almost never allowed to pre-qualify bidders, and the qualifications are often not enforced because stakeholders are willing to take the risk when they see all of the $$$$ they think they'll end up saving. Something about A/V doesn't scare stakeholders in the same way that tens of thousands of pounds of equipment hanging above people does. Another factor is that frequently A/V is a sub to the electrical, especially for state projects, and the state won't vet subcontractors.

Just got a call a couple days ago from a bidder who lost the bid but thought our recommended bidders for a project were a fair representation of competent contractors appropriate for a project of that type and scale. Didn't stop a low-baller from getting the job for substantially (and suspiciously) less.

I suspect part of the problem is there are more contractors out there who will live dangerously trying their hand at A/V than at overhead rigging. Lot more fish in the water.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

I work a lot with av designers - ones not associated with a vendor - and they seem able to prequalify av contractors on most projects.

If Owners care enough to hire independent professional designers, they are simply more likely to work hard to heed the designers' recommendations - and not letting anyone and everyone bid is usually a crucial part if that.

 

[Jay Ashworth]

The system still has problems and probably will be replaced long before its expected life, but at least the details of project have helped me disqualify that same company a number of times.

I'm curious: have you ever had to put language in your contract explicitly permitting you to share details about how a project went with later clients, so as to avoid being sued by a crappy sub like that?

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

Interesting. I'm just careful to stick to the truth - like the aluminum sleeves joining steel battens that are slowly discinerating. No special language and the consultants all share their experiences.

 

[Jay Ashworth]

I meant more 'gag lawsuits', where someone tries to sue you for telling the plain truth, simply because it's maligning to them for having done a bad job.

Akin to an apartment complex I read about yesterday, whose rental contract includes that you agree to a $10,000 fine if you write a negative online review of them...
[Edit by Mod.: Link to story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/windermere-cay-yelp-review-10k-fine_n_6844592.html ]

 

[AlexDonkle]

We also include qualifications but are almost never allowed to pre-qualify bidders, and the qualifications are often not enforced because stakeholders are willing to take the risk when they see all of the $$$$ they think they'll end up saving. Something about A/V doesn't scare stakeholders in the same way that tens of thousands of pounds of equipment hanging above people does. Another factor is that frequently A/V is a sub to the electrical, especially for state projects, and the state won't vet subcontractors.

Same thing happens at our office. Proving that a sub isn't qualified is typically very difficult in practice. So long as the GC is qualified state and military officers typically just move forward with their chosen subs. Private jobs are much simpler.

I work a lot with av designers - ones not associated with a vendor - and they seem able to prequalify av contractors on most projects.

Most states prohibit listing pre-qualified contractors by name in the specs AFAIK, so they rarely appear in architectural or MEP specs I've seen on state jobs. That said, most state reviewers rarely review AV specs and just focus on the major disciplines, so they commonly miss it. Military jobs we've worked on generally have similar policies.

 

[de27192]

As much as we seem to have centred on fire sprinklers, air con has to have been my favourite thus far.

Obviously when you hang air con ducting over stage, it needs to be supported whilst you screw the stud into the roof. Up high this can be difficult. How did one certain contractor avoid this? I promise this is the whole truth... they installed the air con duct (2' x 2' square tube) in the catwalks. When we quizzed them, they thought it was completely reasonable as it made the installation quicker and meant they did not have to charge us for access equipment. They tried to convince us they were doing us a favour. I just didn't know how to respond to such extreme stupidity.... yes guys we definitely had all those nice lighting catwalks installed at great expense to make the air con cheap to install.

Beyond that though, the vents pointed straight onto the flat floor of the catwalks. All the cold air was blowing hard into the catwalk floor, not down to stage as it was supposed to. There really is no limit to peoples' stupidity.

 

[tjrobb]

We're running into the "bid low and ask for more" here. For obvious reasons I can't elaborate, but I'm in facilities and dealing with it daily. Judging by other projects, this is common for the company. Always vet someone before you commit.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

Same thing happens at our office. Proving that a sub isn't qualified is typically very difficult in practice. So long as the GC is qualified state and military officers typically just move forward with their chosen subs. Private jobs are much simpler.



Most states prohibit listing pre-qualified contractors by name in the specs AFAIK, so they rarely appear in architectural or MEP specs I've seen on state jobs. That said, most state reviewers rarely review AV specs and just focus on the major disciplines, so they commonly miss it. Military jobs we've worked on generally have similar policies.

Perhaps because I prequalify "manufacturing-contractors" or "systems integrators" no one says boo. You have to be able to keep the garage shop "contractors" out. Only that once did I have a problem. Even a recent NAVFAC project I got exactly the products I wanted installed by companies I had vetted and prequalified.

 

[BillConnerFASTC]

One of the problems of a architect without a consultant is that they tend to rely on codes as a design resource. Its important to keep in mind codes and standards are not intended to be "good design" but are bare minimums for reasonable safety. If built just to code, its a D- grade building. I try very hard to get clients to aim higher. They may not all be A+ theaters, but I'm sure they are much better than average.

 

[robartsd]

One of the problems of a architect without a consultant is that they tend to rely on codes as a design resource. Its important to keep in mind codes and standards are not intended to be "good design" but are bare minimums for reasonable safety. If built just to code, its a D- grade building. I try very hard to get clients to aim higher. They may not all be A+ theaters, but I'm sure they are much better than average.

Of course architects know that codes are just minimum standards - that's why they put in all that nice "architecture". The root problem is probably that the architect thinks the client will express what they really want, while the client thinks the architect will know how to make it a good design.

 

[RickR]

The specific case I mentioned above was all about the general contractor, so of course nobody asked my opinion. With that type of leadership even the highly qualified and respected rigging installer (pre-approved by us) was having trouble. The poor electrical subs were just trying not to end up in court.

My favorite complaint about Architects without consultants is that they tend to 'do what worked last time' regardless of changes. Once one took several pages of drawings and stuck them in a new project. Without noticing that you can't run ceiling track across a soffit.