Finger-pointing, one supposes, may be communication of a sort. But there are better ways of communicating in order to get things done expeditiously and well. And when parties are communicating candidly and regularly, they may disagree on any number of issues but the discussion is out in the open, everyone's in the loop, and there's a clear understanding of who is responsible for what and what is specifically expected of them.

Starting Point

As the one designing and administering the project, the engineer or architect is responsible for laying the groundwork for open communication and fostering it throughout the project. At the outset, he or she should meet with the board and the managing agent to determine the board’s objectives for the project and how those fit in with other projects and priorities on the board’s agenda.

This is the time to talk about what reasonably can be accomplished and to advise against any unrealistic expectations. The board may have a dollar amount in mind that falls short of what the project is expected to cost, so the engineer/architect must be flexible and present repair options that work within the budget. And the board must recognize that a reduced scope may mean putting off some necessary work that will likely be more extensive and expensive down the line. A problem arises when the engineer/architect downplays the expected time and cost of the project to placate the board — only to incur its displeasure when the project runs over time and budget. An upfront discussion about a realistic scope of work, repair budget, and timeline is the best way to avoid false promises.

The project specification and drawings can also be a cause of poor communication. These construction documents are used to solicit bids from qualified contractors, so it’s crucial that the plans be thorough and detailed. Unclear or incomplete documents leave room for error and disagreement between the contractor and the engineer/architect. The board and managing agent should review the plans with the engineer/architect and ensure they reflect the agreed upon scope of work and budget before signing off on them.

The Bidding Process

Next, the engineer/architect should schedule a pre-bid site meeting at the building for the prospective contractors — with the managing agent and someone from the board attending. This will give contractors the chance to walk through the site and ask questions about the project and the bid package, which they will have already received from the engineer/architect. Such walkthroughs result in more accurate bids.

When the bids are in, the engineer/architect reviews them and should provide the board with a written recommendation. The board and the managing agent should then interview the contractors and make clear the board’s objectives, voicing any special concerns or issue. Once the hiring decision is made, it’s imperative to have a written contract, prepared by the board’s attorney or engineer/architect. An oral agreement is open to misunderstandings, and it’s nearly impossible to hold a contractor accountable for his performance on the project without key provisions in writing.

Before construction begins, it’s essential to stage a project initiation conference. All the responsible parties should attend — engineer/architect, managing agent, building superintendent, contractor and a member of the board — to share information and make sure everyone is on the same page. To avoid confusion, it’s important that each party has one main contact person.

Key issues to discuss include scheduling, access, security, storage locations, working hours of building staff, emergency telephone numbers and any potentially disruptive items such as dealing with noise or dust. The contractor should bring insurance certificates, current licenses, a project timeline, material submissions and other pertinent documentation. Everyone should leave this meeting clear on his or her responsibilities and the expected protocols and procedures.