The Construction Lien Act & IST
Quality, Consequences and the Construction Industrial Complex (part 291).???
The Construction Lein Act is generally a North American phenomenon that was bought in for good reasons, has led to unintended consequences and IMHO, needs amendments.
A Construction Lien is a claim made against a property by a contractor or subcontractor who have not been paid for their work. Their purpose, is to protect professionals and contractors from the risk of not being paid for services rendered. A Construction Lien makes it difficult to sell or refinance a property because it makes its title unclear and can force a sale of the property to provide compensation.
The Construction Lein Act was enacted to prevent egregious abuse of contractors by owners. This was, and is, a good reason for legislation. As a business owner, I have used it to get paid. However, I have witnessed several projects where the main contractor has used the threat of a lien to require Substantial Performance when the building and its systems do not work correctly.
This is possible because of the 3-2-1 formula used within the Construction Lien Act to certify complete, a head contract or subcontract. For example, in Ontario Canada, a project is substantially performed if the work to be done under the contract is capable of completion or correction at a cost of not more than:
On a $50m project, this formula can result in substantial performance with $530,000 of work outstanding. Included in this outstanding work would be systems commissioning, controls tuning and As Built record documentation. Using this example, which I personally experienced, the outcome was:?
On new construction, Substantial Performance is in the gift of the architects and engineers based in part on their assessment of completion and suitability for occupancy. As completion draws near, the architects and engineers come under pressure to please people and grant Substantial Performance because this leads to occupancy and payments.?
The question is, "does suitability for occupancy, require building systems to be fully commissioned, IST complete and As Built documentation delivered?"
On mission critical and triple A buildings, I say yes.?
A conflict has arisen due to complexity plus high technology in modern buildings. The wish to retain liability in "clear silos" is in conflict with the need to test building systems performance and their interfaces. For example, the fire alarm system touches the elevators, access control, HVAC, lighting, electrical and stand-by power systems. Is the fire alarm technician responsible for physically testing?/ verifying all these interfaces? Not currently.
In North America, contractual conflict and lability issues are compounded by a litigious culture plus the Construction Lien Act. Until the Construction Lien Act is changed to recognize systems commissioning, integrated systems testing (IST - NFPA 4) and building performance outcomes, silos will persist and nobody will own building performance outcomes.?
领英推荐
There is a "conspiracy of unawareness" in building design and construction that leads to silo thinking and is not compatible with highly serviced, complex buildings.?
Substantial performance and occupancy need to be legally tied to certified completion of building commissioning and IST. IMHO, the Construction Lien Act is the way to do it.?
Related
BlueRithm Investor & Advisor
Advisor DCM Inc
Edifice Complex Podcast
#edificecomplexpodcast #ProjectManagement #makingbuildingswork #podcast #CxM #drawings #property #Mechanicslien #bluerithm #echoknowsyourbuilding #drawingsfound?#facilitiesmanaged #Cx #Cxnomad #RICS #Lien #Constructionlienact
Building Services Engineer | Building Commissioning Professional | LEED AP O+M |
3 年It will be interesting to see if the new 'ready-for-takeover' clause in CCDC-2 2020 makes a difference in relation to the delivery of as-builts, O+M manuals etc. https://www.torkinmanes.com/our-resources/publications-presentations/publication/canadian-construction-contracts-welcome-to-the-new-ccdc-2-(2020)