Are we here to build a project, or win an argument?
There is a moment on almost every construction project when something doesn’t go according to plan. A detail doesn’t quite work in the field, a specified product becomes unavailable, or an unforeseen condition requires a change to the original design. The drawings may have been carefully coordinated, the specifications thoroughly reviewed, and the tender process completed without significant concern. Yet somewhere between what was designed and what is being built, a problem emerges that requires everyone to come back to the table.
What happens next can reveal a great deal about the relationship between the architect and the contractor.
On some projects, the conversation begins with a phone call. The contractor explains what they’ve discovered, outlines a couple of possible solutions, and asks the architect which approach would best maintain the design intent. There may be a cost involved, perhaps even a schedule implication, but the discussion begins with a shared understanding that the problem needs to be resolved.
On other projects, the same discovery can become the opening move in a dispute. An RFI arrives, followed almost immediately by a request for additional compensation. Positions are established before alternatives have been explored. The architect begins reviewing the contract documents, the contractor prepares a quotation, and the owner finds themselves caught between two parties who appear to be working against one another.
The underlying problem might be identical. The difference is the attitude brought to the table.
When the Project Becomes a Contest
After more than two decades working in architecture, much of that time spent in construction administration, I’ve come to appreciate how significantly the contractor’s approach can influence the experience of delivering a project. Good drawings matter. Clear specifications matter. Coordination between consultants matters enormously. But even the most carefully prepared construction documents cannot anticipate every condition that will be encountered in the field.
Construction is simply too complicated for that.
The question is not whether problems will arise, but whether the people responsible for delivering the project are prepared to work through them together.
There are contractors who approach a project with a genuine interest in building it well. They understand that the architect has responsibilities to the owner, that consultants are working within their respective disciplines, and that changes must be properly documented and evaluated. When something goes wrong, they bring their experience to the conversation rather than treating the situation as an opportunity to establish blame.
Then there are projects where nearly every disagreement becomes a negotiation, every clarification becomes a potential extra, and every change seems to arrive with a disproportionate price tag. Sometimes that behaviour originates with the general contractor. Other times, it begins with a subcontractor whose approach to pricing or problem-solving places the entire project team in a difficult position.
It is important to acknowledge that architects contribute to these tensions as well. Incomplete coordination, ambiguous details, delayed responses, and an unwillingness to recognize legitimate construction costs can undermine a contractor’s confidence just as quickly. Contractors operate businesses with real financial risks, and they should be compensated fairly for work that falls outside their contractual obligations.
But there is a difference between protecting your commercial interests and allowing those interests to define every interaction.
When the relationship becomes adversarial, even relatively minor decisions can consume an extraordinary amount of time. The people who should be concentrating on delivering the building instead find themselves documenting positions, reviewing correspondence, and preparing for the next disagreement.
The project continues moving, but with unnecessary friction at every turn.
The Problem With Pricing Everything as a Fight
One of the more frustrating situations in construction administration involves evaluating the cost of changes. Architects are not necessarily professional estimators, and we should be careful about pretending otherwise. However, those of us who work across multiple construction projects develop a reasonable understanding of what certain materials, labour activities, and changes tend to cost.
We see quotations regularly. We review proposed changes, discuss labour requirements, compare approaches, and evaluate credits when portions of the work are removed. Over time, patterns begin to emerge.
I recall a situation involving changes to landscaped areas where a credit was requested for sod that was no longer required. Later in the project, additional sod was needed in another area. What stood out was the significant difference between the value credited for removing the work and the amount proposed to put similar work back into the project.
The credit was roughly half the corresponding cost of the additional work.
There can be legitimate reasons for differences between deletion credits and new work. Mobilization, quantities, procurement commitments, site conditions, overhead, and the timing of the change can all affect pricing. A credit and an addition are not automatically equivalent transactions.
But when those differences are substantial, they deserve a clear explanation.
Without that transparency, the discussion quickly shifts away from the work itself and toward whether the pricing is fair. The architect is placed in the position of questioning the quotation, the contractor must defend the numbers, and the owner is left wondering why the same material appears to have two very different values.
On occasion, disagreements over pricing become significant enough that the work must proceed through a contractual mechanism that allows costs to be established through documented labour, materials, equipment, and other applicable expenses, rather than through an agreed lump-sum quotation. Depending on the contract, a change directive may provide that mechanism.
That process has an important purpose. It allows necessary work to proceed while preserving a method for determining its cost. But it also introduces additional administration, recordkeeping, and scrutiny that might have been avoided through a reasonable and transparent quotation in the first place.
Nobody benefits from spending hours debating a relatively straightforward change when those same hours could be directed toward solving more important project issues.
Bring a Solution, Not Just a Problem
Some of the best contractors I’ve worked with have one quality in common: they arrive at a conversation having already considered what might work.
When they discover a conflict in the field, they don’t simply announce that the drawings are wrong and wait for the architect to resolve it. They explain the condition, identify the constraints, and offer possible approaches based on their understanding of the construction process.
Perhaps a mechanical service conflicts with a structural element. The contractor may suggest rerouting the service, adjusting the installation sequence, or exploring an alternative arrangement with the mechanical subcontractor. Each option may carry different implications for cost, schedule, maintenance, and design coordination. Not every suggestion will be acceptable, and the design professionals still need to evaluate the technical and contractual implications.
But the conversation has already moved forward.
Instead of beginning with a dispute over responsibility, the team begins with an understanding of the available choices. The architect can assess the implications for design intent, the consultants can review their respective systems, and the owner can make an informed decision when one is required.
This is not about expecting contractors to perform the architect’s design responsibilities. Nor is it about asking them to absorb costs that legitimately belong to the owner. It is about recognizing that contractors possess practical construction knowledge that can make a meaningful contribution to resolving problems.
The architect understands the design. The contractor understands how the building is being assembled. The consultants understand the systems they have designed. The owner understands the operational and financial priorities that ultimately shape the project.
The best outcomes tend to emerge when that knowledge is brought together rather than defended in isolation.
Good Documentation Is Still Essential
None of this diminishes the importance of well-prepared construction documents. In fact, the better the drawings and specifications, the fewer opportunities there are for unnecessary disagreement.
A coordinated drawing set establishes a common understanding of what is to be built. Clear specifications communicate expectations for materials, products, workmanship, and performance. Properly managed RFIs, submittals, site instructions, and change documentation create a record of decisions as the work progresses.
These processes are not administrative exercises for their own sake. They provide the structure that allows a complicated group of people and organizations to work toward the same result.
But documentation cannot replace a constructive working relationship.
An RFI can be a valuable means of clarifying an unforeseen condition, or it can become another piece of correspondence in an ongoing argument. A change quotation can provide the information needed for an informed decision, or it can become a source of frustration when its assumptions and costs are difficult to understand.
The documents themselves are neutral. Their value depends on the quality of the information being communicated and the willingness of the people receiving it to engage constructively.
This is part of the thinking behind Project Arc. The goal is not simply to move construction correspondence from email into another software platform. It is to make project information, decisions, responsibilities, and documentation easier to follow across the different stages of a building’s delivery.
When the architect, contractor, consultants, and owner are working from a clear record of what has been issued, reviewed, changed, and agreed upon, there is less room for confusion. Technology cannot manufacture trust between people, but it can remove some of the administrative friction that makes an already difficult relationship harder to manage.
The Owner Shouldn’t Have to Choose Sides
One aspect of the architect–contractor relationship that deserves more attention is the position of the owner.
The owner has engaged a team to deliver a building. They are investing significant money, often over several years, with expectations about quality, schedule, and budget. They should be able to rely on the professionals and contractors involved to exercise sound judgement and provide reasonable advice.
Yet when the project becomes an ongoing contest between the architect and contractor, the owner can find themselves drawn into disagreements they are poorly positioned to resolve.
A contractor may argue that a detail was incomplete or that a change warrants additional compensation. The architect may believe the work was already reasonably contemplated by the contract documents. Both positions may require careful evaluation, and neither should be dismissed simply because of who is presenting it.
Under common Canadian stipulated-price arrangements, including CCDC 2 contracts, the consultant also has defined responsibilities in interpreting the contract documents and evaluating aspects of the work. Those responsibilities must be exercised fairly and in accordance with the contract, not as an automatic defence of either the owner or the architect.
The distinction matters. Architects have an obligation to advise their clients, but professional judgement requires us to recognize when a contractor has a legitimate entitlement, even when that conclusion is inconvenient.
Likewise, contractors should recognize that an architect questioning a quotation is not necessarily attempting to avoid payment. The review is part of ensuring that the owner receives a reasonable and properly supported assessment of the proposed change.
A successful project should not require the owner to continually decide which side they believe.
It should provide them with a team capable of presenting clear information, explaining the available options, and making recommendations that support the project.
From “us vs. them” to a better approach: practical options, clear costs and shared solutions.
Changing the Conversation
There is a tendency in construction to speak about the architect and contractor as though they occupy opposing sides of the same table. Their contractual roles are different, their responsibilities are distinct, and their commercial interests will not always align. Those differences are real and cannot simply be wished away through calls for better teamwork.
But differing responsibilities do not require an adversarial relationship.
A contractor can protect their contractual interests while bringing practical solutions to the table. An architect can defend the design intent while acknowledging an error or accepting a legitimate change. Both can disagree about cost without allowing the disagreement to become personal.
In my experience, the projects that are most satisfying to work on are not necessarily the ones without problems. They are the ones where problems can be discussed openly, where people are willing to acknowledge their responsibilities, and where the conversation remains focused on getting the building completed properly.
That requires more than a well-written contract or a sophisticated project management system. It requires a professional attitude that recognizes the value each participant brings to the process.
Because at the end of the day, the architect and contractor are not there to defeat one another. They are there to deliver a building that meets the owner’s needs, respects the design intent, and reflects the combined expertise of everyone involved.
And when something inevitably goes wrong, perhaps the most useful question isn’t who can be blamed for the problem.
