Contract Review and Management:

• Reduced the overall project cost by 3% during contract negotiations by negotiating better contract terms saving more than $35,000 for the owners.

• During the contract review phase, the DHA construction manager recognized and eliminated a significant construction-related risk that the general contractor had shifted to the owner.

Value Engineering:

• During a significant construction defect project, the civil engineer made several costly recommendations for repair that would have consumed most of the construction budget. DHA presented several cost-effective engineered solutions, resulting in approximate savings of more than $516,000 for the owners.

Change Order Management:

• During construction, the contracted engineer submitted a change order for specification review. DHA identified the costs offered were significantly higher than the current market rates of similar providers. Subsequently, the change order was resolved more favorably for the owner, resulting in savings of more than $8,000.

• During a periodic job site review of the work in progress with the contractors and architect, additional damage was discovered, requiring a change order for two separate instances. The contractor subsequently submitted a change order for both that the DHA construction manager quickly realized was overpriced. It was discovered by the DHA construction manager that the contractor had mistakenly noted the required repair for one instance and recommended an unnecessary repair for the second instance. The revised change order reduced the overall cost by more than $11,000.

• A change order was submitted by the contractor for additional concrete work. The contractor claimed the city had changed the scope of work and the owner should have to pay for the increased quantity of work. DHA's construction manager subsequently met with the city official and determined that the contractor had not followed the instructions of the city official during the permitting and pricing phase. The change order was rejected, saving the owner $20,000.

• A change order was submitted by the contractor for time and materials. The notice to proceed was provided, and the number of workers and hours worked were documented by the DHA construction manager. Subsequently, the contractor provided a change order invoice much higher than expected. The DHA construction manager requested a time sheet backup from the contractor to confirm the charges. After comparing the time provided time sheets with our progress notes, it was discovered that the subcontractor had significantly overreported the hours worked by crewmembers and supervisors. Net savings to the owner; $2,800.

Cost Management:

• During one of the pay application reviews, the DHA construction manager discovered an overcharge by the design team. After meeting with their accounting manager, it was realized that a software error had occurred, and a credit was issued, saving more than $1,800 for the owners.

• Due to seasonal weather conditions, the general contractor offered a credit to the owners for the elimination of replacement plantings. They recommended that the work be delayed until spring and that the owner's landscaping company could provide the labor and materials. The DHA construction manager requested a quote from the owner's landscaping provider for comparison, resulting in an increase in the credit of $850.

Schedule:

• During the preconstruction phase of a construction defect project, the DHA construction manager noted that stucco work requires warm ambient temperatures. The general contractor's proposed schedule would result in winter work requiring tenting, heating, and admixtures. The contractor preferred to use only one stucco subcontractor and indicated that the owner would have to pay for heating and tenting to complete the work. DHA insisted that extra crew members or contractors be added to complete the job before winter. The contractor subsequently met with the subcontractor and agreed they could complete the work before winter with no additional compensation.

Quality Control:

• During a periodic site inspection, the DHA construction manager observed the installation of concrete anchors unsuitable for exterior use. The general contractor and subcontractor both insisted they were appropriate and claimed they had been doing that way for the past thirty years. This conflict was resolved amicably once both contractors realized they were using the incorrect anchor. The contractor agreed to make all corrections and pay for the engineering review. 

• During a quality acceptance inspection of a drain inlet, the contractor claimed the work met the slope and support requirements per the design documents. The DHA construction manager noticed the inlet was improperly supported and had been propped up to meet the design requirements. The work was rejected, and the contractor was required to make corrections.

• During the design phase of a construction defect project, the civil engineer suggested a more intrusive and costly plan to correct the drainage defect. The engineer had determined that the slope requirements dictated the change. DHA's experience led our construction manager to measure the slope calculations with our equipment, resulting in the discovery of an incorrect evaluation by the engineer. The cost savings for the owner is approximated at more than $2,000.

Scope Management:

• During a periodic site inspection by the DHA construction manager, it was observed that the contractor had changed the drainage direction without consulting the design engineer. The change would have resulted in lower costs for the contractor. DHA notified the contractor not to proceed without consulting the engineer. The contractor decided to revert back to the original orientation.