Problems at the construction site

1. There is a problem with the design blueprint; the design institute must issue changes, otherwise delivery for inspection and acceptance cannot take place； 2. The project department shall issue changes promptly; although the construction unit approves them, they must still be confirmed by the design institute ； 3. If it is a design error on the part of the design institute, the institute must issue changes and clarify responsibilities ； 3. If the project department issues changes with incorrect blueprints, it is the project department’s fault; it is correct for the construction unit to refuse to accept them

When our company carries out construction, we generally require the design institute to assign an on-site construction representative to address promptly any issues arising from design-related problems. If the design unit does not have such a representative, a liaison note can be issued by the construction or project owner, subject to the design unit’s approval.

Personal opinion: 1. The contractor’s demands are not excessive, as the party responsible for the design drawings is the design firm. It is the minimum requirement for the implementation of a construction contract that the contractor carry out work in accordance with the drawings; if the designer does not issue any change orders for the construction drawings, the contractor can (or should) proceed with construction based on the original design. 2. As the Party A (or owner), the reasons for proposing design changes must be sufficient, reasonable, and well-founded; either there are obvious errors on the part of the design team (such as violations of relevant regulations and requirements, non-compliance with current standards, etc.), or the design does not conform to the process flow/process route, or there are safety hazards involved. 3. Our approach to dealing with such issues is to engage in comprehensive communication ； First, communicate with the design team to explain the reasons for the proposed changes, clarify the advantages and disadvantages before and after the changes, and strive to gain their understanding and support, ultimately achieving the goal of issuing a design change order. Secondly, communicate with the contractor and try to have them make on-site construction changes in accordance with the owner’s work instruction sheet (not the design change order). In fact, the main reason why such problems cannot be properly solved is funding! With the funds in place, it’s easy to issue design change orders, and construction issues can also be resolved easily. For reference!

I often encounter this situation: without a change order, the construction party will not make any changes. They build according to the plans, and if they make alterations on their own, they have to bear the consequences, and they won’t be able to submit the necessary documents upon completion. If the design institute does not make the changes, then the project team must carry out those changes on its own; the design institute is not responsible for any consequences that arise from such changes. The construction contractor usually only makes the necessary adjustments after seeing the change orders issued by the design institute. The design may not be changed due to regulations or standards, as well as to maintain one’s own authority; too many changes might make others think that their skills are insufficient. These days, many designers work in isolation, without considering the actual conditions on site; as a result, there are still many design issues. It takes skill to work with design firms, making adjustments while adhering to standards and regulations.

We have also encountered such situations in project management. This reflects two issues: first, our construction unit does not conduct thorough reviews of the construction drawings, and any problems in the drawings are not identified in a timely manner ； The other issue is conflicts among the design firms. Both of these approaches are incorrect. I think that since we have reached this point, the construction party still needs to communicate with the design institute; as the people mentioned earlier said, the project department (the construction party) cannot make any changes. You can first reach an agreement with the supervisor, and then discuss matters together with the design institute. During these discussions, it is essential to explain the reasons for the changes. Any design modifications must comply with the approved preliminary design principles and **, as well as the relevant design standards, regulations, and codes issued by the industry. For those changes that are not necessary, it’s better to leave them as they are; harmony is what matters most.

Important process changes must go through the design institute; the project owner will not make any changes either. However, the project owner often makes numerous changes for the sake of ease of operation and maintenance, which affects the work schedule of the construction company. Especially when the commissioning date has already been fixed, construction companies generally prefer not to take on such projects, but they have no choice and end up having to carry out the work anyway. After all, he’s a wealthy man

Changes are a common phenomenon in engineering. Depending on the initiator, there are forms such as design changes, engineering changes, and engineering correspondence letters. In principle, projects are built for users, and users have the right to make changes. However, domestic regulations require construction to be carried out in accordance with the plans; to avoid violations, any proposed changes must ultimately be approved by the designer.

You’re right; the problem is that the design institute doesn’t approve it. They think as long as the process is correct, it’s fine, without considering the ease of maintenance and operation. That’s where the main issue lies: both sides of the heat exchanger’s floating head are blocked by control valves, which will make it difficult to maintain the floating head in the future. We explained the situation to the design institute, but their response was that using another route would result in waste of pipes. Isn’t that frustrating? But thanks to the original poster(s) for their answers; I thank everyone here as well.

The construction party is afraid, first, that it won’t be able to complete the work if changes are made, and second, that it won’t get paid for its work. The design party tries to minimize the number of changes, especially those that aren’t necessary; if too many changes are made, the design party assumes some responsibility or sees its reputation suffer. Solution: Communicate actively with the design team and resolve the funding issues; sometimes it’s necessary to be more firm. Once the designs are ready, the construction party will proceed with construction according to those designs. :lol

In fact, for the specific on-site issues raised by LZ, it is not necessarily required for the design party to issue a design change notice； It is recommended that the owner issue a work order; however, this order should be signed by the technical supervisor of the owner (the construction entity). At the same time, direct communication should be carried out with the relevant supervisors on the construction side (such as the project chief engineer or project manager), and an agreement should be reached regarding the appropriate amount to be paid for the work done (if any), so that the issue can be resolved. Of course, if there are issues regarding the timeline, appropriate flexibility should also be provided. This is usually the way we handle such issues. For reference!

Without confirmation from the design institute, unilateral changes by the project team are likely to lead to repeated construction and modifications. If there is indeed no confirmation from the design institute, the parties involved in the construction shall have the responsible persons sign and confirm the change order. Some minor adjustments can also be negotiated verbally between the two parties.

I think things are quite good here; we have a good relationship with the design institute, and everything is easy to handle. It’s all thanks to money – the workers work for money, the project owners try to save money, and the design institute also needs to make a profit. As long as all parties are generous, harmony leads to prosperity, and achieving a win-win situation is the best outcome. This post was last edited by bingyu252 on 2009-3-20 13:30.]

The owner can issue a work order to commence construction, which serves as a basis for settling accounts with the construction party. But the design must correct the errors in the blueprint; otherwise, it’s impossible to prepare the delivery documents.

In such cases, changes generally require the approval of the design institute. It’s a matter of responsibility. But if it’s a mistake in the design, they must fix it. Payments can be stopped.

The construction company’s opinion is correct; it’s just strange that the design institute refuses to make changes. Why do you think there’s something wrong with the design drawings? Generally, any issues with the design will be corrected.

It must be issued by the design institute; otherwise it is considered an unauthorized modification. Changing the design firm also costs money; the more changes there are, the more trouble it causes for them.

There are issues with the main blueprint design, and a change order must be issued.

Thank you for your reply. However, the engineering team refused to make any changes; they said that the design institute should issue the necessary modifications, as changes cannot be made on site. So no changes were made after that. I’ll look for an opportunity to carry out technical improvements after driving the vehicle again. Also, are all valves in your case required to undergo pressure testing? Is there any national standard for this?

To be honest, the contractor’s demands are not excessive; the reason is that the design blueprint is the responsibility of the design firm. It is the minimum requirement for the implementation of a construction contract that the contractor carry out work in accordance with the drawings; if the designer does not issue any change orders for the construction drawings, the contractor can (or should) proceed with construction based on the original design. 2. Changes will involve many issues related to construction costs as well as structural safety problems. The property owner cannot be held responsible for this. 3. Without a change order from the design institute, many **departments will not accept it at the time of delivery.

It’s best to coordinate such matters with the design institute; we often encounter this problem, and generally the design institute will make changes, sometimes adjusting them based on the actual conditions on site