Summer Punch List Mania

Click here to receive your FREE subscription to Campus Technology

Home > Summer Punch List Mania

Opinion

Summer Punch List Mania

7/31/2006

By Will Craig

It’s that time of the year again – everybody else is out enjoying the weather but we’re struggling to complete classroom upgrade, renovation, and construction projects that need to be open this fall. In the rush to find, hire, and oversee the work of contractors who are themselves overworked, a lot of things can get overlooked. Here are issues we found on a recent college classroom project inspection (all in one room) and what they may portend for the room’s future use if not corrected.

First, a note on punch lists: In order to be able to hold a contractor’s feet to the fire for correcting items that do not meet your standards, you have to have those standards written into your contract with them. The most straightforward way to do this is in your specifications. The more detailed they are with respect to standards, aesthetics, materials, and execution, the more the final product should resemble your original intent.

The project we inspected was a classroom renovation. The classroom had been built in the 1960’s as a 120-seat sloped floor auditorium crowded with 120 tablet arm seats jammed in from wall to wall – an average of only 11.05 assignable square feet per student. The renovation would convert the room to an 80-seat flat-floor room with moveable seats and fixed student tables, two projection screens (in the front corners of the room), and complete ADA accessibility for students and faculty.

The contractor was hired based on their availability to provide a bid and complete the project according to a demanding schedule. The college used a consultant-written specification and design. The technology design was based on the last set of rooms completed by the college in terms of equipment selection and signal routing.

The installation took the contractor three days. One of the projectors was dropped off a ladder, cracking the case, and was replaced by the contractor. The final configuration included two data/video projectors (the survivor and the replacement), two 50” plasma monitors mounted towards the back of the room, a custom-built instructor station, and a high-quality sound reinforcement system. Crestron programming was done by the college’s favorite programmer, who was required by the specification to be hired by the AV contractor as a subcontractor.

The following items are from the substantial completion inspection punchlist:

Item 1: “Contractor used Philips head screws used instead of security rack screws.” The specification required use of star-post rack screws to help deter casual thieves. The same effect can be obtained by using one security screw per device, so replacing each and every screw is unnecessary.

Item 2: “Missing rack screws.” The contractor, in his haste, overlooked about 20% of the rack screws in the rack and podium.

Item 3: “Plastic wire ties below ceiling.” The specification called for use of Velcro wire management on all signal cables below ceiling level, while the contractor used black plastic ties.