Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1916 [PAGE 894]

EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:

894

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS.

[Feb. 8,

On motion of Mrs. Henrotin, this budget was approved. At this point, President Abbott, being called from the room, requested Mrs. Evans to preside over the meeting.

POLICY OF D I S P E N S I N G W I T H G E N E R A L CONTRACTORS.

(23) A letter from the Supervising Architect enclosing a report prepared by Mr. 1L. J. Towne arguing in favor of dispensing with general contractors on our building work. February 5, 1916. President E. J. James, University of Illinois. DEAR S I R : I am enclosing a report prepared by Mr. Towne which is his argument for our dispensing with general contractors on our building work. I t seems to me that this matter is of enough importance to present to the Board of Trustees for their opinion. Yours truly, January SI, 1916. Prof. J. M. White, Supervising Architect. DEAR S I R : I am of the opinion that the time has come for the University to take over the work of the general contractor in the construction of University buildings, and I wish to present a few facts in support of this position. As you are aware, there is a definite movement in this direction among architects in this country, for reasons' which I will attempt to present below. You are also aware that there has been a tendency on our part during the last three years to take over more and more of the responsibility for the building construction until we now have on the Chemistry Building six, and on the Ceramics Building seven contractors in addition to the general contractor. Table I, attached, shows the proportion of the total cost of the last four buildings constructed on the Campus executed by the general contractor's own forces, first, including material furnished by him, and second, exclusive of such material. You will note that only 40 per cent of the total cost of the buildings in general is borne by the general contractor himself, including material furnished by him, and only 16% per cent exclusive of such material. This is presented simply to indicate that the change proposed would not affect a very large proportion of the total cost of the building. The following are in brief the main arguments for the elimination of the general contractor: 1. The general contract method of construction is undoubtedly a survival of former conditions not now obtaining, when it was customary for one contractor to execute almost all of the work in connection with the building with his own forces. At the present time, due to the high degree of specialization which exists in various building trades, there have arisen many capable contractors dealing only with certain branches of building work, until even the general contractors have come to realize In a great many cases that they can sublet work a t a profit to subcontractors. This has resulted in their gradually dropping off various parts of the work until a t the present time only the masonry and carpentry work is commonly executed by the general contractor's own forces. 2. The elimination of the general contractor gives the architect a greater flexibility in the development of his plans and specifications for the building. The awarding of a general contract makes it necessary to plan in advance to the minutest detail work which will not be executed for months after the awarding of the contract, which often does not allow sufficient time for the proper study of the design. Then after a change is proposed after awarding the contract, it is usually impossible to get an adjustment of the cost favorable to the owner, It is also necessary to attempt to determine in advance, by securing advice from the contractors or otherwise, the relative cost of alternate methods of construction. This we sometimes attempt to obviate by the taking of alternate bids, but I think we are all agreed that such alternate bids are very difficult to secure in such a way that they can be used advantageously. Where the architects can let subcontracts for the various branches of the work bids can be taken directly on different types of construction and contracts can be let as the work proceeds, allowing additional time for the study of details of finish which will not be required during the first months of construction. 3. The plan proposed will give a better and much more direct control of various trades working in a building than where such control has to be obtained through the general contractor. In talking with subcontractors, it is their universal statement to me that they would much prefer to deal directly with the architect than with the general contractor. In fact, even a t present, a great deal of the work of our superintendent on a building is done directly with the subcontractors. Some time ago, I determined that owing to the fact that ^fche responsibility was entirely with the general contractor we ought not to do this, but ought to take up all matters directly through him. We started out on this policy but I find that we are gradually working back to the other method because of its manifestly greater efficiency. At the same time it often causes difficulty in adjusting matters with the general contractor. 4. The University is much better able to finance a piece of construction work than the average contractor. Payments to subcontractors can be made frequently and promptly, thereby relieving them from interests charges which a r e often a very heavy item to a small contractor. Material bills can be discounted promptly. 5. There are certain financial savings inherent in this matter of executing work, as follows: (1) By splitting the work up among the larger number of contractors, the necessity for a bond from any one contractor is considerably reduced and disJAMES M. W H I T E , Supervising Architect.