Architect said one thing, contractor said another — which way do you go for project changes?
My project architect told me to stick strictly to the approved construction drawings and specifications to avoid messing up the structural integrity and design intent. My general contractor said we should make field adjustments on the fly to save on material costs and accelerate the critical path. Both gave me completely different warnings and now I'm just stuck staring at the transmittal logs not knowing who to listen to. Anyone else get pulled in two directions like this during site execution?
I tried to handle a variation order myself — reviewed the structural plans, tried to calculate the rebar and formwork adjustments, then realized I didn't fully understand the load-bearing implications or whether a formal structural design change required a full permit amendment from the local engineering office. Ended up dropping the paperwork halfway. Wasted like an entire afternoon on that. Coordinating between the design consultants and the site foreman alone took longer than expected because the drawing revisions and field conditions didn't match cleanly.
Running a medium-scale build, mostly managing subcontractors and tight timelines — structural and finishing phases. Not a massive mega-project but margins are getting tight and I don't want to keep absorbing unauthorized cost overruns or delay penalties. What did other project managers or owners here actually do when caught in the middle of design versus build conflicts? Did you defer strictly to the design professionals, or trust the contractor's field experience and sort out the paperwork after?