Good for the Goose - Good for the Gander
By Gary Micheloni
“Why should a Project Manager always be concerned about being a Full Contact Project Manager? There are lots of reasons, but profit and survival certainly come to mind.”
I know … you’re swamped with work and struggling to bring your project in on time and under budget, so you look at this headline and wonder how an old saying applies to your hectic life. Probably makes you want to say, “So, what in the heck do geese and ganders have to do with my making a buck or surviving in business?” Well, what that old expression is actually talking about, to you and me, is the always intricate relationship we build with our clients and subcontractors. So let’s sort this one out – carefully and slowly.
You know that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” means that what was good for one party was also good for the other party. But in construction in 2007, it means that the contract all parties sign must be applied equally in all directions and hold all parties to certain standards. It is not written just so that one contractor can beat up on another (although it certainly feels that way sometimes!).
The balance among client and contractor and sub-contractor requires delicate and savvy work by a Project Manager who is aware of everything that’s going on and able to juggle the needs of all parties (and protect his own company in the process): in other words, this difficult task falls to a Full Contact Project Manager.
Why should a Project Manager always be concerned about being a Full Contact Project Manager? There are lots of reasons, but profit and survival certainly come to mind. We’ve learned that we have to look out for our own, best interests, and while we seek to serve our clients and help our subcontractors, our first obligation is to our own company, and when occasions arise where a client’s wisdom or a sub’s judgment comes into question, we must act judiciously.
Moving forward carefully when odd circumstances come up involves a number of steps. A smart PM always asks lots of questions—usually in writing—when something seems strange. You can read that “strange” as synonymous with “not in our scope of work.”
A PM on top of his game will fire off an RFI, ask the question of the client, remind the client that we can’t move forward without an answer, and that we are now waiting on him to provide that answer and allow us to proceed. We also remind him that there might be costs attached to this issue. That’s how we do it—over, and over, and over, again. And it’s stunningly successful, isn’t it?
By the way, if you are not already using an RFI style designed to win for you most of the time, then I encourage you to read my Playbook (available at my website) and get the one that I use. It’s free (but it’s also priceless—know what I mean?).
When I talk to contractors about what it means to be a Full Contact Project Manager, I mean, among many other things, someone who acts rationally and remains calm when problems arise. This steady and all-knowing approach can iron out problems with the client, yes, but what about conflicts with our own subcontractors?
In fact, here are some questions to ponder: Do we want our own subs to use the Full Contact approach? Do we want them trying to be as pro-active as we, ourselves, are? Will it hurt us? Will it hurt our relationship with our own clients? All good questions. And I’ll give you the answers right after I tell you a short story—something that happened to me.
We were working on a project some months back when a demolition subcontractor of mine ran into some concrete that wasn’t supposed to be there. The sub notified me, and I immediately wrote an RFI to my client and asked him what he wanted to do. Before the client could answer, however, my sub took it upon himself to remove the offending concrete—about $10,000 worth. My sub was interested in keeping the job moving. In fact, he almost seemed more interested in keeping the job moving than he was in getting paid! (Of course, you’ve never done that—right?)
Let’s look at what happened here. At one point in time, my sub was in control. He uncovered potential extra work. The owner would need to have this work done. Not doing the work would delay the owner’s project. That seems logical, but somehow not proper.
Ask yourself this question: If you were the owner, what would you do? You have a pain and you want it to go away. You know that, sometimes if you apply a little money to your pain, both the pain and your money go away, but at least you are moving again. You get relief! On the other hand, if you are the owner and someone just reaches out and eliminates your pain, who now has the leverage? I’m going to tell you that it is no longer your sub! And, in fact, you are also in a more serious predicament, yourself. Can you see that? Good. If you can’t, you will—once your sub sends you a bill and expects that you are simply going to pay it, because he assumes that the owner is going to pay you.
So what do we do about this? First, we make sure our subcontract has a clause dealing with how our subs proceed when something unexpected is discovered. Second, we explain to our subs what it is they are signing, and we explain to them again how this works once they start on the job. Next, we remind them, finally, that if they do not get a notice from us – in writing - to proceed, then they will probably not be paid. Finally, we also tell them that, even if the owner of the project personally tells them to do the work, and personally assures them that they will be paid for their work, and personally promises them that they’ll get paid right away for their work, they are still not to proceed without written word from us — their client. That’s the only way that it works.
“Hey, Gary,” you say, “seems like a big hassle.” The sad fact of contracting life is that getting paid is often a hassle, isn’t it? Even when things are straightforward. Imagine how much worse it is when the lines of responsibility are blurred.
But guess what else happens when you do things this way? One instant benefit is that you keep things from getting blurred. Another is that you emerge from potential problems as a reasonable leader who handles things fairly and with foresight. This kind of strong hand will gain you an ally in the approval process. You are now very free to tell your client that not only do you consider the work to be out-of-scope, but so does your sub, and your sub has already made it clear to you that he will not move forward without written word from you.
At which point in time you can remind your client that, even if you wanted to move forward this instant, you still couldn’t, because the contract documents between your client and you prohibit you from moving forward until your client authorizes it. By the way, that’s a document that your client not only wrote, but required you to sign, before you even moved on to the job!
Your client did so because he didn’t want to be surprised with extras without first authorizing them. You could say that he was looking out for his own, best interests. You could remind him that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander! You could act like you’re just a contractor, trying to live up to your agreement, just as he insisted.
But what you really are is a diligent project manager who acted as a buffer between a subcontractor and your client and, by doing things the right way, prevented conflict and resentment and avoided the loss of time and money. That’s Full Contact Project Management.
