This general contractor was constructing a very sensitive medical tenant improvement (TI) project. The superintendent was very laid back and the project manager was at times combative with the client and the architect. The architect noted two quality control concerns early in the project that warranted more attention. These were the preparation and flashing of roof penetrations and the taping and fireproofing of the vertical drywall surfaces. These conditions occurred around a medical procedure room that required the close attention of all the team members. The superintendents response to the drywall issues was, The subcontractor is the expert and I dont tell him what to do. The PM further responded to the roof issues with, Unless you want to pay me a change order to alter the process, we will stay with our course. If it leaks, the roofing subcontractor will have to return and incur the cost of repairs. Is this a client-friendly GC? Are they contractually correct? The architect is trying to implement active QC by bringing up potential problems early. Is this a good practice? Given the GCs response, will the architect continue with early notifications? If this is a means and methods issue, can the architect force changes without a change order? Can she issue an American Institute of Architects (AIA) construction change directive (CCD) to force the issue? If the architects concerns go uncorrected but eventually turn out to be a warranty issue, is the owner in a better position to claim impact against the general? Will the owner or architect choose this GC again?