SPECIFICATIONS OR NOTES WHICH IS IT?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1308 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2015 - 11:24 pm:    The Landscape Architect on one of my projects has included a sheet of notes that the LA has labeled as specifications in lieu of providing 3 part book specs which all the other Consultants are providing. The LA has labeled this sheet of notes as "specifications". The LA's drawings refer to these notes as "specifications". I take offense to this as it will be confusing during the Construction to determine which are Book Specs vs Dwg "Specs". This is a well known LA, very well respected for their work. This is a mixed use privately funded hospitality project for a national developer. I could use some suggestions on how to argue my concern for potential confusion. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 854 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 12:52 am:    The AIA A201 defines the specifications as "that portion of the Contract Documents consisting of the written requirements for materials, equipment, systems, standards and workmanship for the Work, and performance of related services." Note there is no mention of where those requirements occur, or what size paper they're printed on. Even when the A201 used the term "project manual" there was nothing that prohibited specifications from appearing on drawings. The project manual was defined as "a volume ... which may include the bidding requirements, sample forms, Conditions of the Contract and Specifications." Again, nothing that says specifications can't appear on drawings. Drawing notes that describe materials, equipment, systems, standards, or workmanship are specifications. The problem as I see it is not where the specifications appear, but if the 'Dwg "Specs"' conflict with the "Book Specs". Unless there is an order of precedence, one is not more important than another. If they don't conflict there should be no problem; the contractor is bound by all requirements regardless of where they appear. This is not unusual, at least not in my neck of the woods. Structural and M/E consultants regularly put specifications on the drawings; regardless of what they are called, or even if they are not called anything, they are specifications. Assuming the 'Dwg "Specs"' and 'Book Specs' are properly coordinated, it shouldn't matter where they are or what they are called. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1309 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 01:30 am:    Here is my problem Sheldon, my role as specwriter on this project includes coordinating with the Consultant specifications, however if the Consultant specifications are notes in lieu of specifications and there is no hierarchy followed as there are in the specifications how do I coordinate them? I've been looking at these drawings for several hours and there are plenty of errors, little coordination. These are supposed to be Permit docs, but there is so many problems and little coordination. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1310 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 01:49 am:    If the LA decides to redefine the drawing notes as specifications, he has increased my work having to review the LA's notes, which is not included in my scope of work. There is no hierarchy, there is little coordination with the drawings. I am looking at an elevated Pool Deck that is basically poured concrete decks with limestone pavers, breakaway CMU walls, and poured concrete walls. Except in one location where PE calls for a steel retaining wall system and refers to the Structural Drawings, of course the PE's drawings don't include any specs on this system. No where on the LA's drawings or 'specs" is there any explaination of what this Steel Retaining Wall System is or looks like? Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 222 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 08:36 am:    Jerome, I had a similar situation with a civil consultant a while back. I let the Architect know that the consultant wasn't providing specs as they expected. What they sent in the end was a formatting mess that I had to clean up. In the end, it probably didn't need to be in the book as long as the rest of the team knew that before preparing their specs and referring to standard section numbers that didn't exist. It bugs me too, but if they have what they need, it really doesn't matter where they write it. It sounds like your Architect needs to tackle the conflicts. It's really just your place to point out the conflicts since you don't have a contract with the LA. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1311 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 09:20 am:    Curt, protocol was set up at start of the project that all "specifications" be in book form. The LA ignored the previously agreed to protocol. Their sheet specifications are more notes than specifications. There is no performance called out, just notes, yet the LA refers to these notes as specifications, its unnecessarily confusing. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 855 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 09:23 am:    I understand the problem, Jerome; I have similar problems with our consultants. A few years ago, I received drawings and specs that stated the number of each type of tree three times: the tree stamps were large enough that you could count them; there was a schedule on the drawings that stated the number of each; and there was a schedule in the specs that stated the number of each. All were different. It appears that some consultants, primarily landscape, kitchen equipment, and elevators, and communications ("Division 17") are written as stand-alone documents, probably because they do a lot of work that way. It can be tough to convince them to change their documents to fit in with the rest. NCARB says, "An architect will create the overall aesthetic and look of buildings and structures, but the design of a building involves far more than its appearance. Buildings also must be functional, safe, and economical and must suit the specific needs of the people who use them. Most importantly, they must be built with the public’s health, safety and welfare in mind." Too bad the schools are too busy teaching art to talk about those things that are related to the reason architects are licensed. All you can do is explain the problem to your client and clarify what you agreed to do. Good luck! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1312 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 10:09 am:    Sheldon thanks for the words of advice. Fortunately I have a customized agreement, non-AIA, but reviewed by my attorney, created by yours truly totally based on too many years in this business. For the most part it works very well for my business. The problem is my clients seldom read the agreement, until they violate it. But of course I than run into the problem that most of my clients are much larger than me, so fighting them is never a good option. Also in my neck of the woods, an uncooperative consultant gets a bad rap, and its a small world. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 742 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 10:54 am:    Jerome, Consultants specs in the drawings is a common occurrence in my day to day work. They require some coordination efforts. Format is secondary to project specific technical content. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 476 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 12:59 pm:    Before discussing the problem of the specs on the Drawings, your design team needs to make sure what is shown will work and meet the proper standard of care. If the Landscape Architect was just planting things in the ground I wouldn't be worried, but you noted in a post above that they are building a pool on an elevated building deck. That is a different beast. I would insist that the structural engineer of record review their work. If its on the building, I would try to make the SEOR's specs be the reference specifications. Now, regarding the specs on the drawings: We do a lot of work in San Diego. San Diego refuses to review specifications for building permit applications. San Diego insists that all information pertinent to their plan review that would normally be in the specifications be placed on the Drawings. Their reason for this I am told is that it is "too expensive" to microfiche 8x11.5 pages of text. In a world where we would gladly give them a digital file that is no excuse, but they get to set the rules. Our projects are large commercial and healthcare projects that do have complete spec books so this causes all sorts of problems. First of all, it breaks the rule of saying something only once, because now, if I provide a complete spray-applied fireproofing spec for example, a lot of that information needs to be duplicated on the drawings. Second is how you get the information on the drawings. There have been other discussion here about methods of "pasting" PDF and other files into CAD/Revit files but it always seems to be fiddly. Then we have local consultants who have adapted (gone native) and are happy with not providing specs sections. So we can arm twist to make them provide spec sections and see the lousy job they do because they are so out of practice, or we have to adapt to a project with some disciplines issuing spec sections and some not. If you are not careful, it also can make extra work of bid processes if the system you document (to their satisfaction) on the drawings is sufficiently proprietary. Your spec section might list acceptable equals for a competitive bid that will require you to change the drawings if they are selected. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 54 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, May 21, 2015 - 03:36 pm:    I think the biggest problems with spec notes on drawings are that they so often are not edited to be project-specific and being in ALL CAPS are hard to read. The other thing is that they are never as complete as project manual specs and may not have what is needed to get compliance from the contractor during construction. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 828 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, May 22, 2015 - 07:25 am:    As noted in other threads, the "general notes" are frequently really directed to the AHJ not to the Contractor. Since the people who force this stuff to appear on the drawings are primarily interested primarily in code compliance and not in construction, they can create more confusion. The notes sometimes have errors which the AHJs never seem to catch. Most of the time, it gets sorted out and the building gets built, but if the Contractor wants to make a stink, it would be really easy to do. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 742 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, May 25, 2015 - 02:05 pm:    Contractually, do specification provisions and drawing notes requiring compliance with specific Code requirements make the Contractor responsible for design of the project? Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2018 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, May 25, 2015 - 02:30 pm:    Wouldn't it depend on the contract? If I remember correctly, the AIA agreement states the signer has "read and understood the documents", so no matter where the information, notes, specifications, provisions, details, etc., are located, as long as they are included in the documents, the signer is responsible. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 730 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, May 25, 2015 - 06:12 pm:    It depends on the code requirement. Provisions that require compliance with a standard or that impose specific requirements would not be a problem. The code provisions that require specific information not provided or that require architectural or engineering judgment in order to determine what is required create problems. If it is the intent to formally delegate portions of the design to the Contractor it is necessary to make this clear. General statements that the contractor comply with the code are inappropriate. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 36 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, May 25, 2015 - 09:27 pm:    John, You asked about specs or notes REQUIRING compliance with SPECIFIC Code requirements." (Emphasis added.) That sound like it makes the Contractor responsible for the aspects of the applicable portions of project. What I find confusing is: when the notes or specs simply list a code without stating anything about it. when portions of the design responsibility is delegated to the contractor but the architect's underlying design doesn't comply with code. Your question is Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru