Specs are not being issued as part of...

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1331 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 08:56 pm:    I issued specs on a 30 story condominium with an integral 8 story parking garage two months ago. The job is now going to bid. However the Developer no longer wants to include the specifications. The Developer claims the specifications will increase the construction cost and has always been against their incorporation. Once the specs were issued, the developer was appalled at the size of the Project Manual. This architect has been adamant that specs be included because contractually they are part of the contract documents. The Architect also believes that specs overrule the drawings. The way the architect solves construction disputes, is if there is a conflict, the specs are the deciding factor. The argument is being discussed this week with the attorneys from both sides. The architect has reached out to me for alternatives, there are not many, they want to consider options to shorten the specs. The architect knows I've had success with short form specs, but never for condo work. Short form specs are a risk to begin with, my 20 yr client uses short form specs on most of their projects. But those are rental projects, on a condo the new owners are looking for mistakes by the Developer, they expect perfection and they seldom get it, and so litigation seems to be their means to satisfaction. I hope to follow up with posts on how this job progresses, will the specs be retained as part of the contract documents or not? I have been thru this before, but usually the Developer and Contractor negotiate a deal where the specs are deleted and the architect is blind sided into no longer having specs as part of the contract documents. This job is different and I am curious what the decision will be. I have mentioned on other threads that I believe there is now an epidemic affecting contract documents for privately funded construction projects specifically in South Florida. There are 30 highrise projects I know of which are being built without specifications. Many of these projects are designed by world class architects, OMA, Sir Norman Foster, Bjarke Ingels, to name a few. Most of the reasons for not including specs are the same reasons for using specs, construction quality for one, where will it end? On condo work its usually litigation, which I have not been privy to, even though Developers sight specs as the instigator of litigation, there is no proof of that. I stongly believe that contractors have brainwashed developers into believing that specifications are detrimental to construction. And the Contractors are winning, my current project is a good example, Developer and Architect are fighting about the completed specs before being issued for bidding. How is that possible? Did the Architect not do his due diligence in selling the value of specifications to the Developer? Or is there a fear developing in the industry that specs should not be included in the Contract Documents. The 30 highrise projects I mentioned previously amount to billions of dollars of construction, some of these are mega highrise projects, I seriously don't know how the architects sleep at night with these projects under construction w/o specs. But they are, because more projects are coming, Miami is becoming a Latin NYC, a hub of international commerce and it does not seem to be slowing down. Architects are busy. Specwriters are not. Perhaps my peers have some valid suggestions. Sighting industry standards does not seem to matter. My client is holding on for now that specifications are an important part of the contract documents and can not be deleted. But the bottomline is always about $$$$. If the job does not go to bid, the architect won't be paid and new litigation will evolve. It could get very ugly. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1332 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 09:04 pm:    BTW. I failed to mention that the developer's internal team includes a contractor, this will probably be the Construction Manager, yet to be decided. I believe this contractor is feeding the Developer's fear on the use of specifications. At one time the Developer agreed to pay for the specifications, so at one time the Developer was ok with using specs. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1306 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 10:09 pm:    If the specifications are not included: document, document, document. Retain a copy of the specifications and use them as a guideline for approval of submittals, shop drawings, and substitutions (if they decide to even bother sending any to the architect). Do not approve anything contrary to the specifications. If something is installed over your objection or without your knowledge, inform the owner in writing. Anything contrary to the specifications that fails later on, you have your documentation and specifications to back you up. Inform the owner (again, in writing) that this is the position the design team will take throughout construction. Essentially, the design team is absolving itself from any liability for work that is not in conformance with the construction documents you prepared, whether or not they are part of the construction contract. (BTW, I'm not a lawyer, but that would be my approach) Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1333 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Sunday, May 31, 2015 - 02:36 am:    I agree Ron, I've recommended that the Architect issue the specs as part of the contract documents per their agreement. However it seems the Developer wants the agreement amended to delete reference to specs, perhaps that is why attorneys are involved. Thanks for your input Ron. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 741 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, May 31, 2015 - 03:51 am:    Without the specifications the construction documents will not address many of the code requirements that the Owner is required to comply with. The Architect and his consultants could take the position that without the specifications the designers are not able to fulfill their professional obligations both to the client and as required by the state licensing laws. Thus I would argue that the Owner is effectively terminating the agreement. Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: mking Post Number: 23 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Sunday, May 31, 2015 - 01:54 pm:    An argument to consider: Specifications describe quality of materials and workmanship, difficult, if not possible, to communicate by drawings. Specs also describe the contractual arrangements for administering the contract. These often do add costs, but the rules of the road are necessary to describe, whether simple or complex. If the contract documents are developed at the outset with the understanding that specifications will accompany the drawings, a subsequent decision to omit the specifications means the contract documents are incomplete. This may be desired to give the developer more control, but in the end will give him or her less control. It may be better to ask the developer how much and what control he or she wants to maintain, then discuss how to articulate the requirements to accomplish this. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 832 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 11:21 am:    IMHO, Architects should be seeking indemnity from Owners (especially developers) and Contractors who go against the recommendations of Architects regarding best professional practices. This should not extend to typical value engineering decisions, but only to those decisions which the Architect has very serious reservations. I have a feeling this would need to be litigated, and it may be subject to abuse--"I am not responsible for the performance of the product if you select from the manufacturer's standard color range rather than the custom color I chose." It might, however, help to protect an Architect against some of the problematic things that the Contractor tries to talk an Owner into doing over the objection of the Architect. One of the problems with this approach is that so many development companies are very ephemeral, like steam from a tea kettle, they are soon gone. Being indemnified by such an entity that you don't expect to be around in a year does't help much. With my clients, I try to get them to write a letter to the Owner that shifts design responsibility to either the Owner or the Contractor. This does not necessarily improve the performance of the building, but it may get the Architect out of litigation sooner. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 583 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 01:09 pm:    The development and phrasing of these indemnifications would be a good discussion topic for the SCIP annual meeting in September. Not only for use in architects' contracts with owners, but also in specification consultants' contracts with their clients. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 424 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 03:16 pm:    Years ago, in the beginning of my career, my architect employer assigned me to perform construction draw inspections for several of his mortgage company clients. My job was to monthly inspect the process of the actual work as it related to their percentage of work (usually by trade) that they were claiming was performed. In addition, I was required to make notations pertaining to compliance of materials/systems shown and specified in the Contract Documents. Lenders base their mortgage commitments for a project based on the the project's contract Documents (dwgs and specs). It normally is as issue with lenders if they feel they are being defrauded by getting a lesser value project then they are paying for. Jerome has the lending companies, or even the insuring companies, interests come up as a topic in any of the discussions you are confronting? "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 792 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 03:17 pm:    Indemnification clauses generally protect the party with the superior position during contract negotiations. What benefit would an owner get by indemnifying an architect? I don't see how you sell an owner (particularly one predisposed against specifications in the first place) on the desirability of giving indemnity to the architect... much less to a third party specification consultant working for the architect. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1342 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 04:45 pm:    Ron, surprisingly Banks and Insurance Companies have been quiet about the no specs epidemic, but than again I am just the lowly spec writer and not privy typically to those discussions. On my current project where the Owner has advised the architect that he now wants to delete the specs, the architect advised today that the Owner was advised by the GC to remove the specs from the contract documents. Surprise, Surprise. Architect is planning on meeting with the Owner and the GC to hear their reasoning. Perhaps in a few days I will be told, though hearing that it is coming from the GC and not the Owner leads me to believe the GC will claim that w/o specs costs will be reduced. Money talks once again. I've seen this played out too many times in So FL, GC offers to reduce the construction cost by tossing the specs out, and along with that goes the quality. I've had several projects where this has occurred and all those projects have be built with horrendous results, and eventually litigation from the unhappy homeowners. These developers don't learn. This architect might stand up to this developer, but this is a huge project, the first tower of as many as 8 towers, and I doubt the architect will fight too long because he wants to be considered for future work. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 584 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 04:55 pm:    ..."all those projects have be built with horrendous results, and eventually litigation from the unhappy homeowners....and I doubt the architect will fight too long because he wants to be considered for future work." Hello?? What am I missing here? What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1307 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 05:05 pm:    Dave, I agree. Jerome, you say "These developers don't learn." Well, it seems more like "These architects don't learn." If architects refused to do the work, then the developers can't get the project built, whether or not they have a willing contractor. I can't figure out why some architects would do risky work just so they might have the 'possibility' of future risky work. These architects must have one hell of a professional liability premium. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1343 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 05:25 pm:    Ron, its nuts what is going on in South Florida, one project after the other, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and now an 80 story high rise under construction and not a spec on any of them. At one time I was asked to write specs on the 80 story project, but the billionaire Developer wanted to use short form specs, even less, one page per spec section, make it short and sweet he said. I walked away. No other spec writer took on the job, thank god. The production architect is an old friend, he advised that the opportunity to document such a large project was too good of an opportunity to pass. Oh and yes that is what insurance is for to keep the vultures at bay for another day. There are some specs on the job, waterproofing specs provided by the waterproofing consultant, its really weird, there are 900 sheets of drawings listed and five spec sections in Div 7, and btw the specs are in MF95 format. There are a lot of greedy architects in S FL, they won't walk away from a high rise project, they go into litigation from one job to the next. The 80 story is a bit different the Design Architect and Architect of Record is the developer, a very shrewd, powerful, filthy rich developer. I am worried for my friend, but he claims the Developer has a blanket liability coverage for all professionals on the project under his control. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1344 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 05:55 pm:    Ron, "If architects refused to do the work, then the developers can't get the project built, whether or not they have a willing contractor." Architects in SFL refusing to do the work, seriously does that happen anywhere? Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 662 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 07:07 pm:    Oh and yes that is what insurance is for to keep the vultures at bay for another day. LOL, its the opposite. Only the insured get named in the claims and lawsuits. They are the only ones with financial resources worthy of going after. The uninsured are usually dismissed immediately. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 182 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 07:16 pm:    I'm pretty sure everyone gets named, whether insured or not. I don't think proof of insurance is normally requested prior to someone's being named in a lawsuit. After suit is filed, people figure out who has insurance or assets. Most lawyers don't hesitate to name e.v.e.r.y.o.n.e. in a suit. It might be malpractice if they didn't. Some uninsured people have assets worth suing for. Some judgments allow for garnishment of wages. Insure yourself if you have assets you don't want to lose. I am not a lawyer... Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 663 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 07:21 pm:    I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have a (un)fair amount of litigation experience, including in Florida, which is a world unto itself. I did a lot of condo work, and public schools. Litigation is simply the final phase of each project. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 425 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 07:35 pm:    "Insure yourself if you have assets you don't want to lose." That is why years ago I set up trusts where my assets reside. My best defensive position is no defense at all. Let them try to find and get my assets. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 72 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 08:25 am:    Seems like AIA and CSI and maybe the AGC need to address this issue. The individual firm can do little, because there's always another that will take on the work. Does this mean we can stop worrying where the next generation of specifiers is going to come from? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 39 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 06:48 pm:    There is another approach: The owner, architect and contractor can work together to develop a specification that satisfies everyone. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1308 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 06:54 pm:    Michael: It'll never happen, because it makes too much sense. :-) Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 06:59 pm:    I have started to put product details into the guide specs I write when it helps to explain the products. So it works both ways. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1346 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 07:59 pm:    Michael there is a very small percentage of contractors who will follow your suggestion, and the percentage grows smaller every day. For this boom cycle Florida contractors have no incentive to cooperate with the team, IMHO most contractors consider specs detrimental to their bottom line. On private sector performing per industry standards has become less important. Ten years ago, I never heard a client (architect) say that the Developer would not agree to reimburse the architect for the specs, that work was always included in the architect's fee. Not anymore. Did something change that I am not privy to or have I been too busy to notice. It seems when given the choice Developers are saying no to specs on every job for a variety of reasons: Lack of coordination, too much to read, not up to date, too expensive, too controlling, too restrictive. Ron is right on the money, except I would use another spelling, a play on words if you will, "it makes too much cents." Its sad that today alone I received several inquiries from architects wanting to know how they can issue contract documents w/o specifications. Seriously, how did I become the authority for doing the opposite of what I preach? What kind of messed up world has it become? For one of the inquiries I have responded because its from an existing client, but I am ignoring the others, I want no involvement in their crime. I will delete their email and avoid reaching out to them, I don't want to be the source for how to not issue complete contract documents. I guess this forum is read by more architects than I thought, kudos to Colin, but this is really getting bizarre. I will probably be winding down on my posting for the problems on my current condo project, if it goes to litigation I don't want my posts helping the litigators. Someone had posted that perhaps this problem could be discussed at association meetings, that would be excellent. I sincerely hope this trend is only a Florida construction trend, I would like to hear from my colleagues in other states whether specifications are included in the contract documents or not. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 906 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 09:03 pm:    This idea makes no sense so it's worth posting. How about if the architect provide the owner with the spec and let the owner issue the documents any way they want. The entire CD package, drawings and specs, get sealed and delivered to the owner. After that, it's out of the architects hands. Not a very smart way the put ones head in s noose, but an option. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 595 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 09:18 pm:    I'm not sure what the concern is Jerome? Is it the "big picture" issue w/ the growing trend of deleting specs, or this specific project where they want to issue the documents sans specs? Isn't that the Architect's decision, if they want to go that route? If you don't feel there is any alternatives, tell them that, based on your years of experience, the specs you produced are appropriate for the project. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1349 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 09:39 pm:    Robin, I've stated my case to the Architect, this firm has never had a client that challenged them in this manner, and I will tell you this Architect is not an insignificant firm, in fact its a highly respected firm responsible for cutting edge architecture, I am proud to have been asked to be part of the team...well I was proud, if the Architect gives in to the whims of the Contractor and Owner, I will probably regret being part of the team, not because I will be thrown into litigation, but because I am very proud of the work I did on this project. If the specifications are deleted, the quality of construction will suffer, and the way the architect has chosen to detail the building, the quality has to be better than the typical Florida Condo construction. It could be a beautiful building, award winning architecture, when finished. Fingers are crossed, only time will tell. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1350 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 10:00 pm:    Robin, the Architect doesn't always have a choice or is even advised of the status of the specifications. I can't tell you how many times I've issued specs to the architect only to find that the Developer chose not to issue them as part of the CD's. Contractually, when that happens and I am not advised promptly, my agreement is terminated. Why should I be part of the team if my work is not used? Ron Geren offered a suggestion that the Architect retain the specs as a guide in reviewing submittals, and to back up the intent of the drawings. I like that advice, I just doubt it will stand up in court. Than again, what do I know? You are the only attorney on this board, its nice to hear your off the record opinions. I may have to revise my future agreements to retain my role on the project if my specifications are deleted. I'll be calling my attorney for his advice if I revise the agreements. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 742 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2015 - 01:01 am:    Many of the responses are about how to accommodate the client but there are times where the only rational thing to do is to fire the client. As I stated previously the refusal of the owner to issue the specifications should be grounds to terminate the contract. These clients will not change unless they have too. The designers need to stop accommodating the client on these matters. Just say no. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 74 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2015 - 08:32 am:    The question that occurs to me is: If there are multiple developers, each doing this on multiple projects, and if this delivery system doesn't work because it ends in costly litigation, poor quality, etc., why do they keep using it? Does it increase short-term profits at the expense of long-term? Or doesn't it? Does it trade construction savings at the expense of legal expenses? Or doesn't it? Is everyone stupid? When something is crazy and doesn't make sense, yet is common practice, I want to know why people, especially the profit-oriented, continue to do it. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1354 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2015 - 05:57 pm:    Tony, to answer your question, with your own words, "Everyone is stupid!" People have short memories, even those who've had their pockets emptied after the last round of massive litigation. It takes several years for the results of poor construction quality to manifest into real problems, mold doesn't develop overnight, at least not to the point where it becomes a real problem. The last boom period for construction in Florida for the private sector was 2000-2005, litigation didn't start until 2008, it took a while for defects and failures to become real problems. I expect a similar scenario, by 2018 most condos currently under construction will be completed, a few years later the problems will start, stucco will start delaminating, mold will rear its ugly head, some new threat will appear from China that makes us all fear for our lives, litigation will start, lessons won't be learned until the start of the next decade. Why do they keep using it, the big boys on the block figure litigation into the equation, they are still making huge profits. Its all us pions that wind up suffering. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 75 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 08:50 am:    So, did those problems result from the absence of specs in those projects? ;-9 Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1365 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 12:41 pm:    Tony, I am not privy to the litigation on those projects, so I can't tell you who was to blame. I've never had my work blamed for a construction failure. The clients who still include specs in their contract docs tell me that is one of the reasons why they do. I wish I had more answers. It seems that its easier to blame specs on construction problems than the drawings. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 907 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 02:02 pm:    That's because most lawyers, judges, and juries can't read drawings. It's also why I tell people to write their specs so a 10-year old can understand them. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1368 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 02:15 pm:    Ken, I agree and that is one of the reasons I prefer 16 division format. I have an ongoing job with an architect who agreed to use MF04 format. One of the spec sections numbers had several decimal points, he asked me if this was my attempt to simply the specs, I really had no answer for him. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1369 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 02:27 pm:    Ken, one of my clients who I've worked with for 16 years is the firm that really surprised me this year by refusing to include specs in their contract documents. This is a local SFL Latin firm that is well respected and works on mega projects, condo especially. I know the principal and all the players well, having prepared many project manuals for them in the past. IN previous years the biggest problem with working with them was the Project Managers unwilling to read the specs. I guess this is their solution, no specs is better than having to read specs. When I questioned several PM's about why they were no longer including specs, the answer I got every time was the specs increased the firm's liability. Yet none of them could provide a real example to back up their claims. In SFL specs are being used as a scapegoat for the ills of contract documentation and the laziness of architects. Its very sad indeed. I recommend my peers steer away from SFL specwriting for a while. If you don't have experience in the trenches of SFL construction, you should not be writing specs in SFL. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 838 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 03:15 pm:    Well, I guess if you don't read the specs for your projects, you might expect some liability issues to arise. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 216 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 08:31 pm:    Jerome and anyone else. Funny that I just got this in an email from the AIA LinkedIn forum. http://www.entrearchitect.com/2015/06/03/specifications-for-residential-architecture/ Feel free to weigh in the conversation. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1378 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 09:05 pm:    Alan, thanks for the link, what's really weird is that I went to college with Rand Soellner, he graduated before me because I took time off between degrees (money ran out had to go work for a few years). Rand was a brilliant architect, totally out of the box guy, very into behavioral architecture, I always wondered what happened to Rand, he stuck around Florida for a while, but eventually moved west to explore avant garde architecture, really cool find. Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 - 07:43 pm:    Jerome, Does Tampa/St. Petersburg count as South Florida? There might be hope for SFL architecture yet. This Florida architect earned his CDT! That's a start, right? http://blog.ncarb.org/2015/October/Spotlight-Alex-Rios.aspx Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1496 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 - 08:34 pm:    Anon, South Florida is basically the State south of Orlando, though many in Tampa/St Pete prefer to call themselves SW Florida. Its always been the rage to add as many initials after your name, I have a CDT, however I don't list it. Most Architects agree that specifications are valuable part of Contract Documents, but they don't want to pay for them, they would rather have the Developer do it and Developers are saying no. Unfortunately there is also the problem with Architects being too lazy to read the specs, I've had many jobs where specs were included and contractually the Architect was required to read the specs, they did not, until they got to the deposition. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1497 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 - 08:41 pm:    What's sad in SFL is that even the outstanding projects are going forward w/o specs, today an old hotel was demolished on FT Lauderdale Beach to make way for a $200 mil Four Seasons Hotel and Residences, I know the architect very well, there are no specs on the job. This architect used to be a client, but decided in 2010 to stop using specs on his projects, basically because the Developer refused to pay for them. George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 808 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2015 - 01:33 pm:    Jerry- Regarding credentials: I don't know that credentials proliferation has "always" been the rage - it strikes me as a modern phenomenon - but there certainly are more available now than ever before. Partly this is due to advancement of credentialing standards that better define what is a valid and relevant certification or certificate. One of the efforts we've been making in CSI's Certification Committee Strategic Group has been evaluating the state of our current certificate (CDT) and certifications (CCS, CCPR, CCCA) and assessing how they can be improved to make them more relevant and more compliant with best practices in credentialing. For what it is worth, when a person has achieved a CSI certification (CCS, CCCA, or CCPR), then CDT is no longer used after the name. So not listing it, in your case, is correct and appropriate. Also, the preferred way of listing multiple CSI certifications is in the order they were established by CSI (CCS, CCPR, CCCA) and not in the order they were obtained by the individual. Regarding missing specifications: We've probably had this discussion elsewhere on 4specs, but this basic concept was brought home at the St Louis chapter CSI meeting yesterday, on General Conditions. The architect of record has standard of care and licensure related responsibilities that remain, regardless of what his or her contract with the owner says. That's one of the serious issues with AGC Consensus Docs and with the nightmare SFL scenarios you have been describing. The architect isn't relieved of the responsibility to provide complete and complementary documents just because an owner doesn't want to pay for specifications. The architect still has a duty to meet the standard of care. This is true of other standard architectural services that are increasingly omitted: site observation, certifying substantial completion, approving pay applications, rejecting non-conforming work, etc. Anytime an architect enters into an agreement that omits any of these, he or she opens up this dilemma: either do the required duties without compensation, or don't do the duties and run the risk of not meeting the standard of care. I know this is preaching to the choir in your case. You would be a great expert witness when one of these specification-less projects comes to court. After all, your CCS credential lends credence to your expertise. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 765 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2015 - 03:18 pm:    George While I agree with the general tone of your posting I do not understand why certification of substantial completion or approving of pay applications is part of the basic core of services. Maybe it is semantics but I would suggest that rather than rejecting non-conforming work I would suggest the core duty was to notify the client and relevant agencies of non-conforming work. George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 809 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2015 - 06:10 pm:    Without looking up the specific references and working only from memory, certifying substantial completion and approving pay applications are part of AIA A201's enumeration of roles of the architect (in Article 4?). If your question is why did AIA include these two things among the list of what architects do, it's because these (and other) activities are essential to the architect fulfilling the contractually stated role of being the owner's representative during construction. The architect also has a duty to keep the owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the work - and reviewing pay applications and substantial completion are two excellent ways of ascertaining the progress and quality. The architect has the right and responsibility to reject non-conforming work. The rationale behind this is that, as author of the contract documents that set forth the owner's quality requirements, the architect is in the best position to know when these contractual requirements are not being met. Don't confuse non-conforming work (in the sense of not conforming to the contract requirements) with work not complying with code - they are two different things, although of course they can overlap. Non-conforming work can be simply blue paint applied where red paint was indicated. So there is no duty to inform authorities having jurisdiction when non-conforming work is noted - there is only a duty to inform the contractor and the owner. Also, the owner has the right to accept non-conforming work, and usually does so with an adjustment in cost. Or sometimes at no cost, because that color of blue turns out to look swell after all. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1356 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2015 - 07:08 pm:    George mentioned the "standard of care" that professionals are judged by when their performance is called into question. The basic definition of "standard of care" includes the "degree of attentiveness, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would exercise." The operative word, in my opinion, is "circumstances." Circumstances can include many elements: specific discipline (e.g. architect, engineer, doctor, etc.), location, and time, just to name a few. But it could also include contractual provisions. If contract administration is not a part of the architect's agreement with the owner, should that architect's performance be compared to an architect's performance under a full services agreement? Or, should that architect be compared to other architects that have also performed services without contract administration in the agreement? I believe the latter would be the most appropriate. As an example, the State of Arizona's registration rules does not specifically require a design professional to follow through with minimal contract administration services. In essence, it relies on the legal standard of care. Other states may be different, so one should be aware of the laws and rules within the state or states you're practicing. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 614 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 22, 2015 - 07:20 pm:    Not to muddy the waters, but "standard of care" applies to a negligence claim. It is the minimal level of competency of typical member of that profession in good standing. Did the architect perform their required duties at the level of similar architects, in a similar community, given similar circumstances. The "required duties" are defined by the contract. If an architect's contract excludes CA, they are not necessarily negligent because they don't perform CA work. If the architect deletes those items from AIA A201, for example, they are not required to perform those duties. If an architect is contracted to perform certain duties and doesn't, it could be a breach of contract action and, if that failure led to other damages, possibly also a negligence claim. Clear as mud, right? (not legal advice) George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 810 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, October 23, 2015 - 03:32 pm:    It's about practicing your profession to an acceptable level of risk. Not all agreements modified to exclude services will lead to dispute resolution, of course. But once there, defense will argue as Ron and Robin note: "Not in my contract, not negligent." You can bet plaintiff's argument will be along the lines of standard of care not being met, and standard of care is admittedly a moving target. AIA contracts have stood the test of time and trial; Consensus Docs and the modified agreements have not. And I don't mean this to sound as shilling for the AIA or for the profession. After all, AIA refused a seat at the table when AGC was formulating Consensus Docs. And architects themselves have been avoiding responsibilities in a misguided attempt to limit liability. That's why contractors and owners have seized the initiative and written or modified agreements to the detriment of architects. So the question architects need to ask themselves remains: Do I want to accept the added risk by entering into a modified agreement with modified general conditions? Or do I insist on the old standby AIA unmodified documents, and risk losing the project to another practitioner? The answer, like the standard of care, depends on the circumstances, and these vary by project, location, and advise of counsel. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 766 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, October 23, 2015 - 03:37 pm:    Just because something is in a commonly used contract does not mean that the architect or engineer is negligent for not performing that function if not required by his contract. The Architects right to reject work is only a right if given to him by the Owner. Duty to notify the contractor is defined by the contract. The architect has a duty to his client to notify him of non-conformances that the architect may become aware of but has no duty to seek out and identify such non-conformances unless established by contract. Standard of care is different from standard practice. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 615 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, October 23, 2015 - 08:51 pm:    Generally speaking, the contract defines the architects duties. The standard of care defines the level of performance expected for those duties. If there is no duty to perform, the question of standard of care is moot. If an architect is hired solely to produce drawings and specs and that is the limit of their contract, then they cannot be negligent for failure to provide typical CA services. (not legal advice) Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 877 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, October 24, 2015 - 12:14 am:    Certification of substantial completion and approving pay applications remain because they are relatively safe activities. AIA has spent fifty years trying to minimize risk by eliminating those activities that might cause a problem for the architect. There isn't much left! We're due for another A201 update in a couple of years; maybe they'll find a way to push these two items off on the contractor. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 85 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Saturday, October 24, 2015 - 06:27 am:    Maybe we don't need many of the specs currently in a "complete" project manual. What's wrong, for example, in letting the contractor decide what type of fire stopping to use; the contractor pulled the permit and agreed to build a fire rated wall and the code requires firestopping. Let the contractor figure it out as part of means and methods of construction. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 607 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Saturday, October 24, 2015 - 07:15 am:    We don't specify specific firestopping products; the contractor selects the products depending on, for example, the specific type of penetration and the dimension of the annular space between the penetrating item and the edge of the hole. However, that does not mean that a firestopping section is not needed. The general contractor or CM will bid the project out in the way that is easiest for them. In the absence of a specification section for firestopping, that would be to have the party that penetrates the hole (mechanical, plumbing, sprinkler, electrical, etc) be responsible for firestopping around the penetration. Makes sense, no? The result is likely to be trades that are not trained in firsstopping installing the product, and multiple manufacturers of firestopping on the project, and for the owner to keep track of. What most of our architect clients prefer is to have a single trade, preferably a certified installer, install all firestopping on the project. This means the general contractor or CM has to coordinate how the firestopping installer interfaces with the trades making the penetration; whether the GC or CM hires the firestopping sub, or whether the penetrating trades hire the same firestopping sub, etc. As we all know, specification sections control far more than just product selection. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1498 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, October 24, 2015 - 08:16 am:    Dave in SFL I always specify a single installer for all firestopping, seldom do I get one. One sub installing firestopping is clearly the preferred method, however in SFL its one of the first items contractors flag. I still include one subcontractor in my specs, but 80% of the jobs its the first VE item. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 608 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Saturday, October 24, 2015 - 09:11 am:    Cost reduction done after receipt of bids is not VE, it's merely cost-cutting. There is no value that is preserved. We generally have the same experience in the DC area, with contractors not wanting a single firestopping installer. One less thing they have to coordinate, and it puts the monkey on their subs' back, not the GC's. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 141 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Saturday, October 24, 2015 - 09:24 am:    Probably off topic, but not really wanting to show how old I am, but back when I was designing new buildings and renovations, there was no such thing as “ve.” We actually could design, detail, and specify buildings that were in budget. Maybe that was before architect’s turned over budgetary responsibility for their work to others (usually general contractors/construction managers), even though the architect’s contracts with building owners never removed that responsibility from the architect, and still hasn’t. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 288 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, October 26, 2015 - 04:13 pm:    It doesn't matter. These days, no matter what the architect designs, the contractor will price it over budget. The "VE" process is a profit center for them, second only to change orders. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 880 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 29, 2015 - 09:04 pm:    Letting the contractor decide what firestopping to use is, in fact, a valid option. As long as the design intent is in the construction documents, nearly everything else falls under means and methods. That doesn't mean we don't need specifications, unless we don't care what materials are used or how they are installed. Specifications are used to establish minimum standards for materials and for performance. Both of those are most easily accomplished by using reference standards. Even better is sole-sourcing when you can do it. Regarding who installs the firestopping, I agree, the idea of having a single sub do all of it has many advantages over the typical you-poked-it-you-fix-it approach, but does it matter? If experience and training requirements are specified, all installers must comply, so it's just another enforcement issue. The contractor who directs subs to do their own firestopping is ultimately responsible. Unfortunately, as often happens, a logical, useful term - value engineering - was co-opted and used to define any type of cost cutting, rather than the rigorous process it is. I think you're a bit harsh, Dave, though only a bit, but it is not uncommon for changes to result in lower cost without compromising a project. When that happens, it usually indicates the design team didn't know everything they needed to know, and missed an opportunity to better serve their clients. Not using design-bid-build is a good way to minimize that problem. The common use of "value engineering" is similar to the common use of "sustainable design"...