Contractor-issued addendum

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

Author Message Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 314 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 09:56 am:    Can a Contractor issue an addendum to the subs that the Architect did not produce? CM at-risk project. I suspect that they should be using some other form of document. Whatever correspondence they wish to send out to all the subs is up to them, but it is not an Addendum, which can only come from the Architect - or it is outside the realm of my experience for it to be otherwise. Do any of you fine folks have opinions on what should be done when they issue something that looks, acts, and feels like it is an Addendum? This is apparently a routine thing for this CM. On the positive, there is something to be said for their active participation in the process, at least they are not like some CM/Contractors who do not know or care what the subs have in their scopes and what they are really going to do. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 863 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 10:21 am:    Contractors have contracts with their subs that should have "flow-down" provisions from the general contract with the Owner. As such, the Contractor may issue an addendum to the subcontractors. Such an addendum may affect terms and conditions or may affect scope (shifting scope from one sub to another). This addendum should not affect the substance of the genera contract for construction as a whole nor affect design of the building as a whole. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 599 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 10:22 am:    Only the architect has the authority to change the bid documents, not the CM at-risk. The CM can change what their subs each have in their scopes of work, since it is the responsibility of the contractor/CM at-risk to assign scopes of work. But not to change the bid documents themselves. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 315 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 10:51 am:    My understanding is Dave + Peter here: Only the Architect can modify the bid documents for the general contract from a legal standpoint, anything of such done by the Contractor is not legally enforceable. So they might need to be aware of this! And with what Peter is saying, yes they can modify the subbid documents they have initiated with their subs. Problem is, they seem to think the whole project manual is just for their subs and not for them. They want everything to speak to particular packages, ad nausea. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 600 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 11:15 am:    The contract with the owner is signed by the CM, therefore the CM is responsible for complying with the contract documents. How the CM passes on that responsibility to its subs is between the CM and its subs; the CM is responsible for determining the scope and extent of the particular subbid packages. Sounds like the CM is trying to get the architect to do the CM's job. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 316 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 11:48 am:    That's what I've been saying is happening here, and if the Architect agrees, there sure is nothing I can do about it. This is just somehow part of this architect & CM's ongoing unique working relationship. Spec writing fees are certainly affected too. For every item, I've got to know what package it is in, and write multiple iterations of some spec sections. Also addenda can be a gruesome amount of effort with info coming in at the last minute from architect, design architect, subs, suppliers, and CM, so I have a couple other spec writers available to assist me. I constantly recommend to the architct to review their input & I make recommendations for or against when needed. I remind them that questions must be answered by addendum and not directly to the people asking. All this extra work on me is OK because my contract allows for it - I saw it coming. Still I tell the architect you do not have to do it this way. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 317 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 10:50 pm:    What I meant to say is if the Architect agrees to do the Contractor's job for them, there is nothing I can do about it except go along for the ride on this project. I do try to help the Architect recognize when there is input from this varied team that should have the Architect's OK, which seems like a continual task for me, as often as questionable revision proposals keep popping up. I ask for the Architect's direction either in general terms are they OK with what the subs are proposing, or if needed I make specific recommendations for or against what they suggest and why. I try to get that clarified before I and my assisting specifiers put all the time into making the iffy changes. While it is normal to have some of these challenges on some part of any given job, it seems strange to have all the challenges all the way through this one job. Then to hear there are addenda being issued from the Contractor that the Architect doesn't even seem to have?? It is an AIA-based CMc Agreement and General Conditions so I do not think it's like they have a home-grown set of rules they can go by willy nilly. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 68 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 13, 2015 - 11:04 pm:    I may be missing something here. But under typical AIA Agreements, what the contractor does with the subs and what contractors calls various documents is none of the architect's business. Either the contractor fulfills its contract with owner, or it doesn't. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 318 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2015 - 07:41 am:    If they can issue documents called the same thing as the Architect's Addenda, they might as well issue their own drawing sheets and specifications, but that would be against statutes. So then wouldn't issuing addenda without going through the Architect that modify the Architect's documents also be against statutes? Also their addenda might not be contractually effective (except between the Contractor and the subs), whereas if issued from the Architect it is contractually effective between the Owner and the Contractor which is what is supposed to happen. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2039 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2015 - 09:06 am:    It seems we're dealing with two separate issues. Typically, there are two contracts: one between the A/E and the Owner, and one between the CM and the Owner. Then there's the contracts the CM has with the subs. The A/E issues Addenda for the Contract Documents produced by him/her for the Owner. The CM cannot change those documents by any method. The CM can change the contracts (s)he has with the subs. Is that by an "Addendum"? Technically, I don't think so, but (s)he's still allowed to change those contracts. The A/E producing Contract Documents to satisfy the CM's method of assigning work is another issue. Technically, it shouldn't be done, but I've seen it happen more and more. It results in a snarl of documents - a Gordian Knot - in most cases. The CM may find it easier, but one who requests this clearly doesn't understand the purpose of the documents. Once the A/E gives in to this, there's no way back. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 21 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Monday, August 17, 2015 - 11:20 am:    As defined by AIA contractual documents, addenda are issued by the Architect during bidding. Anything issued after a Contract is awarded should be referred to using AIA terminology (Architect's Supplemental Instructions, Proposal Request, Change Order, etc.) or Bulletin, which is also a term commonly used by Architects. The date when the project goes from bidding documents to post-bidding documents should be agreed on by all parties, since the term "Bid Period" can be confusing when the CM contract is based on a GMP, and not all their subcontracts may be in place at the same time. If at any time during the design/bid/construction process the CM uses terms for their own documents identical to the terms used by the Architect, confusion is likely. Such confusion could be avoided by using other terms specific to the subcontracting process. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 320 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Monday, August 17, 2015 - 06:52 pm:    That likely confusion is what concerns me. Yes, I understand well that there are different types of contracts between the different parties. This is a CMc project that has already been awarded to the CM/Contactor and they are putting out well-organized bid packages to their subs. We have a master schedule of when all these packages are going out but we were never allowed to simply put out a few major "Document Releases" (an example term that Anne mentioned in a thread I think 10+ years ago), a suggestion which I offered but they did not take. Instead we are having to issue specs unique to each group of subcontracts - therefore different below-grade and above grade insulation, exterior and interior glazing, even unique firestopping and on and on. I was lucky enough that they could agree on a single Division 01 after some subs' markups suggested that they would not be doing things like field engineering or jobsite trailers, is this very strange or what??? None of that is unfamiliar to me but it seems unprecedented THIS level of detail and reiteration. And then "Addenda" that the architect did not issue, to top it all off. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 506 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, August 17, 2015 - 08:13 pm:    I have never had a Contractor unilaterally issue an Addenda to a project. But that being said, I have been involved in Projects where the Architect is a consultant to the Contractor in a design build relationship and the timing and contents of an Addenda were determined by Architect & Contractor and the Architect acted as the Contractor's consultant in executing the Addenda. But I am extremely familiar with multiple versions of specifications custom tailored to each Project increment that Chris notes. Our practice has long been concentrated on large health care projects with extremely long project schedules. You soon realize that Project Increments or Bid Packages are a moving target throughout the life of the project. For California hospital project, OSHPD, the AHJ, requires that each permit package clearly only cover what is in the scope for that incremental permit package. All this means that as a defense against wasting time, our specification masters are designed to create incremental versions. A simple example are the following 4 master templates for where 1 should be enough: "Site Joint Sealants", Exterior Joint Sealants", "Interior Joint Sealants" and "Remodel Joint Sealants". Within sight of where I sit is a project team currently numbering 10 full time staff, not including their PIC and myself. The first bid package I created for that project is dated August 2008 and their planned substantial completion is fall 2016. We have actually been engaged on the site almost continuously since 1989, the schedule described above is just for the latest large patient tower and its outbuildings. This is a typical project for our office and it uses all of the above sealant sections, spread years apart in some cases, with addition of a 5th, "Therapy Pool Joint Sealants" for a non-OSHPD, County permitted pool building. If I was paid by the page I would be rich. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 08:57 am:    Chris - I am wondering, is the CMc issuing different addenda to different subcontractors? What if you requested that they label them "Addendum No. XX to Subcontract YY", keeping a separate sequence for each subcontract? Or if they are issuing a single sequence of addenda to all subcontractors, perhaps "Subcontractor Addendum No. XX"? Steven - I like your positive approach to a challenging situation that seems to be here to stay. I have also made narrowscope sections like the ones you mention, but the idea of preparing masters is a good one. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 321 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Tuesday, August 18, 2015 - 10:55 pm:    Quite a variety I'm over it, gotta go with the program, and yes I'm already doing like Steven, only WOW that is a long drawn out project, I should be glad this one is so fast, right???! Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 322 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Tuesday, August 25, 2015 - 05:25 pm:    Lynn yes it is a Gordian Knot!