| Author |
Message |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 656
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 06, 2020 - 12:11 pm: |    |
We see an increase in the number of deliverables handled by our architect project teams during CDs. These are variously titled For GMP; For Bids; For Permit; For Construction. Has anyone (CSI, AIA, etc.) tackled trying to tame this beast? There's confusion about naming and about purpose, and a lot of wasted time.
Phil Kabza FCSI CCS AIA
SpecGuy Specifications Consultants
www.SpecGuy.com
phil@specguy.com |
Marc Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 577
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 06, 2020 - 12:22 pm: | |
yes this is an issue....not tackled yet. At my last firm the names were whatever the "team" including the GC and Owner wanted....
SD, DD, CD are dead...at least in private work and in a lot of CMa CMc jobs public or private
many bid packs and many iterations. |
Rosa Cheney
Senior Member
Username: rdcaia
Post Number: 10
Registered: 07-2018
| | Posted on Friday, March 06, 2020 - 12:54 pm: | |
Can you elaborate on the confusion you mention? I am comfortable with the meaning of each of the things you listed, and based on conversations about schedule with my architects, I clarify in my spec-writing proposal whether certain 'early' submissions will be merely "for coordination" or also "for pricing" or the ones you mention..."for permit" or "for bidding" or "for construction". This allows me and the Architect to be on the same page regarding the level of completeness that is expected of the specifications for each deliverable. And especially in the case of early bidding, it also lets me know the effort that will be needed to track changes as the construction documents are further developed.
If they tell me that only the final submission is the one that will be used for bidding, then any time spent tracking changes and creating revision narratives would be an additional service. For this same reason, the Architect would be asking the Owner for an additional service, too, if they were unexpectedly being asked to prepare early bid packages. In fact, yesterday, I just submitted an additional service (requested by my Architect to go along with their add service) to create a narrative of all changes that took place between an early Permit submission and the final IFC submission...there were about 4-5 different submissions between those two deliverables.
Do I like early submissions "for bidding" or "for GMP" etc? Absolutely not. But early permitting is what I have seen throughout my entire 20-year career, and the early bidding has been a thing in my market for at least the last 15+ years. The only thing that has changed is that they are bidding 50% CDs now rather than 85% CDs.
Regardless, I base my proposals around whatever a project's deliverable schedule is going to be, and so even though it is more work, I am getting paid for that extra work.
Back to asking where the confusion lies...the thing I see that varies from Architect to Architect is not in the meaning of the terms, but rather how they want to track and label the revisions on the Drawings. For the specs, we recommend using Word's track changes feature and reissuing spec sections in their entirety with the track changes showing, and our Architects agree with our approach nearly 95% of the time. |
George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 911
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 06, 2020 - 04:05 pm: | |
What's in a name, indeed. If you define the deliverable in the owner-architect agreement, haven't you solved the problem? If it contradicts the standard AIA phases, then strike that standard language from the agreement. If properly defined and all understand what is meant, it doesn't seem like a big deal what you call it.
On the other hand, it turned out that Juliet's (and Romeo's) naiveté about the importance of what's in a name had fatal consequences. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 657
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 09, 2020 - 05:54 pm: | |
The issue it poses for consultants is largely a client project manager issue: in projects that are increasingly CM driven, the issuing of (largely extraneous) project manual drafts has gotten out of control. GMP Set, VE Set, For Bids Set, For Permit Set, For Construction Set, Conformed Set. As long as we're compensated for rearranging all these electrons, it isn't an issue. But we've had to tighten up our proposals and make clear to clients that time and extra sets are money.
Phil Kabza FCSI CCS AIA
SpecGuy Specifications Consultants
www.SpecGuy.com
phil@specguy.com |
Jerome J. Lazar, CCS, CDT, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 2085
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 09, 2020 - 06:21 pm: | |
Phil, we clearly list the sets to be issued in the Proposal, additional sets are additional services.
But you are correct, it does get out of hand, esp when the Architect never reads them. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 1114
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 10:08 am: | |
Jerry identifies the real bugaboo for me: the Architect never reads them (and neither does any one else). I have seen provisions in documents issued for pricing at the end of design development that were ignored then and through subsequent issues only to become bones of contention DURING CONSTRUCTION. The latest was the requirement for G60 galvanizing on non-structural metal framing (which I always specify for projects in the Houston area). It comes up during the submittal phase (about a year later) that the sub priced G40. When the Architect asked me about it, I pointed out that this is what I usually do and the requirement had been consistent since DD.
If no one is going to look at it, why issue the documents.
J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP
|
guest (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 06:32 pm: | |
Peter - Cuz when project goes "south" your clients look to your specs to "bail" them out (CTA...cover their backside). |
E.A. (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - 12:38 pm: | |
Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if the clients read and enforced them in the first place so the project didn't go "south" and then don't need to worry about covering their backside? |
Dan Helphrey
Senior Member
Username: dbhelphrey
Post Number: 51
Registered: 12-2018
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - 01:51 pm: | |
Just as long as they're not called "100%", "FINAL" , "REVISED FINAL", "NO, REALLY, WE MEAN IT THIS TIME"... |
Ed Storer
Senior Member
Username: ed_storer
Post Number: 57
Registered: 05-2009
| | Posted on Friday, April 17, 2020 - 07:20 pm: | |
Here on the Left Coast, I've found that the "Permit Set" is a pricing spec, as the code officials don't read specs. Call them what you will, I've found that I usually have to issue a Draft CD, Permit/Pricing set, and a Construction Set. There may be interim issues, but I haven't done many CM or GC/CM projects lately. |
William C. Pegues
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 988
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 17, 2020 - 08:55 pm: | |
Frankly, I think the use of a preliminary set very useful. Perhaps its from being an internal specifier as opposed to a consultant. Back in the mid 1980’s, we started getting responses from owners that they were surprised about various requirements when the CDs were issued. Since computers were on their way in, and word processing was easy enough, I suggested that we issue a Draft set that coincided with the Owner review set that was typically established (at that time) as weeks from the CD set. There was no date on it, every page in lieu of the date said “DRAFT”. The cover of the project manual also said “DRAFT” as a big watermark across the cover diagonally. Finally, it was always printed on pink paper.
Thus, the owner got a review project manual, and enough time that his comments were equipped 2 to 3 weeks from the CD set.
Time passed, in the late 1990s we moved the draft to go out the door with the permit set which was typically at the 75% point. Not that the permit people reviewed it, typically if it was sent to them they sent it back. But, the Owner had started to use this not only for his review but also for pricing with the GC. We let them know that using it for that any comments or revisions needed to reach us no later than 4 weeks from CD issue date.
No problems with that, but then as we moved into the early years of LEED, this draft started to go out to the LEED consultant that the Owner had hired. Then later still it started to go out to the wall consultant that most Owner’s would hire for moisture dispersion studies. Then with more and more low profile parapets it was used again, in part, for establishing the wind uplift requirements for the roof especially with vegetated roofs but also simply for aggregate surfacing and pavers and other items placed on the roof.
Its never been a problem. Even when we had an owner that did not want to look at a draft, we would still do one for internal review and consultant coordination (and yes, all consultants were required to provide documents for the draft).
So, our use was more for our own purposes than anything else, and continues in this fashion today.
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP |
|
4specs.com Home Page