Handling minor typos in specs

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

Author Message Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 600 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 11:18 am:    When the architect comes back to you with an email regarding "conflicts" in the specs and those "conflicts" turn out to be a minor inconsistency between TOC and the spec section (example: 104415 v 104410. How do you handle it? Is this something that really justifies an ASI? Does the contractor really want to track an ASI to correct something they figured out and really doesn't affect the success of the project? Are architect's really spending their resources marking up these minor items? Curious how others (independents) respond when their clients want a "track changes" updated specs to correct 2 typos on the TOC as an ASI, or something equally insignificant to the success of the project. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 46 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 12:26 pm:    What is an "ASI"? Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 12:20 pm:    I've a public agency reviewer, in addition to some technical changes, is also "correcting" streamlined context to formal grammar (e.g., adding prepositions), restructuring grammar in sentences, changing imperative mood to indicative mood, along with other "mundane" comments. Rather than argue the lack of any consequences to the project/construction of such minimal changes, I just proceeded to start incorporating redlines....verbatim...for fear of alienating A/E's client and creating any negativity for A/E's future project pursuits. I now realize that I "trudge" on with these continued types of changes, it is becoming a significant "waste" of time/effort that will not yield any appreciable effects. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 669 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 12:54 pm:    ASI = Architectural Supplemental Instruction. Sort of a reverse RFI or "proactive" clarification from the A/E team to the GC. Generally supposed to be limited to minor items not effecting cost or time. However, some firms use them similarly to a Bulletin, Addendum, or Construction Change Directive. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 840 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 01:29 pm:    The ASI is defined in the AIA system of documents and forms. It is most similar to a "field order" indicating a change in the Work that does not result in a change to contract sum or time. Upon receiving an ASI, the Contractor may decide that there are cost or schedule implications and respond with a change order proposal. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEEDŽ AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 256 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 02:53 pm:    The USACE uses the designation "ASI" for changes instead of PCO (Proposed Change Order) or any of the other change documents. Creates some confusion as you can imagine David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 113 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 03:34 pm:    Robin, I have been in your situation and understand your exasperation. I can do little more than commiserate. Some clients regard slight variations in specification numbers and titles as potential deal-breakers, especially in the retail sector where the ambience can be contentious from day one to closeout. It is surprising how often minutiae can develop into disputes. When the Table of Contents is attached to an agreement as an exhibit and does not perfectly reflect the content of the project manual, it can be a pain. If the architect for whom you are working can't overlook the relatively minor irregularities you describe, then an ASI may set the record straight without incident. When I can, I silently correct non-substantive matters that amount to no more than typos when I get to prepare and issue conformed documents for construction. After spending many hours getting the technical content of the sections correct, it is dispiriting to discover errors in numbers and titles. This is the moment when SpecLink fans join hands and sing the praises of the program's TOC-generating feature. And, they would not be wrong. After all, no one is always wrong - at work at least. Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 03:09 pm:    Depending on how the Contract Documents are enumerated in the Agreement, I could see this as a worthwhile effort to correct typos in the TOC. If the TOC says there is a section 104415, and it was used to enumerate the documents then the contract only includes 104415, not 104410 (whether or not the contractor figured out that 104415 really meant 104410 is beside the point). Not knowing more about your particular situation I don't know if I could comment further. Regardless, it may be minor, but I would make the changes if the architect thought it was important enough. They're the ones stamping the documents, right? Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 602 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 06:34 pm:    Anon: A couple of responses: (1) of course i will make the changes, am curious how others handle it. Through the ASI process, or some other means (2) i can't imagine an Agreement that defines the contract documents as only those items listed on a TOC (or, a drawing index). The contract documents are drawings and specs. If, for example, an architect mis-numbers the drawing sheet showing waterproofing details, should the contractor be able to later claim they didn't include waterproofing because the sheet didn't match the index? The drawings and specs are not perfect, nor do they need to be. Could a reasonable contractor figure out that the section is mis-numbered? I would hope so. Personally, as a contractor, i would think the time it takes me to log and track an additional revision/ASI far outweighs any benefit from the clarification about a typo, but maybe i am wrong - would love to hear from a contractor. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 485 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 08:11 pm:    At various document submittal events we issue a Narrative of Changes that will list the changes to the Drawing sand Specifications. I have in the past included as a forward to the spec Narrative a list of items that we will NOT track or use bold or strike through to indicate the change: Project Personal Directory Names, Addresses, contact info. Simple typos where the meaning is clear. Spec Section Name or Number typo where there can't be ambiguity, like "Sheet Metal and Flashing" versus "Flashing and Sheet Metal". Article numbers that are out of order or skip. Pagination errors that create blank spots or entire blank pages. In the 08 Curtainwall specs I also note that "curtain wall" and "window wall" can and will be used interchangeably by Architects, Owners and Contractors. Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 07:06 pm:    Robin, concerning #2 ... it happens all the time. I found this in a minute or two searching google: http://www.essexct.gov/sites/essexct/files/file/file/signed_agreement_09_26_13_0.pdf Take a look at Article 8 and you'll see that the specifications are specifically enumerated as they are listed in the table of contents of the Project Manual. If this is the case for your project, without a modification the Contractor could argue that 104410 is not part of the contract. If they really wanted to make a fuss ... they can claim that they only bid the work that was reasonably inferable from the contract documents (which does not include 104410). In order to include 104410 in the contract now by way of an ASI, it would need to be addressed in a change order to adjust the contract sum to include the work in the specification. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 104 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 09:24 pm:    It really comes down to one thing. How strong a personality is your Owner or CM? I've seen too many argue like H against our add services and fold like rice paper as soon as the Contractor opens his mouth. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 603 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 09:28 pm:    Interesting. Now i know why i avoid public work. As an owner, i would never offer that language in a contract. That said, the contractor should have then included a bid for 104415, and, if there wasn't a matching section, should submit an RFI. If the sections listed on the TOC are the CD's, then they would be required to provide that material/product etc. I think it would be a very tough argument, especially considering the section was in the Project Manual, albeit with a typo. 98% of my work is private, so I NEVER come across this kind of contract language J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 841 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 08:24 am:    Robin, you may be surprised to learn that your owner's attorney's will routinely include the Index of Drawings and Specifications TOC in the Agreement believing this is required to incorporate them into the Contract Documents. They will go further by listing number of pages and dates virtually guaranteeing future conflicts. Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 11:24 am:    Robin, why would the contractor include a bid for 104415? By the Agreement, it wasn't part of the Contract if it wasn't listed in the TOC. Agreed that an RFI would have been the proper course of action during bidding ... but I'm not a contractor and some of them (thankfully, not all of them) will look for any way to make the Architect look bad, and get more money. It may be a tough argument, but the fact that the argument is happening at all means that the Architect is already on the defense. I can't wait for the day when construction isn't so adversarial. Also, I completely agree with Peter's comment above. Enumerating documents this way is not limited to public work. However, finding private examples on the internet is more difficult. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 604 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 11:29 am:    i will talk to some construction attorneys and see if they ever use this practice. The contractor would have to include a bid for whatever is listed on the TOC, so, if 104415 is listed on the TOC, they should include it, whether there is a matching specification section or not. If there isn't a specification section that matches that number, and they don't submit an RFI, then one can argue they assume the risk of pricing it appropriately. But, by your contract example, that section is part of the contract documents, regardless of the remainder of the content of the project manual, so they are responsible for it. It purpose it works both ways. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 114 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 01:35 pm:    If the Conditions of the Contract assert the principle of complementary documents, then it would be difficult for the contractor to deny that a section included in the project manual but not correctly listed in the Table of Contents is applicable to the contract. Public contract conditions usually give the authority to determine the intent of the documents to the architect. In my experience, however, the contractor's attorney is often so aggressive in pursuing claims, the architect is willing to quietly accept blame for discrepancies for fear of alienating the owner. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1381 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 02:28 pm:    Michael, ASI is form G710 issued by AIA and is defined ever so briefly in Section 0126000 or 01260 - CONTRACT MODIFICATION PROCRDURES. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1382 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 02:34 pm:    Robin, is this a private sector or public sector project? The only time I've experienced this in the private sector is on a condo job where the attorney is looking for the max amount of errors to fuel his claim for negligence. At one time I had a statement in my Summary of Work section that covered such minor errors that did not affect contract cost or time, but now that I've looked, it appears to have been taken out. Perhaps one of our peers has such a statement they wish to share. Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 02:50 pm:    David, I see your point, but you're glossing over the fact that the documents you are asserting to be complementary need to be part of the contract to begin with. If the section is not listed in the TOC, it is not part of the contract. The section in the project manual, but not enumerated as part of the contract, can't compliment anything because it isn't part of the contract. I'm assuming the sections are dealing with fire extinguishers or possibly cabinets based on the section numbers (they don't correspond to anything listed in MasterFormat). Take the following as an illustrative example: If the TOC lists 104410 "Fire Extinguishers" but the project manual actually contains 104415 "Fire Extinguishers," section 104410 is part of the contract, not 104415 as it is not enumerated in the Agreement. Looking at the drawings, I see locations for fire extinguishers. As a contractor I could submit a bid based on the cheapest fire extinguisher available in order to get the bid. Maybe it's cheaper to get a small CO2 extinguisher than the 10-lb multipurpose dry chemical extinguisher the architect wants. When the architect rejects my submittal and says that I need to provide the extinguishers specified in 104415 I respond with a change proposal for the difference in cost because 104415 is not part of my contract. I don't know what it was doing in the Project Manual, maybe it was part of someone else's contract, but it wasn't part of my contract. I gave you what I thought would work based on the drawings. I'm not saying that the example is something a contractor would want to do. I doubt they would be able to stay in business long following that controversial of a business model. However, they could do it and have a legitimate, although tenuous, claim. The Architect will most likely concede something, because they don't want to be the reason the work has stopped or the schedule is delayed or the owner can't occupy the building because the city won't issue the C of O because they don't have the right extinguishers. I've seen contractors try to get change orders for the difference in cost between 18 inch grab bars and 24 inch grab bars before where the drawings showed one and the spec had the other. It didn't work, but it didn't stop them from trying. While it might not be the best business decision, I wouldn't put it past some contractors from trying what I've described above. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 486 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 03:14 pm:    Well, I recall eating a Change Order because our drawings only showed three sides of some exterior columns clad in GFRC. We had to pay to get the fourth side after the question was asked by RFI. As I recall we showed the row of columns in elevation from the front view, and a view of the backsides in an an outward looking elevation. Various other Sections covered one side elevation here and there. But we came up short with one side wall per column. Technical terms to describe their position include poppycock and balderdash, but they held firm. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 117 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 03:28 pm:    Well, the lesson I am getting from this is to pay attention to the details and don't take any document or portion of the project manual lightly, the table of contents included. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1384 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 03:30 pm:    Colin, are you out there Colin? How about a separate category for Change Orders or something to that affect, I really appreciate Steven Bruneel's post, its about time Architect's banned together to offer solutions to the onslaught of contractor tactics to line their pockets at our expense. I remember a book that was published entitled the Contractor's Guide to Change Orders that included a chapter on how to find errors in Architect's drawings and specifications and exploit them. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 913 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 04:29 pm:    For years local CSI chapters have been offering classes about legal implications of Contract Documents, including the Agreement and A201. It seems like mostly Contractors and spec writers show up. Contractors understand the power of the Contract Documents and use it as a stick when dealing with Architects who haven't even read the specs. As long as Architects don't bother to read the specs for their projects or show up and be educated they will continue to have their collective tails handed to them. It's not like the opportunities aren't there to learn. Often they won't listen to those who have taken the time to learn where the trap doors are. I'll never give up trying, but it's a rare pleasure finding people in charge who are receptive. It's the folks in the field who have to live with this that understand and agree. That is one good thing about my new job, most of the folks I'm working under get it and want to get the word out to everyone. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 671 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 06:18 pm:    Jerome, there is a Construction Administration section in this forum that already exists for discussions on this Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1386 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 06:31 pm:    Ahh, you are correct, I just don't have the time to read thru all the posts to find the ones specific to change orders, I'll try a search. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 605 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 08:03 pm:    so, which governs...section number or section title. If i have XX XX XX - Widgets on the TOC and XX XX XY - Widgets on the spec section header, is that grounds for the contractor to say widgets are not part of the contract? there is still an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in contracts. Although unethical and greedy contractors may argue they should get a change order for the widgets, i would suspect a court would find otherwise. The more this conversation progresses, the happier i am i avoid public work! Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 227 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 08:14 pm:    Public work isn't so bad. I really enjoy being able to help design buildings on the campus of my Alma Mater. I've had plenty of private clients with attorneys who didn't know the first thing about construction law and it showed in their edits to my draft of the supplementary conditions. Ten years ago at the CSI Convention in Chicago I attended a session on How the Courts interpret specs, or something like that. The two main takeaways I had from that session were that the courts will typically look at the documents as a whole and determine what is reasonable inferable from them. And, that a list of precedence had never been the basis of an award in a construction claim. I believe that any good construction attorney would be able to convince a court that mis-match section number and/or title was not grounds for a change order. In the original post, the contractor had to cover the cost of something for the section listed, and it would be reasonable to interpret that it was the section with a similar number/title. Maybe I should have gone to law school and defended all these A/E's who don't read their own docs... Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 606 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 08:18 pm:    Curt: In my private projects, 99% involve contractors that wouldn't attempt a change order based on minor typo's. On public projects, where it is a "lowest bid" situation, i suspect there is more room for this type of suspect behavior Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 228 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 08:22 pm:    Robin - True. I guess we are lucky here in Wisconsin because, even though there are a few GC's I'd rather not have on a low bid job, most of them (and the subs) are well above those in other areas of the country as far as ethics are concerned. I've worked on the GC side as well and can speak from experience. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 673 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 08:28 pm:    In Andrew Civitello's "Contractors Guide to Change Orders", Chapter 6 (Prospecting for Change Orders), there is a Change Order Research Checklist. Item 1 under Specifications is: "Does a Specification Section Exist?" and then goes into detail on how to extract a pound of flesh from the Owner for deficient specifications. This book makes me feel dirty just reading it. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1387 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 11:24 pm:    Nathan, that's the book, I wish there was a 3rd edition, the 2nd edition was published in 2002. I bought both editions and both editions have disappeared over the years, probably lent to fellow architects and never returned. I used to recommend this book to my clients, but architects don't read specs, so of course those who bought the book, never read them. When I received the 2nd edition, I recall incorporating much of Mr Civitello's checklist items in my work and there was a time I was going to co author a similar book from the architect's viewpoint, but than reality set in. Mr Civitello has a website to promote CPM, Civitello Project Management, but its more of a marketing site than a share information site. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1388 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2015 - 11:36 pm:    Curt, maybe its all the cheese? I will tell you that I've had great experiences with Contractors born and raised as Cheeseheads, I recall when I worked on my first roof job, the foreman was from Wisconsin, I recall having the best experience working with him and several members of the Contractor's team were from Wisconsin. That was also the job where I fell off the roof (Omni Hotel Mall) onto concrete and wound up with a dislocated shoulder (dislocation No. 2). These guys stabilized my shoulder gave me a pint of bourbon and helped carry me down the stairs. Perhaps this is why I eat cheese everyday, or maybe its because I like cheese...boy has this post got off target, its been a long day, I apologize. Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 10, 2015 - 11:36 am:    You might be right that the argument wouldn't hold up in court with a reasonable judge ... but that assumes the argument will get to court. That's not going to happen. The contractor really only has to argue long enough for the architect to concede something. If that doesn't work, then they just have to convince the owner that the architect made a mistake and that the architect's 'unwillingness to work as a team to resolve the issue' is going to delay the schedule, etc. Contractor wins. Lawyers probably never even get involved. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 487 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 10, 2015 - 01:27 pm:    What I have heard through the years is that although minor typo and name errors will not succeed in court as the basis of a claim, their existence in the documents casts the suspicion that everything else in your documents may be equally full of errors. In other words, the bloodhounds smell blood. Lawyers earn the keep with words, so they are very cognizant about what errors in text can do. For an experiment you could give a lawyer two versions of the same spec. One is factually perfect but full of innocent typos. The other has no typos but you have replaced all the manufacturer names and product names with the names of your pets, all sizes and dimensions have been randomly selected, as are the numbers in any listed ASTM, UL or other reference standard. You know which one they would say to use. Regarding Public Work I have been told by the Project Manager from a county GSA that they definitely preferred perfect clean documents over what ever resulted after the contract closed in the form of design or construction quality. The same GSA in a document review found that on the very last page of the Specification on commissioning of the Security system, which was a sample commissioning form intended to be filled out by hand, that the Security consultant had noted "fill out form with waterproof Sharpy pen". We were informed that the project could not move forward unless we provided 3 equal pens. Also, I remember it was the very last page of the spec book because the was prepared using MF 1997 and the Security consultant used the mythical DIV 17. My favorite Public Work moment was in a meeting for a huge county hospital in San Francisco. All hospitals in California are reviewed by the state agency OSHPD. A newly minted City project manager saw we were using OSHPD to "get" a building permit, and the building permit was very expensive. So they requested that we provide two other equal AHJ's so that the bid could be competitive. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 858 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 10, 2015 - 03:01 pm:    It's interesting that this should be an issue in a group of people who regularly proclaim the four Cs, and insist the information they get from others is accurate and error-free. If you'll accept "just a typo" here, why not in the yield strength of your structural steel? If it isn't right, it's wrong. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 607 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 10, 2015 - 03:56 pm:    Sheldon - I know you know the difference in potential consequences from incorrect yield strength versus a mis-numbering on a TOC. Fortunately, Construction Documents are not required by law to be PERFECT, but if your contract with your clients raises your standard of care to perfection, then, that is your choice. Anon - maybe i should just be very grateful i haven't run across a shady contractor that would try to low-bid a job by excluding something clearly listed on the TOC and included in the project manual on the basis of a typo. I am sure they exist, but, i have been fortunate in my 24+ years doing this. Everyone else...assuming you are all mere mortals and your documents may have the occasional typo or other minor error that doesn't affect cost, or health, safety welfare...any other input on whether ethical contractors really want to track these type of changes through ASI's? Do you issue the change as a narrative, or with a track changed document? Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2026 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 11, 2015 - 10:14 am:    It's been the decision in the last 3 firms I've worked for to reissue documents with the changes shown. (We've been using strike-through and underline). Our reasoning has been that the contractor will toss out the old and insert the new, rather than trying to keep track of the changes. The narrative indicates what documents have changed. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 859 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 11, 2015 - 11:56 am:    Same here, Lynn. It's taken nearly forty years, but at least for construction documents, we're close to paperless. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 277 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 11, 2015 - 02:25 pm:    Robin, For privately bid projects with reasonable parties, I think a short narrative memo stating that Section xx xx xx is really Section xx xx xy should be more than sufficient. The GC with common sense has already redmarked her documents. When I revise sections, I sometimes fix random typos and spacing without telling anyone on these type of projects. - Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, June 11, 2015 - 02:55 pm:    Robin, I generally issue changes as a tracked document. Usually because the typo isn't the only thing that will be getting changed. Also, because I tend to follow one method of issuing revised documents rather than confusing everyone with some changes as a narrative and others as tracked changes. If all the changes to the Project Manual were being done via narrative method, I would issue them that way. Am I being to paranoid when it comes to fixing random typos and spacing when it comes to issued contract documents? I would never revise these things like Lisa describes without tracking them. These are contract documents at this point and if I was a contractor and found out that the architect was changing the contract documents without alerting me to the changes, I would be quite upset. It might only be a typo or spacing this time, but what has been changed previously without my knowledge? What might be changed in the future without my knowledge? ... Thoughts? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 186 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Thursday, June 11, 2015 - 03:00 pm:    Anonymous, the only things I revise without tracking and calling people's attention to them are the deletion of an extra space in a line or the change of a lower-case letter to be an upper-case letter. I don't think you're being paranoid. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 861 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 11, 2015 - 04:33 pm:    Unless, of course, changing from lowercase to uppercase changes it to a defined term. Speaking of letter case, it's too bad CSI set the nasty precedent of over-capitalization, and that specification writers are inconsistent in their use of capitalized words. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2028 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 11, 2015 - 04:43 pm:    Is There A Problem With Capitalization? Seriously, I have been very careful over my career to selectively capitalize words for clarification; i.e., "Drawings" when referring to the Contract Drawings, but not shop drawings. Back to the 4 "C's". And that's the bottom line. We are trying to communicate, after all. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1401 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 02:36 pm:    I've issued corrections to the TOC as part of addenda before, and these days, it would probably be part of an RFI. I've had spec sections sent back because I had too many spaces after the terminating punctuation. This did not show up on an RFI, however. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 397 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2018 - 06:37 pm:    Lately I have been seeing quotation marks misused quite often, even in text I am supposed to include in the specs, "apparently" to add emphasis. Which led me to a pretty nice collection of these... http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/