Stupid Question of the Day

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1563 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 02:10 pm:    The following line is taken from a Summary of Work Spec section, passed down from one job to the next, probably originated with Masterspec: "The Drawings and Specifications are complementary and what is required by any one shall be as binding as if required by all." One What? Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEEDŽ AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 264 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 02:40 pm:    One part, as in any part of either the drawings or specifications. That's a pretty common phrase in my experience. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1564 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 02:45 pm:    Ellis, my client wants me to change it to one "building", the job is a multi-building project, but adding the word "building" just bothers me...its one of those clients that needs an explanation...I think I need sleep, its been a very long week. Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 02:43 pm:    Nope, not from MasterSpec. It is straight from A201 1.2.1 "... The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all ..." Take it out, doesn't ever belong in Div 01. This should always be covered in the General Conditions. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 201 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 02:57 pm:    Oh, boy, don't do that. That might weaken the sentence. AIA A201 uses "The intent of the Contract Documents is to include all items necessary for the proper execution and completion of the Work by the Contractor. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all..." Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 118 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 03:12 pm:    The first architectural firm I worked in had this clause in their supplementary general conditions: "The intent of the Contract Documents is to include all items necessary for the proper execution and completion of the Contractor." This was in the era of cut (with scissors), paste (with glue) and photocopy, and the document was used without change for years. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 172 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 04:02 pm:    Death by scissors and paste -- the unkindest cut of all... Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1565 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 04:31 pm:    Thanks everybody, esp Liz, my client rescinded their request, if only I could put out all today's fires that fast. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2068 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 04:58 pm:    If anything, the word "any" should be removed from the original sentence (in the first post here). That word is part of what's making it confusing and the documents from which the statement is taken do not have the word. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1566 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 05:23 pm:    Damn girl, nice catch, Lynn I thank you for that, now I am going upstairs for a nap. I just got advised the specs on this job are due March 2, yikes, another long night ahead. Dewayne Dean Senior Member Username: ddean Post Number: 7 Registered: 02-2016 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2016 - 05:24 pm:    I agree with Lynn Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 19, 2016 - 12:50 pm:    Well if you aren't going to take it out (and potentially leave a duplication/contradiction with the General Conditions) ... you should also change "Drawings and Specifications" back to "Contract Documents" to match the original. It also makes more sense in the sentence where 'one' is a contract document, not one drawing, or one specification. Do you really want to require the contractor to have to apply what is in the concrete specification to your glazing specification as well. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2069 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 19, 2016 - 03:30 pm:    Good point, anonymous. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1567 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, February 19, 2016 - 04:37 pm:    You all are assuming my job will be constructed with an AIA Contract, not the case in SFL, here anything goes. In fact many times the Architect isn't privy to the Construction Contract until a problem arises. By the way, I did a little DD, this clause has been in over 100 projects, with never a gripe, many of those condo jobs that have been litigated. "The Drawings and Specifications are complementary and what is required by any one shall be as binding as if required by all." Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1568 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, February 19, 2016 - 04:40 pm:    I have deleted the word "any", but I like the remainder of the clause. BTW, anonymous, Contractors seldom read the specs, at least in SFL. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2070 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 19, 2016 - 05:28 pm:    SIGH! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1569 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, February 19, 2016 - 05:41 pm:    Lynn, I would have expected a response like, "Glad I don't write specs in SFL"...its a unique place, lots of fun if you have $$$, not so much fun if you are a spec writer. Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 19, 2016 - 06:03 pm:    Jerome, I'm not sure why you come to the discussion board to ask questions, only to claim that SFL is different and we just don't understand what you're up against. We really are trying to help, if only you would let us. Just because it has been done before and you haven't heard of any issues, doesn't mean 1) that there weren't any issues (you just didn't hear about them), or 2) that there won't be any issues in the future (either in future or past projects). By your own admission, many SFL developers don't want to include specs ... they've probably done it before and haven't had any issues. Does that mean you no longer need to write specifications for any project? As far as you not being privy to the contract ... that's you and your client's loss, not mine. I won't be losing any sleep over it. As a RA and a CCS I would expect you to know better though. How can you coordinate your documents with the contract if you don't know what it says? "Say it once, and in the right place." I must have missed the fine print that excludes SFL from that guiding principle. As for assuming it is an AIA contract. Yes, we have made that assumption. However, the same clause is found nearly identically in EJCDC's General Conditions. Consensus Doc's is different where they specifications govern any discrepancies between the drawings and specs. Lucky for you though, if you are using Consensus Docs, they incorporate an order of precedence that would nullify your statement in Div 01 that drawings and specs are complementary; because the agreement and general conditions take precedence and they say that specs govern. For further reading, here is a link to a Florida construction lawyer's website where you can see the language for the various general conditions I mentioned above: http://www.floridaconstructionlegalupdates.com/construction-contracts-and-your-order-of-precedence-clause/ Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1570 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, February 19, 2016 - 06:47 pm:    Anonymous - who are you, "us" you are not, as far as I know. I am but the specifier, not privy to even my client's contract, usually the architect. I've been doing this successfully for 25 years, not sure how you (whoever you are) can preach to me. As far as SFL being different, if you are a specifier I welcome you to write specs in SFL, at one time there were 10 other independents, most have gone, closed up shop, or joined architectural firms. I've spoken directly to many of my peers, none of them can believe we have 20-80 story buildings under construction in SFL w/o specs. I would call that different. Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 19, 2016 - 07:25 pm:    I am "Us" ... as long as we are going by the defining characteristics that Colin established for users of the forum (so now you know): "This discussion forum is for specifiers, project architects, construction administrators and others on the design side of commercial and institution construction, to include multi-family construction." You don't have to listen to me or agree with me. I'm ok either way. I do find it interesting that you are so quick to dismiss what I say because you don't know me, but Lynn can see my point. Additionally, Liz made nearly an identical statement to my own at the beginning (and you thanked her specifically for it). I don't understand the reluctance you have to listen to me though, simply because I choose to remain anonymous. Can you not take my statements (or any statement) for what it is, regardless of the source? I'm not trying to preach, just trying to help with the questions that you ask. And I can do that, thanks to Colin and the forum. For SFL being different, I'm not trying to argue with that. But when you ask questions in a forum where you know not everyone responding will be from, or practice in, SFL you can expect some opinions that don't fit the differences you might be accustomed to working with. It doesn't mean our answers and opinions won't work, or aren't valid in SFL. Further, I don't believe your intent in asking is to only listen to those who are familiar with SFL construction. If it was, you might be better off going to the peers you mentioned in your last post rather than to the worldwide audience you have access to here. Enjoy the weekend. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 133 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, February 23, 2016 - 11:33 am:    Anonymous, Ha! You just experienced a 4Specs paradox. In certain cases, being helpful and making sense makes for weird results.