Existing Conditions Specification Sec...

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1028 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 04:21 pm:    HAS ANYONE EVER WRITTEN A SPEC SECTION ON EXISTING CONDITIONS? My mistake was sending my client a list of Division 2 spec sections and now they want a spec section included on Existing Conditions. There are partially demolished buildings that several midrise buildings will be built over. The new buildings will be utilizing a portion of the existing foundations. We have already prepared a spec section on demolition and the Structural Engineer will be providing one on Structural Demolition. There is also a spec section in Division 31 on Site Conditions. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 488 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 04:35 pm:    Jerome: "Existing Conditions" is the title of the Division. I have never seen a specification section titled "Existing Conditions" and don't know what would be in it, that would not be better indicated on the drawings or in other sections: Existing construction that is to be demolished, is covered in your Demolition section (or Site Conditions). Additions or renovations to existing construction are covered in the applicable new work sections. Existing construction that is to remain is simply noted on the drawings. If no work is to be done to it, there is no need for a specification section. If your client insists on an "Existing Conditions" section, I'd ask them what they want it to contain, that is not contained in your other sections. It never ceases to amaze, how people who don't understand specifications think they're qualified to tell specifications professionals how to organize and write specifications. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1029 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 04:43 pm:    My client is afraid of unforeseen conditions, I told them its a crap shoot, no matter how much they document existing conditions Murphy's Law will endure and something will be missed. Damn where is that crystal ball, I just had it a few minutes ago. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 121 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 04:49 pm:    Are they trying to transfer the risk of unknown existing site conditions to the contractor? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1030 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 05:02 pm:    Maybe, at least they want the Contractor to take more responsibility for investigation of existing conditions. The site was a Hospital as recently as a few years ago, but since it is on an amazing site with visibility of the surrounding ocean and bay, its being converted into multi million dollar mid rise residences. I might have afforded residence in the hospital but I definitely can't afford residence in its future use. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1740 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 05:13 pm:    Tell them to take good pictures, because that's all that can be guaranteed without digging up everything in site. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 05:45 pm:    Assuming that your client is using an AIA A201 for General Conditions, differing site conditions is addressed in this document. Here is a good, short discussion paper on the topic: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=23caf53c-6e94-43af-9ba6-0b7caf9a5449 Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 489 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, January 10, 2014 - 06:15 pm:    In the AIA Commentary on AIA A201 General Conditions, Section 2.2.3, the document notes, "It is appropriate for the owner to furnish surveys of the site because, as the owner of the land, the owner has the most knowledge of it and control over it....The contractor should be able to rely upon the surveys and not have to duplicate this effort and expense." As Lynn notes, there are no guarantees, and wanting the Contractor to take more responsibility for investigation of existing conditions (with the implication of "Mr. Contractor, you should have done more investigation", if there are any surprises), is a no-win proposition and will not save the owner any money. The contractor will just hide additional money in his bid to cover himself. As usual, there's no free lunch. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 496 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 01:46 pm:    This is something that should be handled in the Agreement between Owner and Contractor as part of the contractual language. I would advise the Owner that this issue is very complicated, but, because it edges into the realm of the Agreement, they should really consult their legal counsel for advise. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 10:00 am:    Is this work to be bid by several contractors or is the Owner going to be negotiating a contract with one GC/CM? I suspect that the Owner has been burned by buried surprises in the past and is hoping to avoid it. I don't think the spec is the place to do it but I can see why an Owner might want to try and uncover things sooner rather than later. I believe the Owner may be in a position to have the GC/CM do some preconstruction site investigation services (for a fee) to verify and document existing conditions so the sub bids can be as accurate as possible. Dave is correct that the Owner should include any existing surveys and drawings as reference documents since they might provide such information but this information is often unavailable or very limited. We do work at one hospital that has a set of their original plans. A 5 story 100 bed hospital when it was first built and the full set of drawings was 4 sheets (18"x24"): dated 1896. Not a lot of information on those plans. The real details of that building died with the builder who constructed it. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1031 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 10:34 am:    The Contractor for the project has been selected and under contract. Foundation work may still be put out to bid. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 681 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 10:44 am:    I'm curious as to what the Contractor has agreed to in terms of existing conditions. Is this a matter of expecting rock or unsuitable soil or is this site one where previous construction has been buried? Is there concern for hazmats? Did the Owner provide sufficient geotech data as Available Information for the Contractor to make some semblance of informed decision? Did the Civil specs identify soils as unclassified so that the Contractor is responsible for whatever rock or unsuitable soils they encounter? Too many variables to really address everything. Are they using A201 or did the Owner come up with their own miracle front end? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1033 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 10:10 am:    Ken, fortunately A201-2007 is being used. As a side note, I had a pleasant, but fiesty conversation with the Structural Engineer, seems my requesting that his office provide a spec section for Selective Structural Demolition was more work than they wanted to provide, using the old we covered it in the drawing notes excuse. It always floors me when I ask an engineer to add a non-typical spec section to their repertoire and subsequent the dance they do.