Design Team Procedures

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

Author Message Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 76 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 01:27 am:    The project manual gives explicit direction to the contractor on how to submit RFI's. Is anybody in the habit of preparing a document for the Architects consultants defining administrative procedures regarding responding to RFI's and submitting sketches attached to RFI's and ASI's? It has been my experience that every office does it differently and in some cases different Architects in the same office have different preferences. Inevitably we spent significant time at the start of CA trying to figure out the unwritten rules. I have seen some projects with complex systems and others with very simple systems that work as good or better. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 88 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 11:16 am:    As a full time CA, I get on the project late in the game compared to the rest of the consultants. Because of this, I have a "Team Introduction Letter" that introduces me, and goes into the submittal and RFI processing proceedures that I will be implementing. This seems to work pretty well. I don't want to be overly controlling on how Consultants identify things like sketches and such. But I give very clear guidelines on what they do with them externally and how they are routed. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 126 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 11:33 am:    Mark, My RFI requirements in my project manuals are for all to read. You may want to include how your firm handles RFIs in your Architect/Consultant agreements to create one unified set or requirements. We do not use other consultants in my line of work (building science specialists in assessment and rehab work). General Contractor is our audience. I call a RFI a "REQUEST FOR INTERPREATAION" as it is described in AIA MasterSpec and CSI Form 13.2A but I swim against the tide because most other people (including in my own office) insist it is a REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. I hear "I have in the business 20 years and never heard the term Request for Interpretation." I respond with, "I have been in this business for 39 years so my experience trumps yours. REQUEST FOR INTERPREATATION will be the acronym of choice as long as I am writing the specs." My project manual rules but the GCs we deal with all use request for information on their forms regardless of what my project manual says and what the GC is told at the precon meeting. Sorry I cannot give you a black and white answer. Wayne Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 245 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 12:04 pm:    This is where the AIA (does not include Arcom's MasterSpec) and CSI differ slightly. The AIA in its documents refer to them as "Requests for Information", whereas CSI uses "Requests for Interpretation". AIA A201 General Conditions states in paragraph 3.2.1 that the if the contractor finds any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies, then he is to report it "promptly to the Architect as a request for information." However, in the same document (Para. 4.2.11 and 4.2.12), it refers to the architect responding to written requests for interpretation. Additionally, AIA's G716 is titled "Request for Information". CSI's PRM/MOP uses "Request for Interpretation" exclusively, referring to A201's use of interpretation by the Architect; it never mentions AIA's G716. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 89 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 12:08 pm:    The G716 is a fairly new document is it not? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 246 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 12:17 pm:    You're correct, it was 2004. However, I think this goes to show how much (or how little) weight CSI carries in AIA's document development process. Was CSI even involved or consulted in the development of this document? Did they refuse to use the word "interpretation" because contractors use "information" in their own documents? Does it really matter? As long as it does what it's suppose to do, and not used as a means of circumventing the contractor's responsibility to review the documents, I don't care what it's called. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 139 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 02:35 pm:    What I don't understand is why AIA thought it necessary to spend the time, effort, and resources to create a document that isn't necessary or needed by the industry. CSI already has an RFI form, that they created back in 1995 when they developed the Certified Construction Contract Administration program. Besides, every (and I do mean every) contractor I've worked with in the past 20 years uses their own form anyway (via ProLog or some other project management software-generated counterpart). Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 370 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 03:08 pm:    The AIA is going to be the AIA come hell or high water. They have "their way" be it right, wrong or indiffernet for others. I'd like to see CSI give testimony in the current AIA document revision cycle [for 2007 editions of documents] strongly advocating the clarification of this issue, particulary by adjusting the A201 language. To me, that truly is service to the professions!!! And I most strongly agree that the contractors contrive and use their own forms no matter what. We kicked this around and I have some language about this all if any one is interested [e-mail me] Leon Ruch, RA, CSI, CCS (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 12:21 pm:    Some of our owners use General Conditions that refer to "Request for Information" so we do use that language, but define the RFI in Div. 01 as limited to interpretations of the documents. Also, we do not use the ASI acronym or the corresponding AIA form, replacing it with OMC - Order for Minor Changes. This is more consistent the A201-1997 which does not refer to an ASI but does state (at 7.4.1) that the Architect "will have authority to order minor changes in the Work ... by written order." Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 372 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 07:03 am:    I CAN RELATE FROM A STRONG AND RELIABLE SOURCE, THAT THE A201 DRAFTING COMMITTEE OF THE AIA IS AWARE[AND THE CHAIR HAS A COPY OF SUGGESTED REVISIONS] OF THE NEED TO ADDRESS RFIs AND THE LANGUAGE AND DEFINTIONS SURROUNDING THEM. THIS GROUP IS NEAR THE END OF THEIR DRAFTING/REVISION EFFORT AND WILL BE GETTING TO THEIR FINAL VETTING SOON. HOPDFULLY YHEY WILL SEE THE NEED FOR THIS CLARIFICATION AND WORK ON IT TO FULLY[!!!!!!] RESOLVE IT. SPREAD YOU COMMENTS AND INFLUENCE-- NOW-- AS YOU CAN AND SEE FIT!!!