Issuing change documents

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

Author Message Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1141 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 12:07 pm:    It is our office policy, and I concur, to issue full size sheets and full sections when changes occur to documents that have been published. We are working with a self-titled Construction Manager (at risk), who doesn't want to re-issue any documents "in their entirety", claiming that so doing is detrimental to the sub-contractors because they are bombarded with too much paper. Our stance is that we will issue full documents and a cover page with an explanatory narrative and he can issue what he wishes to the subs. All documents, by the way, are being posted on an FTP site, so no one is obligated to print anything. I have been invited to a teleconference with the Owner tomorrow morning, early, to answer for my stand that we will issue full documents along with the "narrative". One of our concerns is that the single sheet with the changes on it can get lost or misplaced, where the full document is easier to place into the set of documents. What do you do? What do you think is the best way to issue changes? (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 01:00 pm:    Replacement sections for specs with manual changes tracked but not using the method built-into MSWord. We flag the changes in the right margin. It is much easier than creating a narrative in the old school format with the GC cutting and pasting into the project manual. Many changes will repaginate the section (either add a pages or delete a page). You are correct in that no trees are cut down when posted to project web sites and FTP sites. My narrative is simply a cover page to tell the user what is deleted and what is added. Drawings and specs. Ellis C. Whitby, AIA, PE, CSI, LEEDŽ AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 73 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 01:09 pm:    I have no problem with issuing complete drawings or specs, although we often just issue sketches and descriptions (along with the narrative). I usually push for teh "full" issuance when there are a lot of changes or when there have been several smaller previously changes and we want to consolodate all the "old" and "new" changes. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 01:07 pm:    We use the same procedure that your office does. Remember, your obligation [as to what you provide] is to the Owner via that mutual contract, and I would guess you have no such contractual arrangement with the CM. But you need be aware of what the owner must provide to the CM [as agent for the owner, your action needs to match those obligations] If you continue to provide per your office policy, the CM is free to reduce them [in size] if they choose. The pox on them for any adverse ramifications. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 365 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 01:37 pm:    We do both. When using a repository, such as FTP, we create a folder of the most current set, and then we have sub-folders broken down by packages, such as Bulletin 1, Bulletin 2, Bid Increment 3, etc... If you have a change, publish the changed documents in it's own folder, and then also add them in the most current set, removing the existing sheets that have been replaced. The replaced sheets go into an Archive folder. I am of the viewpoint that as architects, we control the instruments of service, so adminstration of the contract documents falls under our scope. We can't garruntee who gets what, obviously, but we can make sure its possible that everyone can get what they need. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 02:00 pm:    One practice that works is to make the changes to the original document (CAD file) and then print out the changed portion on an 8.5x11 or 11x17 with the change clouded and a delta Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1142 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 02:12 pm:    That won't work, as far as I know, on specifications. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1262 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 04:02 pm:    We issue only entire specification sections with track changes. I think this is better because the change isn't floating out there separate from the actual section people will use on the project. Far less likely to be missed during construction. Also, almost all distribution is electronic these days. Our addendum form only includes a list of reissued sections with no indication of what actually changed. (One less place to have an error, plus far more productive.) You can't issue a single page if you use track changes because the pagination changes. We don't normally issue full drawing sheets, but only sketches, though arguably full sheets makes more sense. Production-wise, the changes are made in the model so they are fully incorporated into the electronic files, even though the issue is a sketch. Very minor changes in drawings are made with words in the addendum form. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 03:28 pm:    I strive for complete drawing sheets and full spec sections. Many more trees will be sacrificed to fix the problem of incomplete documents than will be saved by issuing incomplete documents, and as many have noted, we are not always issuing hard copies these days. As some already one pointed out, revisions to the specs often cause repagination. Issuing a single page could result in something down stream being lost if someone robotically just replaced the page in their spec binder. I once had to deal with a "self-titled Construction Manager" whose solution to the above was for us to issue the spec section only from the change forward. Go figure. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 461 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 05:27 pm:    I'm for full altered documents - with specification sections issued showing new text in bold and deleted text in strikeout, along with document tracking info (date, CO number) in footer. Addendum and change order work appears on punch lists more than original requirements because the tracking failed. The cost of handling a couple of files or a few sheets of paper is far less than the cost of redoing work. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2010 - 07:56 pm:    Way back in the days of typewriters....I recall, at least for specs, a detailed "narrative" (for lack of a better word) was issued (e.g., replace words with the following, etc.). Someone did not re-type an entire section to change a few paragraphs. Rhetorically, if that method sufficed then, from a "functional" perspective, then what has time changed in that respect? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1264 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 09:27 am:    The biggest problem with the method Unregistered above describes is that everyone who has a set of contract documents has to go through their set and transcribe each change into their project manual. I remember well doing this with red pencil, or if the text was too long, cutting up the addendum and taping little flaps onto the affected page so you could lift it up to see the text underneath. With revised sections and a 3-hole binder--just take out the old section and insert the new. Much easier and more importantly, more accurate Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1144 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 09:56 am:    Thank you all for your comments. It's good to know that we are not out in left field with our standard of care. The issue actually came down to - are you ready for this? - the CMa requesting separate PDFs, one for the cover "narrative" sheet, and one for all the documents. It seems that the CMa couldn't remove the pages from the single PDF that we sent and didn't want to "scare" the bidders with so much information/change/paper. Sigh. So over an hour of our time was spent on this because he couldn't master the software...unbelievable! I guess the lesson learned is "nothing is foolproof to the sufficiently talented fool" (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 11:20 am:    "Bill 'em, Lynn" [in my best Hawaiian-50 voice] John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1265 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 11:53 am:    Lynn, we use PDF "package" to assemble the project manual items (not drawings). With this type of document, there is a single PDF containing other individual PDFs of each document. It's quite easy that way to separate a single item. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1145 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 12:17 pm:    Thanks, John. That's a good tip. I think our AAs do just that, but I'll make sure that the Project Manager knows it, too. I'm pretty sure that even with the limited PDF software (PDF-Xchange) I have, I could delete pages and save as another document. And if I were doing this all the time, I would have software that could do just about anything to a PDF! I certainly wouldn't be relying on the free version of Adobe...and I'd also be sure that I knew how to use all the features. As the Einstein quote says, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 374 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 12:38 pm:    Sorry for showing as unregistered. My user name and password no longer stick to my postings. I must manually add them each time. I sent the last response to Lynn's post. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1146 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 12:39 pm:    Yeah, I figured it was you, Wayne... (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, November 05, 2010 - 12:34 pm:    Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro will assemble what is called a PDF Portfoilio which is individual PDF files combined into one file, if you catch my drift. This is the format we use. One tip. I learned adding watermarks to every PDF in the portfolio in Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro will bloat a 1 MB portfolio PDF file to over 11 MB. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2010 - 03:08 pm:    Lynn - One thing about the narratives...is it an official/formal part of the "change"? Or do you disclaim it as "not-necessarily-complete-or-all-inclusive"? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 480 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2010 - 05:12 pm:    It is my understanding that a change is not official until a "contract modification" is written and signed by the owner, design professional and contractor (in traditional AIA A201 terms). That is, a Construction Change Directive or a Change Order is executed. Under alternative project delivery methods, involving a construction manager, multiple prime contracts, phased construction ("fast track"), etc., the contract modification documents and applicable administrative procedures will vary. Thus, the "change" documents produced by the design professional and/or others must comply wth the conditions of the contract and Division 01 - General Requirements ... assuming those actually address the matter in practical terms. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 329 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2010 - 05:27 pm:    I have seen the narrative as extra work that does not provide any value. The clouds and deltas associated with the change makes it clear what has changed. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 481 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, November 06, 2010 - 05:28 pm:    I agree with the idea of issuing revised documents rather than a descriptive narrative that describes detailed physical changes to the document. I supplement the revised documents (i.e., spec Sections with revised date in the header or footer) with a brief summary of the changes ("Article 2.2 has been revised in its entirety to specify a dry seal rather than wet seal system;" "Paragraph 2.3.B has been revised to add ACME Widget Co., Inc. as an acceptable manufacturer;" "New Section 49 90 13 - Miscellaneous Stuff has been added.") I have found that this saves time and ensures more accurate specifications when the documents are issued for construction. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1040 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Sunday, November 07, 2010 - 02:45 pm:    I'm with John on procedure. Issuing full revised sections (with margin bars, strike outs, and the like) is the appropriate format -- back in the "old days" we didn't reissue entire sections because we didn't have any way to show changes in a typed version, not because it was better that way. I remember pages and pages of addenda that carefully outlined which words were deleted and which were added, and then cutting out the little lines and pasting them on the blank sheet adjacent to show the changes. What a pain. Its the typed version of clouding the drawings. I also like to issue the narrative as John describes -- for example, if you're reissuing a casework section that changes the casework standard to "custom grade" from "premium grade" you have to change it in the specs at least a dozen times. The narrative neatly sums that up and doesn't give the bidder heartburn. Construction Managers can be a pain in the ass. They generally aren't good enough contractors to make a profit; they don't own buildings like the Owners do (or if they work for the Owner, they are an employee not someone who thinks for themselves); and they don't work on enough projects to know what they are doing on any of them. just my opinion... (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, November 08, 2010 - 10:33 am:    I aggree with John and Anne. The detailed narrative format is a carry over from the days when specs where written with a typewriter. Only the changed text was included by section #, article/paragraph #. For the obvious reasons. Pre-bid addendums and post-bid changes were printed on colored stock for easy identification. GC cut the revised text from the narrative and pasted in the record set of the project manual. When computers came into play for me (1985), I stopped this practice and reissued the complete sections. Usually a change repaginated the entire section. The previous version was saved (electronically and hardcopy) for an audit trail.