Contract Modifications

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

Author Message Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 731 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 06:44 pm:    The CSI Project Resource Manual states that contract modifications are not necessary unless the change affects cost or schedule. I know it has been superseded but I suspect the new document reflects the same bias. This ignores the fact that the IBC and I believe all local codes requires that “…any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents.” Thus there will be instances where cost or schedule are not impacted but that the construction documents that are a part of the contract will have to be reissued thus effectively modifying the contract. Note that the special inspectors are required to base their inspections on the revised construction documents. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 656 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 07:04 pm:    Mark, we generally view that provision to mean that all "Life Safety related changes" shall be submitted and reviewed. Many minor changes occur that do not affect life safety (in the eyes of the licensed professional responsible for the construction administration), so they are not submitted. On projects with IOR's the AHJ often relies on the IOR to determine whether or not something should be submitted (often for schools and hospital work). For most local (city/county) AHJ's, its the architects discretion unless the local agencies field inspector specifically requests it to be submitted. We usually keep a binder (now a website) of all RFI's, ASI's, etc...) for the local field inspector's use. Very few ever look at it. In my experience, relying on the A/E's judgement (and professional liability) for matters such as these is sufficient and proper. After all, we are the one's signing the documents, it should be our judgement. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1301 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 09:10 pm:    Mark, I think you've confused terminology. "Change Orders" are issued if they change the contract time, cost, or both. "Minor Modifications" are issued when there is no change in the contract time or cost. Both are "contract modifications." Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 732 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 11:26 pm:    Ron, The PRM used the term contract modifications The exact wording was: "7.8.2 Contract Modifications Contract modifications are required whenever a change will affect the time or cost. Prior to preparation of a contract modification, the contractor is usually asked to respond to a proposal request or submit a request for proposal, in which the cost of the change and schedule impact is identified. If the A/E is in agreement with the proposed change, cost, and time revisions submitted by the contractor, a change order will be issued. If the A/E is not in agreement with the contractor’s proposal, a change directive may be issued. A change directive directs the contractor to proceed with the work. A change directive may result in a claim later when the contractor is not in agreement with all of the contract terms. Contract modifications are not required when an RFI does not affect cost or time." Has the current CSI document addressed this. Also Refer to 2012 IBC Section 107.4. I interpret this to mean that whenever you modify the construction documents that you must get approval from the building official. Is there a type of contract document that is not a drawing or specification. I am thinking of the situation where paint colors are selected during construction. How do you memorialize these selections without modifying the construction documents? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 733 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 11:48 pm:    Nathan Your rational that building official approval is not required for changes that do not impact life safety is not consistent with the wording of the code. I would assume that changes to the energy conservation requirements while not normally considered as impacting life safety would still require approval by the building official. I am realizing that the building code is a fairly rigid document even if interpreted liberally. Things seem to work because of certain informal unofficial practices. Still I believe that over time we will either have to change our practices or find a way to change the codes, neither of which will be easy. This will only get worse as the codes become more complex. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1302 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 - 11:51 pm:    Well, that was incorrect. It was corrected in the Project Delivery Practice Guide: "13.9.2 Contract Modifications Contract modifications are required whenever a change will modify the contract documents, whether or not the change will affect the time or cost. Change orders are used to modify the contract documents when cost, time, or both are affected. Minor changes in the work are issued when neither time nor cost are affected. Prior to preparation of a change order, the contractor is usually asked to respond to a proposal request or submit a request for proposal, in which the cost of the change and schedule impact is identified. If the A/E is in agreement with the proposed change, cost, and time revisions submitted by the contractor, a change order will be issued. If the A/E is not in agreement with the contractor’s proposal, a change directive may be issued. A change directive directs the contractor to proceed with the work. A change directive may result in a claim later when the contractor is not in agreement with all of the change directive terms. Contract modifications are not required when an RFI does not affect cost or time." Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 734 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - 02:10 am:    So how do you memorialize the selected paint colors, making the contractor responsible for providing those colors without modifying the construction documents? This document wants to be a contract document but not a construction document. A Construction document is what the building official has approved. In the case where the code places limitations on colors if you changed what was specified the construction documents would have to change. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1303 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - 11:07 am:    You have to consider the documents submitted to the building department and the documents that are part of the contract as distinct and separate documents. Not everything submitted to the building department is a contract document and not every contract modification or clarification issued during construction is a change to the construction documents issued to the building department. Using your paint color selection as an example, the specifications may state "as selected by Architect," which was included in both the CDs submitted to the building department and is part of the contract documents. During the submittal process, the architect makes a selection. The selection is memorialized by the submittal process--no contract change and no change to the CDs submitted to the building department. This brings to question all of the building departments that refuse to accept and review specifications. By definition, they are not part of the "approved construction documents" and, thus, can be technically changed by contract modifications ad nauseam without ever having to submit them to the building department--even if they change the life safety aspects of the building. Building code requirements may seem to be very black and white, but there are many shades of gray--50, to be exact ;-). There are times when common sense needs to rule and I'm sure building departments do not want to see dozens of contract modifications that have no influence on the application of the building code or any other code. Speaking of gray requirements, what is considered "a slip-resistant surface"? (2012 IBC Section 1003.4) Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 735 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - 12:46 pm:    While the paint color selection may be an outgrowth of the submittal process suggest that its memorialization should be a different document. The point being that we do not want submittals to be considered as construction documents. The problem with the building departments that refuse to review and approve specifications is one that needs to be addressed. Building officials who refuse to review and approve specifications have in effect modified the code which is something that they cannot unilaterally do. I believe it would be appropriate for CSI to take a formal policy position on this practice as a way of pushing back. Our codes are at times vague to the point of being unenforceable and at other times black and white. At times these requirements are universally ignored because nobody is willing to live with the consequences of compliance. This is an issue that should be talked about more. Regarding slip resistance finishes we have a code and a standard of care problem. Because the provision is vague the void for vagueness legal doctrine would allow the applicant, not the building official, to select essentially any criteria they want. When selecting the criteria the design professional would need to exercise the appropriate standard of care. This decision would be influenced by what others have done or recommended. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 657 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - 01:00 pm:    "The problem with the building departments that refuse to review and approve specifications is one that needs to be addressed. Building officials who refuse to review and approve specifications have in effect modified the code which is something that they cannot unilaterally do. I believe it would be appropriate for CSI to take a formal policy position on this practice as a way of pushing back." Be careful what you wish for. On many projects it is beneficial to the project to issue to the AHJ for inital plan check, then issue to the GC for Bidding on the backcheck. This gives us the benefit of producing the Specs/Project Manual during the plan check phase. If the AHJ's all start requiring the spec up front, our schedules will become even more compressed and quality will go down. (I can't imagine owners accepting a request to push the plan check submittal back a month or so to work on specs if they aren't used to it, can you?) Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 736 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - 04:39 pm:    When you address one problem you often identify another. Suggesting that the project manual be produced during plan check suggests that you don't have a good internal process that allows the manual to be started earlier. in my experience this was possible. Too often we adopt non-optimal strategies when put in a difficult situation and then we attempt to rationalize that strategy as the norm. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 658 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - 04:48 pm:    "...suggests that you don't have a good internal process that allows the manual to be started earlier. in my experience this was possible." LOL, well, while I do have two display monitors on my computer, I am ashamed to admit that I have yet to master the ability to draw with one hand and write specs with the other, while simultaneously attending coordination meetings.... Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 737 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - 05:43 pm:    I was referring to the architectural firm that is managing the project not the individual producing the manual. Other firms manage to submit the specifications along with the drawings. In my experience failures in management and planning too often are compensated for by expecting individuals to work harder and longer. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 108 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Thursday, May 28, 2015 - 09:58 am:    In remembering my CDT, CCS, and CCCA studies, there is a critical difference between the terms "construction documents" and "contract documents." As I recall it, a construction document can be anything from meeting minutes to submittals to a list of measurements penciled on a scrap of paper on the job site. Until a construction document is elevated to contract document status by means of an ASI, change order or construction change directive by either the Owner or the Architect, it can't really be enforced. Please feel free to comment if I am wrong on this. Whether I am right or wrong, several posts above use the terms interchangeably. It is hard to stage, let alone prevail in, a semantic argument while being imprecise with established terms. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 904 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, May 28, 2015 - 10:05 am:    I think you're right David. As I recall from the old Tower graphic, Construction Documents included the whole ball of wax; anything having to do with the project whether included as Procurement Requirements, Contracting Requirements, Specifications, reference drawings, or "other." Contract Documents obviously have a very specific definition, typically based on the Conditions of the Contract. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 109 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Thursday, May 28, 2015 - 10:24 am:    Thanks for chiming in, Ken. This is the stage of a thread when our good friend and mentor, Bob Johnson, would step in and set us straight. Alas, we have to carry on without him now. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 905 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, May 28, 2015 - 10:25 am:    Agreed. I sure do miss him. Hope all is well with you. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 138 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Thursday, May 28, 2015 - 10:40 am:    I am pretty sure that the phrase “Construction Documents” is not used in the AIA general conditions, or in the AIA series of agreements between the Owner and Contractor. However the phrase “Contract Documents” is clearly defined in AIA A201 under 1.1.1, and includes drawings, specifications, addenda, and modifications issued after execution of the contract.. Also within that definition of “Contract Documents” is the definition of “modification” (to stray back to the original subject of this topic) The phrase “contract documents” is used in the Owner/Architect agreement and is a phase of the architect’s services. Within this phase, several deliverables are required from the architect, including drawings and specifications. How to I change this font to Baskerville so you all will believe this? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1304 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 28, 2015 - 11:11 am:    The use of Construction Documents in the context of this thread refers to the IBC definition and requirements. The official documents that are submitted to the building department for permitting are Construction Documents, whether or not they are the exact same documents used for the contract. The Contract Documents may include documents that the building department may never see, as long as they do not alter what was indicated in the Construction Documents. Conversely, there are Construction Documents submitted to the building department that would never be considered a Contract Document, such as fire protection shop drawings and manufacturer's installation instructions. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 738 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, May 28, 2015 - 02:07 pm:    Ron is right. I have been very clear to differentiate between construction documents and contract documents. Meeting minutes and submittals are not construction documents. Although when a portion of the design is delegated to the contractor the resulting drawings and specifications would be submitted to the building official for review, and when approved would be a construction document. Thus if you wish to require the contractor to paint the building certain colors and you did not want to get building department approval you would need to issue a document as a contract document but not a construction doeument. This confusion supports the observation that many design professionals lack a familiarity with the Chapter 1 provisions of the IBC. Note that these provisions are essentially the same for each of the ICC model codes. On a somewhat separate topic there are a number of code provisions that are in conflict with provisions commonly included in the owner contractor agreement. Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, May 28, 2015 - 11:40 am:    'Construction documents' is a pretty broad term that could include many documents not typically considered construction documents as that term is generally used interchangeably with contract documents. As has been pointed out above, this is incorrect. Construction documents are defined by CSI as "the written and graphic documents prepared for communicating the project design for construction and administering the construction contract," (PDPG 11.1.2). A pretty broad definition that could encompass many things. Within that broad definition there are plenty of subcategories of documents including procurement documents, contract documents, record documents, reference drawings, etc. Record documents is the term I think you are looking for. Record documents would include submittals, meeting minutes, etc. documenting some of these minor clarifications or changes like paint colors. Record documents would be considered construction documents, but not necessarily all record documents are contract documents. Record documents can include documents and records kept by the Architect and also by the Contractor. A subset of these documents is defined in the contract as the record documents that are submitted during closeout by the Contractor. This submittal most likely does not include all the record documents that exist for the project. What the AHJ wants to see out of all of these categories and subcategories is beyond me. In my experience it's a moving target. Your best bet is to keep good records and submit what they ask for because they can shut the whole thing down. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1305 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, May 29, 2015 - 10:58 am:    Anon: I don't disagree, but, as I mentioned above, the use of construction documents here is based on the narrowly defined term in the IBC and not CSI's broad term. Yes, any document produced in support of the design and construction of a building would technically be a construction document by CSI definition. However, if the document wasn't submitted to the building department for permitting, then it isn't a construction document by IBC definition. The "meeting minutes and submittals" mentioned by Mark are construction documents according to CSI and many of us in the construction industry, but, in the eyes of the building department, they are not. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 740 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, May 29, 2015 - 03:30 pm:    Calculations and supporting data submitted to the building department is apparently considered to be construction documents by some jurisdictions but this creates problems. These documents are not made available to the Contractor or inspectors and are not a part of the Contract Documents. The problem is that the code requires compliance with the approved construction documents. In this case I assume that only the drawings and specifications approved by the jurisdiction are the construction documents.