| Author |
Message |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 16
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2005 - 03:49 pm: |    |
Okay, here's a good one.
We have various (and, unfortunately, multiple) consultants who have the propensity, and feel ever so compelled, to write their specifications as clear and intentional divisions of responsibility and subcontract "scopes of work."
I've given them my standard mantra that:
1) Refrain from using terms such as “Mechanical Contractor,” “Electrical Contractor,” Plumbing Contractor,” “Controls Contractor,” “Roofing Contractor,” “Kitchen Equipment Contractor,” “each contractor,” “this contractor,” etc, unless project is specifically being awarded to separate prime contractors with those specific designations. Otherwise, these entities are only subcontractors, performing work under a subcontractor agreement with the Contractor (always capitalized, and omitting the word “General”).
and . . .
2) Since the Contract Documents are addressed to the Contractor, designating or mandating which portion or item of work is to be performed by which trade is not appropriate (and may be in direct conflict with the terms of the General Conditions) and shall be avoided. Similarly, do not use the phrase “Contractor shall.” It is already inherent in the documents.
and . . .
3) Ensure that specifications prepared by consultant are not subcontractor scopes of work or division of responsibility between the various trades and subcontractors. The Contract Documents are to be addressed to the Contractor only. In addition, it is not necessary for consultants to specify subcontractor-specific (like submittals, earthwork, concrete, access doors, painting, etc.) or consultant-specific provisions or items of work, since these items are already fully addressed elsewhere in the Documents.
even put it in writing as an attachment in their Consultant Agreement.
To no avail.
Nonetheless, they still insist that the project will go to he#* in a handbasket if they don't babysit the contractor (alright, I know SOME need it) and tell him exactly who is to do what, where, and when. After all, they've been "doing it that way for years", so therefore it must be correct. Right?
Has anyone had simmilar "discussions" with their consultants? And did you tell them anything in addition to the above to curtail this practice?
Fire away! |
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 156
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 02:21 pm: | |
the word for that in our office is the "we have to teach the general contractor how to be a contractor."
some of those guys just seem to need babysitting. Make sure you have an extra service clause in your contract and bill them for the additional "talk" time. I think fighting it only goes so far, and there is only so much you can do. If you don't have an extra services clause in your contract now, you'll be sure to have one for your next job. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 03:43 pm: | |
David,
Your getting "PRODUCT SPECS" not "CONTRACT SPECS". I am very surprised to see such writing from a CCS. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 21
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 05:09 pm: | |
Anon.:
Actually, I am not, and that's my point. The consultants are NOT sending me product specifications (but should be), they are sending (what they feel need to be) subcontractor scopes of work and divisions of responsibility among the various trades. As mentioned above, items 1), 2), and 3) are included in their subconsultant agreement with us (the Architect). But yet they still see fit to not abide by these provisions (or the principles of CSI Manual of Practice, for that matter).
Again, I was just wondering if anyone else out there has had similar experience, and what they may have done to try to curtail this practice.
And "your" should be 'you're' |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 342
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:54 pm: | |
David,
I review our consultants material at a 'draft' version, usually associated with 75% or permit. I coordinate it with division 1 and duplication with work that should not be in their work like firestoppig and access panels. These are marked up and sent back to them at least 4 days before the printing deadline so they can make correcctions.
That happens again at the final.
We won't publish their work in the project manual until they comply. All have complied - and only twice has it gone to the point that division 15 and 16 became an addendum (though a number of times their general sections ended up as addenda). Of all the consultants over the years in MEP, there have only been 2 that learned and sent me correct edits on the first time with their second project with us. The others that we have used over the years have histories of working with me all the way back into the mid 70's and they still send over their stuff the same way, get it marked up and sent back.
And, the number 1 failure is their writig their work as though they are a separate contract. And writing sections to specific subcontracts rather than tasks. They are marked up and returned - they do change them because they know we won't publish them until they do.
William |
Richard L. Hird P.E. CCS
Senior Member
Username: dick_hird
Post Number: 19
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 08:12 pm: | |
CSI principals notwithstanding, your consultants are providing the Owner more added value than most of the things that specifiers tend to obsess on. The only thing wrong with what they are doing, is when they do it wrong. If it was causing a real problem, I am sure they would stop doing it. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 115
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 12:27 am: | |
"CSI principles" are based on the relationships established by the conditions of the contract; requiring consultants to write specifications that conform to those conditions and Division 1 can hardly be considered "obsessing". As long as things go well, there aren't any problems, and it doesn't matter what terms the consultants use. But when the excrement hits the impeller, the contractors will quickly use every ambiguity they can find to weasel out of their responsibilities. |
Richard L. Hird P.E. CCS
Senior Member
Username: dick_hird
Post Number: 20
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 09:36 pm: | |
Sheldon
Agreed that the contractual relationships are paramount in any agreement under dispute. References to “trades”, “contractors” and “subcontractors” are inappropriate. The professionals that are adding these terms are merely trying to protect the economic interests of their industry suppliers. It is not their job, but no one else is doing anything, so I see no reason to disparage their effort.
I come from a state where by law we have “Mechanical”, “Electrical” and a few other Contractors. It s not a problem for us, so my contention is simply that a awareness of reality will, in routine matters, prevent matters from becoming “in dispute”.
My reference to obsessing has more to do with arguing about how many divisions we have, whether there is a dash or five digits or six digits etc. etc. After 40 years of seeing professional engineers continue to do their own thing, I would think that CSI and AIA would get the message. Not acknowledging trades costs our Owners and our industry money. I am just arguing for more professional responsibility, than bureaucratic defense. |
|
4specs.com Home Page