Printing Engineer's Specifications

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

Author Message Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 108 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 02:23 pm:    I have a question for something that has been bugging me ... The firm I work for is an architectural firm (no in-house engineers). One consulting MEP firm in particular has been sending us final CD specifications via e-mail attachment with the expectation that we will then take the time to print them out and insert them into our final documents before it goes to the printer for bid sets. My take on this is that we are spending our time printing out the documents and using our paper and our toner, etc., etc. I will say that I do not know what our contract says with the engineer (like, does it actually require paper copies), but up until about a year ago, we have always gotten paper copies. I think we should be deducting the time spent on printing everything out from the final bill of any MEP consultant who expects us to serve as their printer and we should charge them a printing cost as well to cover the expense of paper and toner. A lot of times we get the structural sections via e-mail and I don't have a problem with printing those because at the most it's five sections or so. MEP sections are a completely different story because they can be as large or larger in size than the architectural specifications. But, I am curious, are you, who work for architectural only firms, experiencing the same thing? What is your policy? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 89 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 02:30 pm:    I prefer it electronically sent in either MS Word or rich text format. This way I can quickly edit for coordination issues, spelling, grammar, format, etc. I figure that I can do these tasks quicker than playing the back-and-forth hardcopy game until they get it right. To me, a well-coordinated and formatted project manual that is delivered on time is worth the added effort. Yes, it would be a wonderful world if consultants could get it right the first time and delivered a ready-for-print hardcopy. But until that happens, I'll gladly print out a copy. Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 42 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 02:32 pm:    As a specification consultant, my contract with my architect clients is to provide them with e-copies of the final project manual or sections I'm contracted for, to be sent to the printer of their choice. All of my clients, (to my knowledge) provide the files to the printer in lieu of a paper master to print from. If they require a hard (paper) copy for review from me, I have that as an additional charge to the contract. I'm a very small office and have to send the files to the printer for any sizable printing jobs. Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 109 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 02:37 pm:    I don't agree with the editing of consultant's specifications. If we have changes that we feel need to be picked up, we communicate that to the engineer so it can be discussed and they can make the change. I personally think there's a liability issue with making changes to a consultant's documents. I do not want to responsible for a potential claim because we changed something in their specifications, however small and insignificant it may seem. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 90 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 02:46 pm:    I provide a document to each consultant at the beginning of the project called "Specification Guide for Consultants." In there, I explain exactly how I want their specifications and how I want them trasmitted to me. I also VERY CLEARLY explain that I may modify their sections under the following conditions: a. Any changes made will affect only the format, the way the content is presented, or to correct spelling or grammatical errors. b. Changes WILL NOT be made to technical requirements unless expressly approved by the consultant who authored the section. c. Major format changes required on a specification section will be annotated and returned to the consultant for correction. Changing a spelling error, a grammatical error, or modifiying the format (i.e. paragraph number, bold text, etc.) should not bring upon any additional liability for the architect. I have not had any problems with a consultant about having to change something (Actually, they're quite receptive since they don't have to do it). Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 110 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 02:53 pm:    Margaret: When we have used a spec consultant to help out during crunch times (preparing architectural specifications), his contract and what we pay for is to have an electronic copy so we have something to archive when it comes time to do that and a hard copy to use as an original. He also has a small office but it doesn't seem to be a hardship for him to provide the hard copy. Our printer gets a hard copy project manual to use for printing the bid sets. Margaret G. Chewning CSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 43 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 03:01 pm:    Hi Tracy, It's not a hardship to send the spec sections out to the printer for hardcopy, we just find it to be more expedient to have the A/E print them for many reasons. 1. He usually has a more heavy duty printer if done in-house, and 2. it costs him more when I send them out to print. Either way he pays for the printing, only difference is whose pocket it comes out of first. And this way works for us. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 03:16 pm:    I also like to get the electronic documents. My spec standards document specifically tells them not to include anything about firestopping or access doors (except duct access doors) in their sections. How many heed the standard? NONE! So, I usually get Mechanical General with firestopping, Electrical General with firestopping, piping with firestopping and then the telecommunication consultant also includes firestopping. It is much easier for me to delete the offending articles rather than have a lengthy discussion which will have absolutely no effect on their spec production, because they will use the same masters for the next project. It is aggravating, isn't it? David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 44 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 03:40 pm:    I agree with Ronald that you should provide your consultants with a guide that includes the requirements for deliverables. I include a provision in my consultant agreement requiring the Architect to notify the consultants of their obligation to conform to the principles of MasterFormat, coordinate with Division 01, and make a good faith effort to match font style, header/footer, margins, and 3-part Section format per my sample page layout. Most of my Architect clients send PDF files of specifications to their outside printer for printing and distribution. It is my assumption that they bill the Owner for this cost. This seems to work well because the Project Manuals that I have received for reference are properly printed with all sections starting on the right hand page. Having all the consultant sections in electronic format would appear to be an advantage. On many projects, the Architect forwards the consultant sections to me to extract the titles and number of pages for the Table of Contents. On some prestige projects, I am asked to update the headers and footers and tweak the formatting (e.g., font type and size) to match my page style. No editing of technical content is done. Many of my projects are negotiated or design-build, and the builders are requesting a copy of the PDF files for internal use during pricing and construction. Other advantages of providing electronic files are quicker delivery when working at a distance, providing data that can be burned to a CD for archiving, and color coding text that would be lost when printing on paper. Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 111 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 04:16 pm:    Apparently I am in the minority. We do provide our consultants with a format guide to follow and, for the most part, they do follow it. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 91 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 04:19 pm:    What threats,...um, I mean, what "incentives" do you use to get them to follow your guide? Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 41 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 04:34 pm:    For some of our projects, we take the consultant's e-specs, convert them to locked PDFs, and upload them to our FTP site where anyone with the password can view, download, or print what they need. That can save tens of thousands of dollars and a couple of trees. David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 45 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 04:57 pm:    Richard makes a good point. Having a FTP site for project documents is a big convenience for distributing the final PDF files, but it would be even better if they provided a site to store the original electronic files during the development phase. Not all firms are willing to do this. Sometimes they have a site, but do not allow outside consultants to access it. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 159 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 06:14 pm:    When I started with this firm, we used to get consultant files electronically, and I put a stop to that immediately. Two reasons: 1) the (fake reason):"your electronic files could be corrupted and we would never know. 2) the (real) reason: it is an overhead expense to print and format electronic files and this should be borne by the consultant. I've heard complaints because hard copy files have to be overnighted to our office, but I consider that to be a cost of doing business, and a $20 delivery fee is not much in a $50,000 (or more) consultant contract. If there are very last minute changes, I will make an exception occassionally and print out ONE section for a consultant. Some years ago, I was a spec consultant to a national organization and they had hired about 10 other consultants and said that they could send me electronic files. some of the software used for those files was so arcane (I'm thinking of the hardware consultant here) that it cost me hundreds of dollars to have the software translated at Kinkos and printed. I had a hefty fee on that project, but I spent literally hundreds of hours (it was 238 hours, if I remember correctly) translating files and formatting them so that I could provide the Owner with a CD that had all the files on it. After that, I specified file format and hard copy. Our hardware consultants now use some file format that does not translate well if we get it electronically and I can easily spend a whole day formatting and printing a large hardware schedule -- or I can get it from them in hardcopy and give it to the printer. If you are requested by the Owner to print electronic files, I would suggest having a line item for that time and cost so that they can see just what it is costing them to "convenience" their consultants. Brett M. Wilbur Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 17 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 06:55 pm:    Seems like it really is a matter of agreement. What does your consultant agreement say about reimbursible expenses? What about your agreement with the client? Equally important it seems, are the consultants sending you stamped and signed documents? Do you allow electronic seals, or does your area require wet stamps? We ask for hard copies and an electorinc copy back-up. I don't like editing consultant specs or drawings. I don't want the assumed liability, real or not. We ask them to make all their own edits. I also let them have a sample of our spec so they can format beforehand. I also require they get me specs a day before they actually go out (two days depending on the consultant) and then hope to get them the day of issue. Most of the time that works and there is some time to allow for their editing if required. Then they email me the specific section and I replace it in the originals. The electroinc copy is for our record. We really want to move towards paperless archiving, but it is a paradigm shift in a big way. Our spec department has a recycle bin that is full before anyone else. We "burn" a ton of paper. We use Planwell here in Houston. It works great. However, we do get a large deposit of originals sent back to us which we really have no use for anymore once they are scanned and put on file at the blueprinters. Thought for another thread: "Top 10 things to do with original specs after digitizing..." David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 413 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 07:29 pm:    I request hard copy originals an electronic copy of the consultants spec sections for archive and filing. This is the exact same procedure that we ask the consultants to do for the drawings. Why should the procedure for the specs be any different? Our admin staff will occasionally make a minor correction to a consultants specification section. Usually this correction is at the last minute and is minor. For example the footer does not agree with the section title. With any major corrections, the consultant is notified and a new corrected section is sent. Sometimes it is only sent electronically. The teams try to give the consultants an early deadline in order to have time to review and coordinate their documents. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 95 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 09:33 am:    Amazing. I refuse to accept electronic specs from consultants as a general rule (there are always a few exceptions). Like most of you, I don’t have the time, or the desire, to open and print a bunch of spec sections at the last minute. I’m sure some of the pages would break differently on my printer too and that could throw page count off. I too send a document to all consultants at the start of a project with basic format and coordination instructions. We then require, and usually get, copies (hard copies) of consultant specs as part of our 95% QC review process a couple of weeks prior to issue. I go through their specs carefully at that time and mark them up as necessary and return to them for corrections. I’m amazed that some of you actually make changes to consultant documents yourselves; even minor ones. There’s no way I would accept that potential liability. My favorite story was receiving an electronic spec section from a consultant that was “Password Protected”. I couldn’t open it, or print it! Tom Peck Advanced Member Username: tom_peck_csi Post Number: 5 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:10 am:    A caveat to printing consultant's specifications: To this point, we've usually received electronic copies of consultant's specifications ... this had worked out well, and allowed us to do, if necessary, the minor editing noted above. As long as we don't have to open each section to print them (which we do thru the desktop), it goes quickly ... we would still do a cursory review to ensure the we don't have any empty pages, etc. We just had a situation where we recieved electronic copies of the consultant's specifications, which included a spreadsheet of fixtures and equipment. Unfortunately, we were not aware of the spreadsheet having several worksheets so we did not print all of the worksheets. The consultant never reviewed the spec after they received their copy. Needless to say, the project was bid, no mention was made by bidders that the notes for the schedules were missing, and only now, several months into the project, was it finally discovered that these were missing. We'll have to see how this develops with the contractor, but we have now disscussed that any spreadsheets included with spec sections will need to be redone on one worksheet (schedules and notes together) or we will need to get .pdf's of spreadsheets. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 92 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:16 am:    From Doug: "I’m amazed that some of you actually make changes to consultant documents yourselves; even minor ones. There’s no way I would accept that potential liability." I don't see how making a minor change can add SO MUCH liability. How many architects (or specification writers) have been sued for changing something like "befor" to "before," or renumbering paragraphs because the consultant had two subparagraphs numbered "3"? To me its not worth my time writing a lengthy "correction list" or marking up documents and then preparing the transmittal back to the consultant for corrections. As professional specification writers, I think we all know where that line is between simple corrections to manipulation of content. I would never change a specified product, installation procedure, etc. Every consultant gets an electronic copy of what was included in the manual. Usually, this is done at the DD submission, so they have plenty of opportunity to change anything they want during the CD phase. After CD's, if they have a problem with it, then we'll issue a correction in the next addendum (there're always addenda). Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 96 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:45 am:    I don't want to start a long harangue here,, however; I don’t create a lengthy Correction List; just redline their hard copy and send it back to them. Takes a whole lot less of my time than were I to make the corrections myself. What happens when you change the second paragraph #3 to #4, and in other locations in the Consultant's specs, there are references to that paragraph #3 (the one you changed to #4)? Sure there would have been a question raised if you hadn't changed it, but now it could just be wrong. Renumbering paragraphs is "manipulation of content". And frankly, if I may speak frankly, who cares if "befor" is mis-spelled? I never concern myself with trivial stuff like that. Tomas Mejia Senior Member Username: tmejia Post Number: 15 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 01:31 pm:    In our office we require every Consultant be responsible for their own sections including printing and corrections. We also send out a format sheet and request hard copy and electronic format. We also request that the Consultants send us hard copy 1 week before we submit to allow us time to review their work for format only. Why should we waste our time doing their work. Aren't specs part of their agreement with the Architect? We do occassionly print a Consultants section and make minor corrections with their prior approval. Keeping the Architects informed about the quality and timeliness of their Consultant's work is key. Does the quality of their specs reflect on the quality of their Drawings? Tommy Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 93 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 01:47 pm:    Doug: No hard feelings. I guess we'll agree to disagree. Maybe a new thread on the subject?... Anonymous   Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 04:08 pm:    I too refuse to accept electronic copies of any consutant's spec sections for all of the reasons posted, for the most part. But I have worked with many spec writers that, amazingly, not only will do this, but REQUEST it. I am not that anal retentive. If consultants have mistakes in their sections, that's their problem, not mine. If the formatting looks a little different - they haven't followed the instructions sent, no biggie - life is too short. I have neither the time, the expertise, nor the desire to do any editing of consultant's specs. One poster mentions that architects typically ask for electronic copies of consultants drawings, so why should specs be any different? Does that poster's firm also "edit" those drawings??? Reformat? I doubt it. Editing a consultant's specs, being responsible for their electronic lives during the whole process is absolutely a liability issue and for those that cannot appreciate that, god bless ya. David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 46 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 11:11 am:    An observation. Shouldn't we be doing what is in the best interests of the Owner and, as an extension, the general public? The time it takes to do the project in the best way possible is inversely relative to time lost by problems that may arise later. We all have a different perspective on what the priorities are. Some of us may be more loyal to our firm and want to maximize profits. Some of us may use our work as a reflection of our image and want to attract more business. In no way do we intend to lower the quality of our work. As with many other aspects of preparing specifications, what works for one may not work for another. Sharing ideas on this forum shows the many solutions to essentially the same problem. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 340 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:06 pm:    Dave, Sure, that's a great concept - and it would work all the time if everyone did that. But it does not work out that way all the time. So, no, I don't accept electronic files in any form from any consultant. Now, being an internal specifier, this is another one where I believe an independent specifier may take a totally different point, or not have the leverage with the architect to get the contract the way they way they really want it. I don't take files from consultants for more than 1 reason. 1, even word to word on 2 different configured systems, you can set the options and preferences up so that if someone uses on a different cofigured system opens it up, some things can just disappear. super/subscripted fractions are notorious for this, and any other special keyed character. I won't take pdf files, because they may not print out correctly for my printer. I don't have time to do the consultants work for him. He is required to deliver us paper printouts, and it is required to be present in the draft spec where it is reviewed and corrections required before printing, and in the final the same. Those sending us paper printouts are required to have their specs in our office 5 days before they go out to print. I review them immediately for any required corrections which I markup and send back to them that same day. Structural, due to terminology requirements, they edit on or masters. Landscaping is encouraged to edit our masters, but I will let them write their own. MEP writes teir own. I send them a specific page layout both in description and in an example section. I am not going to make small edits in their work, that is their responsibility. Like their drawings. I do however read them at the time of the draft and cull through all the aesthetic issues in their sections to assure that the architect really intended to have those ivory switch handles and plug faces in plastic device plattes in that stainless steel and stone featured lobby - among the other kinds of things I check. This is beyond the coordination of Division 1 and other sections like firestopping and access panels that I markup. There are lots of items that end up needing change because no one ever asked and the engineers have just let their masters go with their default. William J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 37 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 11:51 am:    I would like to have both paper and .pdf files from our consultants. We will occasionally ship .pdf files off to the printer, but these are more for our archiving convenience in-house. I typically ship the hard copy to the printer. About the only coordination item I have time for is to make sure that what the consultants think they are sending (as listed on a TOC or transmittal) is what they actually sent (the hard copy sections). If I do get word processing documents and I have the time, I will quickly scan those documents for format (like pagination). I do not make substantive changes in consultants documents without their approval. I like having the .pdf files for final output because they are not as dependent on drivers and printers for format (like pagination). I am having trouble with our project managers buying into the idea of coordinating consultants' specifications. It gets so bad sometimes that we have job names and numbers for several different projects included in what we get from the consultants. I have gotten to the point where if the documents vaguely resemble ours, I regard them as coordinated. Mark Gilligan SE (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 01:52 am:    I note that this discussion lacks input from consultants who work with Architects. I am a Structural Engineer and a long time member of CSI who regularly prepares project specifications. I have always attempted to be responsive to the requests of our client even when they cause us difficulties. We jump through hoops to comply with the clients requests, without extra charge, even though they were not documented at the time the contract was signed. When requested we work with the Architect to edit their master even when it would be quicker and technically better to use our in-house masters. I will suggest several reasons for the problems noted. 1) Many consultants have no training in specification writing. CSI seems to make no effort to try to educate engineers and other consultants. 2) Every Architect has a different way of doing things and different formatting requirements. It would be nice if all of our clients would adhere to the CSI Section and Page Formats. 3) We typically hear about the formatting requirements late in the project thus giving us less time to deal with editing the specifications. 4) We seldom see the General Conditions or Division 1 documents until the project has been submitted for permit. If we looked at this rationally and engaged the consultants in the dialog I am sure we would create a situation that made both of our lives easier. If there was more consistency in what was expected there would be fewer problems of the types mentioned above. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 343 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 04:02 pm:    Mrak, For my part, structural engineers have always been the most responsive and flexible. Indeed, we do require that our structural masters be edited for any project that we do rather than use the structural engineers sections. That has to do with the internal coordination and cross referencing we do. We also have a more developed finishes section, espcially related to slab finishes which the structual engineers typically defer totally to our preferences. In addition, for all our projects we separate out into a separate section all "Owner's Testing and Inspection" requirements. This is for 2 reasons. One, it makes it easy to distiguish what the contrctor is testing and paying for even if they must hire an independent service and that which the owner is paying for and having tested. Two, it makes it easy for the Owher to take those sections and know what his testing service is going to provide and base his fees on. I have yet to see a structural master that does this - and many of the project specifications that I have seen from others don't do this either. But, the primary point that we make to the engineer is that he feel totally comfortable with the sections. If he does not like a particular paragraph, he can edit it, or send us a copy of his own marked for inserts, and we will accomodate them. Actually, if we don't use that to simply update our master, we put the different engineers paragraphs in as alternate choices during the editing process. Next time around, its there as a choice or simply incorporated. From time to time we also encounter a totally new topic which we do not have covered in any master. In those cases, we ask for the consultant to provide us with their own master edited, and electronic copiy. This I reformat into our system - not just page layout, but location of information, cross references to other sections. If he permits, we make it part of our master. If he does not, then we retain it with a specific notation that this master will only be used with the specific structural engineer. To date, most don't mind its being incorporated. Our editing process starts with our sending out masters out to the structural engineer 3 weeks before we would like to see them, 4 weeks before we absolutely have to have them. This goes out at Permit time as a review draft - where eveyrone gets to see the state of the project manual. This is typically 4 to 8 weeks to the final issue. So, the engineer gets to see how his edits were implemented, and to make changes before the final. As to your points you raise... 1 - I agree for the most part. There always seems to be great talk about this, and there are programs for it - but nothing at Institute level ever seems to be really done. All that is done is passive for the most part, not active. Chapters are encouraged to be active, but there is not much that most chapters can actually do, they don't have the resources or the manpower. Having been on the national board of directors of another association several years ago, I watched as out of nowhere at the annual meeting the at that time CSI President and CSI Executive Director both made presentations about CSI. There was no real coordination, there was certainly no follow up. Both of them knew I was on that board and had not contacted me in advance. I made sure they were aware I was there and asked if there was anything I could do to assist. Nothing. Frankly, it was as ineffective as a product rep making an inperson cold call at my office where I have never heard of him or his product and typically don't even use the system - just drop off literature and depart. I think that CSI does connect with some associations more efficiently and consistently, but I don't think its often. Certainly chapters and members are not informed of how they could get out and assist. 2 - This is not likely to happen now, or in the future. There actually is considerable leeway in the page format (section format is more defined). Font, margins, headers, footers, spacing between paragraphs, use of bold (or not) and other styles, those are free for choice. We take great effort to give our clients (owner's) a product that is visually easy to use ultimately for their facility management as well as for the contractor during construction. Our project manuals are actually a marketing tool. 3 - That's always unfortunate - but its one thing I refuse to permit. When we have a consultant that has their own master that are being used (MEP), if someone wants to suddenly change the date in the last week of production I tell them that though I can make the change easily enough, they need to see the consultants - make sure they can do it, and will it be a cost. But in many offices the production of the project manual does not have that kind of input or control. 4 - This seems to be the most common error of architectural firms. Actually, for some of the Division 1 and the conditions are the last thing they actually do. I think its about the dumbest thing. Now, if you have consultants that are familiar with you, that's something else. But even then I think every consultant deserves to see this for every project no matter how typical. There are always elements that are different from project to project. Maybe we should work together some time -grin! William John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 324 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 08:45 am:    Though this topic seems to be veering off the original post, I'll contiue along. The first thing I do is get the general conditions togther, and make a rough edit of Division 1. These get sent to the consultant along with a memo which explains requirements for coordination and format. I offer to edit Division 1 to suit an engineer's needs if they'd like (no one ever does). This solves many of the coordination problems early on. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 03:02 pm:    "I’m amazed that some of you actually make changes to consultant documents yourselves; even minor ones. There’s no way I would accept that potential liability." Does this apply when you get sections that have: PART 2 TESTING? Wouldn't you want to revise that?