CMs writing Division 1

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

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: David_axt Post Number: 143 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 12:43 pm:    What do you think about allowing a construction manager to write the Division 1 specifications for the project? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: John_regener Post Number: 93 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, July 25, 2003 - 02:07 pm:    "allowing a construction manager to write the Division 1 specifications". I don't think the architect is in a position to "allow" or "prohibit" the CM from writing Division 1. It's the Owner who makes the decision by giving authority to the CM. When a CM writes Division 1, in my experience, it frequently results in the omission of many important matters from Division 1. But, I have a very comprehensive Division 1 to compare against. When Division 1 doesn't contain detailed requirements for products or quality assurance or temporary facilities or contract closeout, this information must be repeated throughout Divisions 2 through 16. When Division 1 gets garbled up with the General Conditions (which is where the CM or the Owner's legal counsel usually do their thing to make sure the project runs so nobody can't never make no misteaks), then not only Division 1 but the other Divsions get fouled up. I would not be against the idea if the CM was competent. I don't have a problem with CM's writing Division 1 if they have passed CSI's CCS exam, apply the principles and practices of the CSI Manual of Practice "Construction Contract Administration" module, and take responsibility for what they write. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: Wpegues Post Number: 190 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 09:12 pm:    David, As with John, 'allow' is not really here or there - I would advise the owner against letting them write division 1, and for many good reasons like John points out. If the owner insisted, then I would take the an initial position of say let us write it, and the CM can review it and comment on it for input. If he still did not buy into that, then I would state that because Division 1 has many interfaces with the Owner/Architect agreement in it as well as coordination with other divisions, that we would need to review and have our comments incorporated into it. Ultimately if that was declined, we would state that where we might print it for them, we would not bind it into the project manual representing our work, and it would be reflected in our table of contents as "Division 1 - Additional Documents Provided by the Owner's Construction Manager". We do the same if the Owner writes their own general conditions, or if their general conditions are very heavily modified - list it as 'Owner Provided'. If we don't do the work, or if the consultant is unwilling to coordinate or permit coordination with us, then their work does not get bound into the book. Here in DC, one of the current raves is so called 'Design Build' for MEP work on high rise residential projects. I say 'so called' because it is not really true design build - its the Contractor hiring a sub contractor who then says they will do MEP as design build. About all it is is a set of documents that get them through permit and they cut costs by not having any shop drawings of any kind. For those projects, its not in our Project Manual. We just have no Division 15/16, and in our division 1 summary section where we outline other work that the Contractor must do by documents provided by others, we list MEP as a design build contract. William Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: Phil_kabza Post Number: 10 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 09:48 pm:    The definition of General Requirements is routinely misunderstood and confused with Conditions of the Contract. As a specifier for an architectural firm, I have no objection to an owner or owner's CM providing the administrative sections of the General Requirements, provided they do not conflict with our Owner/Architect Agreement (which they usually do). However, drafting the Quality, Product, and Execution sections of the General Requirements constitutes the practice of architecture, for which the design professional of record is responsible under the state licensing statutes. They contain requirements directly related to our ability to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare. So if we have to draw the line in the sand, we indicate that we are producing and publishing those sections, whether or not the owner or CM is also producing them. It usually ends up more cost effective for everyone to give in and let us produce Division 1 from our masters, as William suggests. Jo Drummond New member Username: Jo_drummond Post Number: 59 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 12:02 pm:    Seems to me that the architect should be sure that there is nothing in Division 1 that gives him responsibility outside his contract with the Owner. Other than that, if the Owner wants to save money by getting Division 1 "free" from the CM, as opposed to paying the architect to do it: it's his money, he can spend it as he likes. As long as the architect can protect himself, it's not his concern. If provisions are ommitted, or if conflicts occur, let the Owner and the CM thrash it out. I guess if I were put in this position, I would disclaim, and recommend to the architect (who is my boss) that he disclaim, responsibility for the document and it's contents and it's consequences on the project. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: Curtn Post Number: 21 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 12:48 pm:    Except for those in independent practice, I can't imagine a principle adjusting the fee for the project just because they weren't writing Division 1. So, if anything they are paying for it twice. I believe many principles (unless they are spec writers) don't realize the true impact on producing a project manual caused by various delivery methods and split responsibilty between the owner's separate consultants. Therefore the fee is only adjusted if there are multiple bid packages. We recently had a project where the Owner decided part-way into the project to hire a CM. I was very skeptical of the CM writing the front end, but we reviewed their documents, they accepted our Sections 01330 and 01600, and we discussed some areas that could have caused some conflict. Their front end was suprisingly well done. The project manual clearly delineated responsibilty for portions of the project manual by a notation in the footer, which was explained in the front end. The project is in construction now, so we'll see how it ends up. So-far-so-good. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: David_axt Post Number: 145 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 01:22 pm:    The CM has convinced the Owner to let the CM prepare and charge for Division 1. The CM has also convinced the Owner that the CM's prepared Division 1 better protects the Owner than the Architect's Division 1. So since the CM charges for that service, there is no way the CM is going to let that go of the cash cow. Okay so what happens when there is a problem with Division 1 in the field? Who is held liable? What should I do about my 100 or so sections that refer back and are coordinated with my Division 1 sections? I agree with Phil that preparing Divison 1 specifications is practicing architecture. I wish there was a way to convince the CM and Owner about that fact. I have suggested that the Architect prepare Division 1 and the CM review and revise the documents. That suggestion was rejected. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: Amays Post Number: 17 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 02:40 pm:    Interesting discussion. I have this situation becoming more and more the norm. I am finding that the owners and CMs are becoming more active in writing Division 01. David, to coordinate the specs, you can either have the CM redline your specs and forward you the marks, or request a draft copy of their sections for your use to coordinate as you would with any of the owner's consultants. Another option would be to refer the sections to the separate volume that is prepared by the CM and not the individual sections themselves. I agree with William that we should not include these documents with the documents that the architect prepares. I do the same with D/B sections and my legal counsel in the past has even recommended that we do not even use the same format for drawings or specs. Phil has a very good point that I have come up against with a "big name" client. We insisted that certain sections be included on Quality, Product, Testing and Execution that we authored. While I agree with Jo about protecting yourself against the CM's work, I also feel it is going to be difficult to get any client to sign an indemnification letter since it is also usually part of the Architect's agreement that he execute the contract documents and General Conditions. We do not author the GC. I don't think I have ever worked on a project that did not have a conflict with the GC and Architect's agreement. Of course we never see the executed GC until both parties have signed and many times that is even after construction has started and documents issued. I agree with Curt that the client really is paying twice for the work. I don't know what other firms do, but our firm considers specs part of the CD phase of the contract and does not separate them out. If we were to hire an independent specifier, then those costs would be reinbursed through the client. We have had a client insist we hire a certain independent specifier and he was hired through the owner. As far as our fee, I do not think it was adjusted for that since there would be additional coordination that we would have to do. dhall@hallarch.com (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 06:48 pm:    What I have seen recently is CM's writing the 0 Documents and including Division 1 information. This way, they can try to pretend not to be practicing architecture. The typical information includes schedule requirements, temporary facilities, and contracts. I draw the line at quality, products, and execution issues. The other stuff is not as much concern. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: Phil_kabza Post Number: 11 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 - 08:57 pm:    When an owner hires an architect, they are hiring a design professional licensed under state statutes to perform certain tasks requiring such licensure. We need to do a better job of educating our clients and reminding them that CMs are not allowed to practice architecture, and we are not allowed to do half a job. (Dennis - y'all are gonna kill me for this one) Perhaps the MFETT should look at Division 1 General Requirements from a design discipline standpoint. Should they be reorganized to recognize the essential differences between the administrative sections and those sections that are part of the charge of the design professional? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: David_axt Post Number: 146 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 05:11 pm:    Something that makes the situation worse is that we usually get the CM's Division 1 sections at the 11th hour....the day we go to print. That way we (and our consultants) don't have time to coordinate. It's a house of cards that is going to fall in one day. Dennis Hall (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 06:27 pm:    Phil: I understand, but when the county attorney blessed this proceedure, and I am only a consultant to the Architect-of-Record, there is not a lot that can be done by me. I have advised the Architect and we both know what the answer was. In regard to MF04, we are considering a division in classification of the various parts of Division 0 and classifying Divison 1 as "Admisinstative Requirements" as a seperate sub-grouping of the Specifications. We will NOT discuss who prepares the document or who prepares the various parts of the project manual. It is possible for the owner to prepare an entire set of bidding documents for lawn maintainence using MasterFormat or a non-licensed interior designer to prepare a bidding set of documents for an interior renovation project. This is a slippery slope the MFETT does not need to take. This may be an issue the MOP-EAB should address in regard to projects which require a licensed design professional, but it is not a Classification issue. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: Bunzick Post Number: 118 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 09:13 am:    We actually have had reasonable success with reviews of client general conditions, which sometimes include Division 1. We request their "standard" documents at the time we sign the contract, and review them immediately. We write a detailed item-by-item response to issues we see, usually in the format of "How would you like to address this confict/problem/issue? We could do "X" or "Y", etc." We request that they review the items with their legal counsel. This forces them to respond, and usually they are quite happy to have our input. One client and their attorney even spent a few hours on the phone with us, and the result was an extensive re-write of their general conditions. If they do not want to change various provisions, we are at least on record with our suggestion to review. Oh yes, we include fee for this task as well, becasue our principals recognize the need for it, and build it in.