"100% CDs"

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 Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: Awhitacre Post Number: 67 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 02:45 pm:    I'm hearing rumors now that by putting "100% Construction Documents" on our sets that we are "promising too much" legally. (some of our contracts have a "100% CD " stage and then also a "Final" stage.) While I'm going to discuss this with our attorney later this month, I thought I would see if there have been comments like this from any other part of the country. If we can't call them "100% Construction Documents" what can we call them? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: Sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 20 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 03:33 pm:    Why do you have to call them anything? Using "50% CD" and other qualifying titles serves to indicate that the documents on which they appear are not final, so the lack of a qualifier should be sufficient to indicate that they are the "real thing". Jo Drummond Senior Member Username: Jo_drummond Post Number: 64 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 04:44 pm:    I just put the project name and location on the sheets, and the date on the cover page. That way, I only have to reprint what is changed from one submittal to another. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: John_regener Post Number: 95 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 04:10 am:    Perhaps they can be called "Complete," "Really Complete," "Finally Complete" and "This time we truly mean they're complete." <g> I agree with Jo Drummond. Date the specs initially and then keep the date unless a Section is revised. I find this helpful when doing submissions for planchecks, "backchecks", bidding and conformed contract sets. These are tied to the increments in my contract for specification writing services; the same could be done internally by an in-house specifier. But I don't add to confusion by putting qualifiers on each page such as "90% CD's". I do indicate "PRELIMINARY - Not for Bidding or Construction" for sets up to what is commonly called "100%" (the set that is submitted for plancheck). This is because the documents are not complete. They have not been reviewed and coordinated by the design team. For plancheck submissions, I believe the specs should not have any indications that they are anything but complete ... no qualifiers. If there are qualifiers, then indicate that in the Table of Contents. By the way, I included the date of all Sections in the Table of Contents. To me, the date is just an identifier, to ensure that the design professionals, construction manager, owner and contractors are using the most current version of the specifications. I too only print Sections that have changed, to suit a particular submission or addendum or change order. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 08:02 am:    I make all my initial submittals as rough drafts; deletions shown as strikeout and key decision points redlined (shaded or color highlighted. I try to not submit a clean copy until we make a street issue. I still have an occasional problem when the client unexpectedly returns for even more changes. I try to discourage this by charging them, but this does not deter them. Current dating becomes the only way to make sure that eveyone is looking at the same thing. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: Doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 40 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 08:59 am:    My stance on the 100% issue is I don’t ever do it. I’m absolutely sure that our documents don’t include each and every little thing absolutely required to complete a construction project (at least in the first “Final” issue.) I’m also sure that a jury would read 100% as meaning 100%. We use phrases like “Bid Issue”, “Construction Issue”, etc. As to dates, I don’t do that either. The official date of each page of the Project Manual is established by the date of issue on the cover/title sheet. Working for a large firm, it seems official “Issue Dates” are always changing, right up to the last minute. Every time I date something, the date changes and I end up having to reprint everything at the last minute. Reissues are always part of an addendum, an ASI, a PR, or some other “Dated” document issue. I don’t date spec pages for those either, but I do identify the “Issue” bottom of each page. An interesting situation has been happening here lately with document identification. We’re doing a couple of significant design-build projects and have begun to identify various spec sections by “Document Issue Number”. The current DI number for each section is shown in the Table Of Contents so it’s a pretty simple matter to determine if the section you’re looking at is the most current. I’m not really sure I like this system but it sure beats having to date, and redate, everything I issue every time I issue it. dhall@hallarch.com (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 06:09 pm:    We commonly use "Released for Construction" to indicate our final, 100%, almost complete drawings. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: Curtn Post Number: 23 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2003 - 08:12 am:    We use "Issued for Bidding and Construction" on our final sets. I can see how a skilled attorney could twist it around to convince a judge/jury, not familiar with construction contract law that the architect had created a higher standard by stating 100% on the documents. Why risk it?