| Author |
Message |
Vivian Volz
Senior Member
Username: vivianvolz
Post Number: 34
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 06:13 pm: |    |
I've just had a discussion with one of my project architects, whose contractors haven't been distributing the specs to the subcontractors. She asked me to compose a note for our index sheets that says, in simple language, that the specs and the drawings are complementary and the contractor is responsible for both. Our thinking is that it may at least prompt the subs to ask for the specs. I'll share my note, but if anyone else has one, could you share yours? Or other strategies to solve our problem?
Here's ours:
"The Drawings and the Project Manual together describe the Work of this Contract. See the Project Manual for administrative, quality and performance requirements related to these Drawings."
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Vivian |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 102
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 06:31 pm: | |
Mmmm... I believe this is almost a direct quote from AIA A201.
You might also add that subs can find additional product information in the specs not found on the Drawings.
A couple of years ago, we had a jobsite superintendent that claimed his boss would not allow him access to the Project Manual, much less have a copy at the jobsite. Wonder what he did about subs. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 424
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 06:45 pm: | |
Vivan,
Rather than paraphrase, or be somewhat 'different' than what AIA A201 states, I would go to that document and literally use their verbage. Attribution would not be required, but the note on the drawings would be exactly what the general conditions state - and if the owner does not happen to use them or that part of it, then at least it will be there.
Technically, its bad advice to actually do this, but if you have to do it, don't invent it, quote it directly.
William |
Vivian Volz
Senior Member
Username: vivianvolz
Post Number: 35
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 08:10 pm: | |
Hmm. Looking for the phrase in A201 you mean. 1.2.1 says, in part, "The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all..." Is this the one? If not, any chance you could find the one you mean, Peter?
I hear what you're saying about not reinventing the phrase, but depending on how the actual phrase reads, it may not fit our needs.
This doesn't exactly fulfill the request for simple language, and doesn't directly indicate the specs.
But reading A201 in search of this does point out to me that I'm claiming that the Project Manual is a contract document, and that won't always be strictly the case, if it includes bid documents. So I either have to name all the Contract Documents, or I have to change Project Manual to Specifications. [Pulls left hand carefully out of tar baby, only to find it stuck on right hand.]
I'm meeting tomorrow with an officemate about it, and will share the next iteration. |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: markgilligan
Post Number: 20
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 02:03 am: | |
I have been there and believe that these notes will not solve the problem.
If you are trying to protect yourself I suggest that the standard provisions in A201 already do that. If you are trying to make sure that the specifications are being read, all of the notes in the world will not solve the problem.
If you want to change behavior I would suggest that you provide feedback such as:
--Send a letter to the Contractor with a copy to the Owner when you find that the Contractor is not providing the subs with copies of the specifications.
--When you reject a submittal or respond to an RFI point to the appropriate sub-paragraph in the specifications. Do not paraphrase the specifications so they will have to get a copy.
You have to remember that a Contractor that does not provide the subs with specifications is dumb because he then cannot pass along the liability to the subs. When you are dealing with a dumb Contractor these special notes and other strategies will not do any good. In these cases stick close to the Contract Documents, avoiding the tendency to lead them by the hand or paraphrasing provisions in the specifications. You are playing the defensive game so that you and the Owner do not loose when something goes wrong. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 217
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 02:45 am: | |
Vivian:
I suggest that you resolve the matter with the Table of Contents in the Project Manual ("Project Manual" is a term originated by the AIA and not CSI). Segregate the documents using a couple of major headings in the TOC. Forget about MasterFormat 2004 for the moment (i.e., "Procurement Requirements" vs "Bidding Requirements").
First heading: Introductory Documents
Second heading: Bidding Requirements
Third heading: Contract Requirements
Fourth heading: Specifications (Divisions 1 through 16)
Introductory Documents = Title page, Table of Contents, Certifications, Guide to Use of the Project Manual (if you do such a document), and Information Available to Contractor (e.g., geotechnical data, survey).
Bidding Requirements: Advertisement or Invitation to Bid, Instructions to Bidders (e.g., AIA A701 - Instructions to Bidders or custom produced Instructions to Bidders) and Supplementary Instructions to Bidders (i.e., modifications to AIA A701, if AIA electronic documents are not used). Include additional documents regarding Pre-Bid Conference, Bid Form and attachments to the Bid Form.
Contract Requirements: The Agreement form (the "contract"), General Conditions of the Contract (e.g., AIA A201 - General Conditions of the Contract for Construction or Owner's custom General Conditions), Supplementary Conditions of the Contract (i.e., if AIA electronic documents are not used), bond and insurance forms, Schedule of Values, Non-Collusion Affidavit, etc., etc.
Specifications: Division 1 through Division 16 or Division 01 through Division 49.
This way you can refer to the distinct portion of the Project Manual called "Specifications". Let the Owner or Construction Manager or Project Manager take responsibility for the Bidding Requirements and Contract Requirements. Let the architect and the architect's consultants take responsibility of the Specifications. Of course there's a little matter about coordination but, hey, why sweat the "small stuff?" At least it's considered small stuff by most Owners and CMs I've encountered.
By the way, the "Contract Documents" --- simply stated --- are the documents referenced in the Agreement. In the Agreement, the Contract Drawings and the Contract Specifications are identified. The Contract Documents also could include documents not produced by the architect and the architect's consultants but nevertheless are included in the scope of Work under the Contract. Common examples are hazardous materials abatement, signage and graphics, and equipment. These other documents might even be included in the Project Manual as Appendices (something discussed a couple of years ago in a thread on 4specs.com but not indicated in MasterFormat 2004). |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 208
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 08:59 am: | |
Maybe this is a great educational opportunity!
Have a contractor or contractors come into your chapter meeting and explain their rationale for not distributing specs to their subs; and how their projects are built, correctly, when the subs have no information about what to build, with what, and how! [Perhaps this is done solely on a verbal basis!]
Should prove both enlightening and hysterical [as in "panic"] |
David J. Wyatt, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 10:02 am: | |
Right on, Mr. Gilligan!
When we start repeating, paraphrasing, and otherwise re-stating contractual requirements for emphasis in different places there is no end to it. Soon we will be expected to implant sound chips in project manuals to remind contractors to "comply with the Contract."
In one-hundred languages. |
Robert E. Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn
Post Number: 46
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 03:34 pm: | |
Been asked for specs in MP3 format on an iPod yet? |
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, MAI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: melissaaguiar
Post Number: 25
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 03:40 pm: | |
Hmm! Now that is a new one for me. Have you been asked for specs in MP3 or ipod yet? Who would you have as an audio author?
I like James Earl Jones! |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 123
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 03:45 pm: | |
I’m going to be publishing my next major specification with James Earl Jones narrating the specification as an mp3 for the I-pod. It will also be available soon at audible.com.
For large public buildings I like J.E. Jones. For smaller public buildings and larger industrial structures I like Peter Coyote macho but not too much. For sophisticated condos and the like I use Jonathan Pryce (He does the infinity commercials) I think he gives the specs an everyman quality while keeping high-end appeal.
If any of you need any assistance getting top talent for your specs have your people call my people.
PS Melissa, you beat me to the punch! but that's showbiz ;) |
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, MAI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: melissaaguiar
Post Number: 26
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 03:49 pm: | |
Great minds think alike!
JE Jones just brings something to the table, ohhh I don't know, I think he would scare the pants off the contractor, and our project manual would finally be appreciated. Right? Right?
I guess I am only dreaming.
 |
Vivian Volz
Senior Member
Username: vivianvolz
Post Number: 36
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 04:10 pm: | |
I like Patrick Stewart for my audiobook narrator. But the problem with audible.com is you have to decide whether you want your spec to be one 26-hour file with 65 chapter markers, or 65 tracks that vary from 7 to 25 minutes each. With the former, you risk no one being able to find his/her trade's data; with the latter, you risk no one downloading the Division 1 tracks.
While I appreciate the concern about repetition of the contract, and am especially amused by Ralph's idea of embarrasing the contractor with a speaking engagement, I also have the next iteration of the drawing note, which includes the feedback of a principal in my firm who knows what he wants.
On the cover sheet of the drawings and the specs:
"The Contractor is responsible to comply with the combined requirements of the Drawings and the Project Manual."
On the index page for the drawings, after the drawing index:
"The Drawings and the Project Manual together describe the Work of this Project. See the Project Manual for administrative, quality and performance requirements related to these Drawings." Following this note is a list of the MasterFormat divisions.
Further feedback, along with further jesting and jousting, welcome. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 04:34 pm: | |
I'm sure most attorneys would agree, when repeating information:
Underlined font has more legal significance than nonunderlined.
Bold face font has more legal significance than nonbold.
The closer you place data to the front of the Project Manual the more legal significnce it has.
Therefore, if you really have important contract requirements to state, make sure to make them underlined, boldface, and on the first page of the Project Manual. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 146
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 07:08 pm: | |
All parts of the contract are equally important, so be sure to format the entire project manual with all of the emphasizing format you can think of. Don't forget uppercase, and if you can figure out how to make blinking fonts in hardcopy, might as well do that, too.
If location is significant, site work (MF95) or concrete (MF04) must be far more important than electrical (MF95) or process equipment (MF04).  |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 147
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 07:12 pm: | |
Another thought: Use spiral binding, so you can rotate any given part of the project manual to the front. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 122
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 22, 2005 - 09:49 pm: | |
I'm thinking about recording Screamin' Jay Hawkins reciting my Supplementary Conditions, The Manhattan Transfer for Summary of Multiple Contracts, and of course the Electric Light Orchestra will do a great Division 16/26. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 429
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:06 am: | |
I am Mac based, and for years and years we have had built in voice playback of text in any file. Some of the standard voices are rather bizzare - one sounds like an axe murderer on steroids, and I have often thought of just highlight the text of some section under debate and letting it rip. Or, put "RTFS" on a loop and go to the bathroom for about 10 minutes. |
Robert E. Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn
Post Number: 51
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 04:20 pm: | |
As mentioned in another thread, perhaps the best way to arouse interest in the specs (or inform the subs that they even exist) is to include the project manual table of contents on the same drawing sheet as the drawing "index" (ToC). Along with a carefully- but strongly-worded directive to read 'em. Actually, since the subs may not have a complete set, there should be a corresponding standard note on every drawing sheet, perhaps as part of the title block... |
William Wagner
Junior Member
Username: bill_black
Post Number: 2
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:30 am: | |
My drawing note, it works in practice but i am not sure it would stand up legally. The fact I have never had to test it bodes well though:
"Drawings and specifications are complimentary. If discrepancies exist between the drawings, specifications, or the drawings and specifications the contractor will be responsible to provide the highest quality or greatest quanity of work, product, and material as indicated in either the specification or on the drawings."
It was amazing how many more phone call I started to get about the specifications during bidding after we started including this note. |
|
4specs.com Home Page