Printing consultant's specs.

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

Author Message Jo Drummond, FCSI Senior Member Username: jo_drummond Post Number: 18 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 02:17 pm:    A colleague and I, in Southern California, have been discussing whether it is advisable for independent spec. consultants to print engineering consultants specs. as part of their service. I don't do it. I think there is some responsibility assumed, unnecessarily, if I were to print them. I see things like pages missing, pagination incorrect, resisting the temptation to "fix" stuff that is wrong with them, etc. as reasons not to touch them. I ask for them to be sent to me in paper copy and I generate a table of contents, assemble the manual in the proper order, and deliver it. My colleague prints them. He doesn't see that he incurs any responsibility for so doing. He suggested that we see what others think. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 134 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 02:28 pm:    I'm part of the "don't worry about it crowd" if the spec from the consultant is a real mess I'll ask for help or ask them to print it. Very minor issues (typo/pagination) I fix. Large typos, grammer, etc. I phone log and fix up to the point that the term "mess" is used at which point I punt(see above.) I'm not a lawyer but the "added error” of my erroneous correction has to cause harm How many time have you folks repaginated something and generated a “cause of action” WAIT I’m not saying it could not happen but lets get real! So I vote "no problem" Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 230 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 02:40 pm:    Doesn't this fall in the general range of things on the "Oops a spec revision" thread, below? Maybe there is an old saying that applies-- "They who makes changes are responsible!" Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 136 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 02:58 pm:    We will coordinate specification format with our clients for distribution to the other consultants, in order to have as much visual continuity between sections as possible. However, we will not be responsible for editing or re-formatting other consultants’ specifications that do not conform to this format. Typically, we have our client’s other consultants submit their specifications directly to our client, for incorporation into the Project Manual by our client. Once in a while we have been responsible for assembling all specifications into the project manual. In those cases we insist that the other consultants send us hard copy; we will not print out their electronic files. Part of the reason for this is time--pagination of word-processing files is printer-dependent, and it would mean reviewing each section page by page on the screen. Yes a way around this is to be sent .pdf files; but my fees are not set up to absorb printing costs for other consultants. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 249 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 04:19 pm:    I am FIRMLY in the don't do it camp but not for the liability issues that are often voiced. Printing is an overhead expense and I see absolutely NO reason why my firm (or when I was consulting, my office) should bear that expense for a consultant. For M&E consultants, their stuff is long enough that it could tie up a printer for at least an hour, plus the time it takes for someone to make sure the set is complete. Printing is part of the consulting producing the documents. if the consultant is across the country, then I guess they print early and Fed-Ex the stuff to your office. Julie Brown Intermediate Member Username: jkbrown Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 05:11 pm:    As an independent spec. consultant I do not print consultant's sections. I do not for reasons for liability, time, resources, and it is excluded from my fee. Like Dave, I send the consultants a specification format for them to follow. Although, I also include a letter stating that I require them to send me hard copies for inclusion into the Project Manual. I will then collate the package and update the table of contents. I agree with Anne, there is no reason why I should bear the costs for printing the reams of paper sent electronically by the consultants. Especially MEP. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 135 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 07:17 pm:    I agree with the direction the thread is taking via Dave, Anne, and Julie. Our expertise in specifications should be put to the "highest and best use" principle. We're in short supply, and our time is in short supply. The other consultants have admin staff that can handle printing and shipping. Tomas Mejia Senior Member Username: tmejia Post Number: 22 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 02:24 pm:    We also do not print consultant's sections. We believe that every consultant is responsible for their own work including corrections and printing. We do provide a format sheet, review their sections for format errors and inform the consultants and our clients if format errors are found. We then inform the consultant's to correct their sections and resubmit. We do assemble the package in our office and prepare the Table of Contents. This enables us to present our clients with a complete original Project Manual. Our clients can then make as many copies as they want. Tommy John Carter (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 12:36 pm:    Most of the objections seem to be related to the cost and waste-of-your-time for printing other consultant specifications. I very much disagree that it is a waste of valuable time. I am Jo Drummond's colleague who posed the question, and it was intended to get feedback on the "liability" of printing other consultants work and assembling a ccomplete project manual. Maybe I don't get it. For 4 years now, we have been collecting other consultants specifications (by e-mail), printing the documents, correcting the table of contents, combining these with our sections, and then issuing a paper copy of the COMPLETE project manual. We do not change other consultant files, period; we "amend the filenames so we know who & where it originated, follw that with the "=" sign and leave their original filename intact. Also we include a CD with PDF files of the entire project manual for the architect's archives. And yes, everything gets carefully tracked, all received zip files are archived intact and cataloged, and the printout is carefully checked. During the process the architect is informed as to what we have received, so they tell us when we have received everything. This all gets tracked by email so there is printed documentation of the architect telling us that we're ready to print and assemble the manual. Our architectural clients are very involved in this process, so they know that it's a lot of work and they don't mind paying for this service. Our typical agreement is written such that we make the architect responsible for this service, make them responsible for securing the rights to print and copy other consultant files (some have copyright notices in them), even make them responsible if they fail to print or if the PDFs fail to generate properly. We charge our highest hourly rate and get paid for every minute of our time, including toner, an equipment charge, paper cost, and additional FedEx charges (it's twice as heavy now). As a result of providing this "service", these project manuals are in much better shape than they would be if the architect assembled them! Architects can't even type a table of contents without getting everything all screwed up, including putting the geotec report in the manual...and that's just the start. We originally started doing this because it is obvious that we are the most qualified team member to do this task, and the results will be a more complete and perfect manual; isn't that what we specifiers do?? After I get your responses, I intend to have my attorney write a bulletproof agreement so we can continue to provide this service, but first I need others to pick it apart. Go ahead, take your best shot - let's hear your responses. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 26 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:01 am:    John, what is the problem with having the Geotechnical report posted in the Project Manual? Not all projects have formal Bid Documents, and many projects these days involve multi-prime design consultants. Would you exclude site specific sections because the Owner's Civil Engineer provided them, and not a consultant under the Architect's direct scope of work? Just curious, Nathan Woods Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 39 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 02:11 am:    John Carter has the right idea. Find a task your client would prefer not to do, learn how to do it well, be proactive in managing the risks, and charge enough so that you can make a good profit. You can limit your risks by avoiding certain types of work but you also avoid the potential profit. Owners hire Architects and Engineers as a way to manage their risks. Because of the design professional's special expertise what is risky to his client is in reality not very risky. This difference in perceived risks allows the design professional to charge sufficient fees to offset the clients percieved risk and pocket the difference as profit. The firms who habitually avoid risk will in the long term loose out to the firms that know how to manage risks and charge enough to make a profit. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 232 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 06:19 pm:    Nathan: Including the geotechnical report in the specifications is one of the riskiest things an architect can do. It makes the geotechnical report part of the contract documents and that's not what it's for. It's for design. It can provide information for the contractor to use during bidding and construction but by making it part of the contract documents that the architect prepared, the architect becomes responsible for the content, or so it is argued. It's the owner's dirt and the owner's subsurface conditions. The architect doesn't want any responsibility for conditions under the surface of the site. Therefore, make reference the the geotechnical report (and the site survey and other "information available to the contractor") in the appropriate location in Division 00 and call it just what it is: information provided by the owner. If there is insistence to have the geotechnical report in the "specs", put it in as an appendix in the Project Manual. It's a way to satisfy the owner or CM without making these documents "specifications" produced by the architect. There was a discussion thread previously on this topic; seach for it for additional thoughts. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 28 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 04:47 pm:    John, thank you for your comments. On a "traditional" project, I would fully agree with you. However, more and more often, many of the primary design consultants are not under contract with the Architect. On many of my current projects, consultants not under my scope include Civil, Landscape, Mechanical, Plumbing and Electric (and sometimes, though rarely, Structural). On projects with this contract structure, the architect is paid specific fee to "Coordinate" with the Owner's consultants to facilitate the work. As a result, the Project Manual will include sections from several entities not directly under the Architect's scope. The liabilities under this system are clear contractually, but muddy in application. It is under this contracting method that wrote my question in message #10 above. In this circumstance, the project manual becomes a kit of parts, all prepared directly by the Owner's consultants. The architect is basically only collating them for the Owner, with the added liability of being responsible for knowing (but not creating) what is stated in them. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 40 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 01:24 am:    As a consultant who has worked directly for the Owner and in a more conventional capacity for the Architect I may have a different understanding from Mr. Woods. When the Architect does not directly retain the consultants it is understood that he is not responsible for their technical content. I would still expect that the Architects relationship to the consultants would be essentially the same as if he retained them. When we are hired directly by the Owner we attempt to respect the Architects role and provide support the same as if we were hired by the Architect. With regards to the project manual I would still expect the Architect to take an active role in establishing format conventions and reviewing the technical specification sections with regards to coordination issues. This should be no different from a conventional relationship. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 233 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 03:58 am:    Regarding the geotechnical report and design services by those not under contract with the architect, it all hinges on what "coordinate" means. And that, under the "non-traditional" design services contract arrangement (whereby the owner or CM saves the architect's mark-up on the design services fee ... the part of the fee that supposedly pays for the coordination effort), is where conflicts, omissions and misunderstandings can easily occur. Someone must be in charge of bringing together the diverse design disciplines into an integrated overall design. "Coordination" gets muddled sometimes when considering something like geotechnical investigations and design. The civil engineer uses information and recommendations for preparing the building pad and slopes, including subsurface drainage. The structural engineer uses information and recommendations from the geotechnical report to design the building foundation and paving cross-sections. The landscape architect uses geotechnical information for non-vehicular traffic paving and finish grading. Someone uses geotechnical information for design of retaining walls (which civil and structural engineers now don't want to do). If the architect only is reponsible for "architecture", then who is going to coordinate the design? An unlicensed Construction Manager or program manager? The owner's rep or contracting officer? The solution of course is design-build, where the subcontractors get stuck with coordinating everything. Yeah, sure. Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 140 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 08:09 am:    You know, I think this conversation is interesting. I asked this exact same question (printing consultants specifications) on January 27, 2005 with resulting posts telling me that I was wrong ... with some posters even saying that they corrected grammatical mistakes, etc., in their consultants specifications. I'm glad to see that Jo and others agree with me! Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 09:51 am:    John, I hear you. I too lament the days when the Architect was the Master Builder. Society's erosion of personal responsibility has led to a legal environment that forces design professionals to extravagantly reduce their own involvement.