Edition Dates

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

Author Message Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 30 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 04:33 pm:    I'm curious who includes edition dates for every reference in their specs. I have seen specs, including mine with the statement: "comply with standards in effect as of date of the Contract Documents". I have a client that wants me to include the edition date for every reference, including AWS, ACI, NFPA, SDI, etc. etc. How does everyone else handle edition dates in their specs? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 566 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 06:54 pm:    The first sentence under the References article states: Reference Standards: Current edition at date of Bid. Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 16 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 10:16 pm:    Ditto David's response. If someone were to undertake the task of looking up the dates for the thousands of standards for all their specs and typing them all into the section text of each document, by the time they got finished it would be time to start over again because many would have changed already! Referencing the date of the documents themselves is also legally binding and has far less chance of error. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 43 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 12:56 am:    Some standards are referenced in the building code, thus the date of the standard should be the one referenced in the building code even if it is not the latest. These probably only change every 3 years. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 243 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 06:52 am:    Mark is correct. I saw this condition on several occasions as a code official. Reference documents listed in the building code are mandatory, even if out dated. Often the older versions will have provisions that impose on new work. Newer versions may allow solutions with different technology, BUT one must follow and meet the older version. If you feel that the newer provisions allow for better solutions, an appeal can be taken to solicit a decision that allows use of the more current edition-- but this must be done on a case-by-case basis. Appropriate changes are made during each cycle of code changes, but still during the interval the older versions are the law. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 149 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 08:17 am:    I agree with David and Chris; however, there is, I think, another thread on this point which has more discussion about references to obsolete or superceded standards in building codes. Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 34 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:26 am:    When the SpecLink database was originally being developed, we had to check all the reference standards for accuracy. That meant verifying their actual existence and checking the title and date. Since the masters we were working with were anywhere from 1 to 6 years old, there were a lot of corrections. Then, because we had verified the dates, we decided to make them available to subscribers -- there's an optional check box that will hide the dates in the printed copy. To maintain the dates we built a database of all the standards which we now use to verify each at least twice a year. Now that most organizations have at least their publication lists on the internet it doesn't take long to check. We've found that twice a year will catch the irregularly published ones within a few months of publication. We update ASTM's once a year, based on the 4-volume "ASTM's in Building Codes," because that's the most economical source of ASTM's for most people. (Also, ASTM updates willy-nilly, a virtual blizzard of changes, most of which are editorial.) We also obtain the new standards and compare to the old. Besides the fact that we wanted to do this, we considered the alternative. What happens when a project spec says "comply with current edition as of the date of the bid" and you get into a dispute. Do you mr./ms. specifier actually know which edition that was? Did you have it in your office? Will the authoring organization help you figure that out? ASTM's actually have several dates: the year shown in the designation, the mm/dd/yy date shown in the footnote, and the actual date they were available for purchase, which is not stated anywhere and is usually several months after adoption. And what if the standard you reference is withdrawn, out of print, or abandoned -- do you really want to reference it? The good news is, over the 10 years we've been doing this, we've found that only a small percentage of the 1000 non-ASTM standards referenced in SpecLink are actually updated in any one year; approx 30% of the 700 ASTMs are updated from one year to the next. Of all of those, only a small percentage have any substantial changes that would affect the spec or the execution. Plus, almost none have changed to the detriment of the spec. This is the main reason we continue to update to the most recent. It means that if you reference a more recent edition of most standards than your code does, it won't usually cost more, it will usually get you as good or better, and it won't usually get you less than you thought you were getting. And by referencing the latest edition date, we show that we know that the standard is still valid. I admit that some of the standards referenced in the codes have changed dramatically from one edition to the next -- ASCE 7 (for wind and seismic loads) comes to mind -- but we've found that standards that change substantially change for a good reason (the science is better, or the products available have changed a lot). Only rarely does a revised standard change in an undesirable way. (ASTM is particularly conscientious about this -- completely different requirements are almost always published as completely NEW standards, not as revisions to existing ones.) When ASCE 7 changes fundamentally, would you not want to have the project designed to the new "science"? I'll bet if you asked the code authorities about that one, they would agree. Besides some standards are so fundamental that you absolutely must understand and know which edition you're referring to. On the other hand, in some cases, specifiers need to reference an older version because it's in their local code -- for instance, NFPA 70 is not always immediately adopted by local jurisdictions. Note that with SpecLink, the standards updates can be automatically accepted without affecting any of the rest of the spec. Alternatively, if the specifier wants to review the changes before accepting, the software will highlight all that would be changed for easy identification and comparison. Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 34 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 10:32 am:    The building code is a minimum requirement. The referenced standards are therefore minimum requirements. The design and specifications for buildings often exceed the code. Is specifying a more current code exceeding the code? I believe it is, however, it is not usually my decision; what do you think? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 202 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:01 am:    Not necessarily. Some say that the International Building Code (IBC) is less restrictive that the former Uniform Building Code (UBC) in some areas. Also, state and local jurisdictions typically amend the adopted code to suit their specific needs, and many of these amendments are more restrictive that the original code. I should point out that you can not use a newer building code when an older code has been adopted (i.e. - Using the 2003 IBC in lieu of an adopted 1997 UBC). You could request to use a newer code through the Building Official. However, approval to do so will likely not be forecoming since the building department may not be familiar with the code. On the other hand, you could request the use of a specific provision in a newer code on a case-by-case basis, which I have done on several occasions with moderate success. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 244 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:26 am:    Mr. Crocco, Ron is right. I would just like to add that we must remember that the building code is standing law in the jurisdicition, be it village, town, township, county, city or state. Just as we cannot set the speed limits on roads [we can only violate them!]we cannot "pick and choose" bulding codes. In that, I realize that time is always crucial, but valid needs vis-a-vis the building code can and should be pursued through appeals. The codes always lag technology, due to their change cycle timing, but our clients want and deserve the latest and best. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 567 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 01:30 pm:    This begs the question. Has anyone ever had a serious problem with conflicting reference standard editions? Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 142 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 01:39 pm:    No. Yolanda Lynn Jolley Junior Member Username: lynn_jolley Post Number: 2 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 04:00 am:    David, excellent question. My answer is no. And I'm dying to hear from anyone who's answer is yes. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 245 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 07:20 am:    OK, here goes. As a code official I had several "encounters", the most imposing was a complete ventilation/hood system in the kitchen of a large restaurant [worth about $22,000]that was installed to a newer version of NFPA 96, when the code referenced a version dated some 5 years earlier. My inspector found this situation as did the local fire inspector, who went ballistic. The case was "written up" as a violation since the new technology used was quite different from that required in the earlier version. The case was appealed [which I had no problem with]and resolved by the Board [after due and proper consideration, and added investigation by the mechanical engineer member] allowing the system to remain. The fire inspector is due back from orbit in 2018. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 88 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 06:40 pm:    It seems impracticable both for specifiers and contractors (and even for guide spec firms, as Susan's post above indicates) to keep strictly current on the latest standards. And it seems unrealistic to require contractors to meet standards issued during or even close to the bidding period. Because of this, and since such changes are generally minor, would the following policy be reasonable? Simply omit the dates from individual standards listings, and include an overall provision in Division 1 that the edition used be: 1. The edition adopted by the governing jurisdiction, if any, even if it isn't the latest. 2. If none has been adopted, any edition that was still current at any time within the year preceding the CD issuance date (and, for ASTM standards, any included in an "ASTM Standards in Building Codes" collection that was still current at any time within the year preceding CD issuance). 3. More recent editions than those described above, to the extent that their requirements are equivalent to, or more stringent than, those of the editions described above, and if they are acceptable to governing authorities. Any comments, pro or con? Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 270 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 01:16 pm:    about 2 decades ago, when I was working mostly on GSA and Navy projects, it was required that we (as architects) have a current copy of whatever reference we referenced in our specs -- in the office. On those projects, we always had a budget number for "codes and standards" and kept them in a file cabinet for the project duration. And if I remember correctly the contractor was required to have copies of the same documents at their job site for the project duration. I remember Navy reviewers actually looking through our file cabinet during one of the project reviews. so. having and keeping hard copy standards did happen at some time in my working life and the client was actually willing to pay for that to happen. I am finding that as we migrate over to the IBC and their use of ASTM references instead of the old "UBC Standards" that I get a lot more calls for ASTM references and our subscription is well used in this office. I'm also finding that contractors are more nit-picky about their interpretation of these documents as well. (which I suppose is a nice change from "standard, what standard?") Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 256 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 01:33 pm:    Following is what we have been using and what was the subject of a monograph I did for CSI back 1992; A. Throughout the Building Code, and these specifications, various publications, standards, regulations, etc. have been cited, and are applicable to the work. B. Such documents cited in the Building Code are mandatory in nature, and the dated edition of the document cited therein, must be met. 1. Referenced standards listed directly in the governing regulations have precedence over non-referenced standards, referenced in the Contract Documents, which are recognized in industry for applicability to work. C. Except as modified by the requirements specified herein or the details on the drawings, work included in this Specification shall conform to the applicable provisions of these publications. Applicable standards of construction industry are made a part of contract documents by reference, and have same force and effect as if copied, or published copies directly bound into contract documents. D. Publication Dates: Standards listed in these specifications [other than those listed in governing regulations] shall mean the edition of the standard in effect as of date of the project's bid opening. E. Copies of Standards: Provide where needed for proper performance of the work; obtain directly from publication sources. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 257 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 01:34 pm:    Following is what we have been using and what was the subject of a monograph I did for CSI back in 1992; A. Throughout the Building Code, and these specifications, various publications, standards, regulations, etc. have been cited, and are applicable to the work. B. Such documents cited in the Building Code are mandatory in nature, and the dated edition of the document cited therein, must be met. 1. Referenced standards listed directly in the governing regulations have precedence over non-referenced standards, referenced in the Contract Documents, which are recognized in industry for applicability to work. C. Except as modified by the requirements specified herein or the details on the drawings, work included in this Specification shall conform to the applicable provisions of these publications. Applicable standards of construction industry are made a part of contract documents by reference, and have same force and effect as if copied, or published copies directly bound into contract documents. D. Publication Dates: Standards listed in these specifications [other than those listed in governing regulations] shall mean the edition of the standard in effect as of date of the project's bid opening. E. Copies of Standards: Provide where needed for proper performance of the work; obtain directly from publication sources. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 89 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 04:00 pm:    Ralph, your item "D" is just the kind of requirement that prompted my previous post. How can we reasonably require "the edition...in effect as of date of the project's bid opening"? If bids are due on the same day (or even a day soon after) a new standard becomes effective, is it really even possible (not to mention fair) to require that the bids reflect the new standard's requirements? What this really means is, "Bids are based on revised documents from various sources that may be released at any time up to and including the bid date, but bidders will not be notified as to what those documents are, nor when they have been released (let alone what the revisions are), because even we don't know what they are. It is the bidder's responsibility to verify that every standard referenced is still in effect on the bid date, and if not, to acquire and become familiar with the revised standard, evaluate the effect of its revisions on the work, and reflect the differences in its bid." I realize this is a common (in fact, almost universal) requirement, but that still doesn't mean that it makes any sense... Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 03:04 pm:    With the exception of subparagraph D, I find the rest of this to be woefully unenforceable and confusing. No disrespect intended. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 90 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 04:15 pm:    If all except D are "unenforceable and confusing" and D doesn't make any sense, what then? Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 261 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 05:48 pm:    As a young and inexperienced spec writer, I thought it would be "cool" to include the dates of all the current referenced standards. Boy, was I green and stupid. I soon learned that the approach given me by a wiser spec writer was easiest, more correct, and fairer: the governing date is the date of the contract documents. It freezes those documents in time. After that date, the spec writer/architect/engineer has no control over what the municipality or the standards state. Compliance can only be with what is known as of the date of the writing (unless someone is clairvoyant or has the ability to travel in time - and that ain't me). Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 48 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 02:11 am:    If we try to be pure on this issue we should recognize that in a number of cases, the building code in effect when the project is bid may be different than the code in effect when the permit was issued. This will be the case in a little over a year when California transforms from the UBC to the IBC. Expecting the contractors to know the standards in effect in the building code might be a challange. The exception might be when the Contractor is given some design build responsibilities. Many engineers and architects would be challanged. In spite of the flaws and the possibility that the referenced standards might be at odds with the building code I would be inclined to select a given date. Selecting the date bids are due may make the contractor responsible for compliance with a standard he had no way of reading before the bids were due. If this were the case you might find this language is not enforcable. My preferance would be to select either the date the documents were submitted for building permit or the date the permit was issued. This would increase the possibility that the design professional was aware of what was in the standards and would give the contractor an opportunity to read the standards. Note that when the new standard is more restrictive than the old standard, the new standard is still in compliance with the code Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 205 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 05:21 am:    Yes, that is a distinct possibility. However, once a project is reviewed and permitted under a specific code, then it will be inspected under that same code by the jurisdiction (provided construction starts before the permit expires). Which means, the standards used in the older code would still apply. As an architect, I expect the contractor to be familiar with the building code and the standards referenced in them. I expect the fire protection contractor to install a sprinkler system per NFPA 13, the roofing contractor to know if the system he's providing meets the specified classification per ASTM E 108 or UL 790, the concrete subcontractor to know the specifics of ACI 318, etc. Do I expect the general contractor to know each of these? It would be nice, but, no. As an architect, I rely on my consultants for expertise, as I would expect the GC to rely on his specialty subs. Once a building is permitted under a specific building code, those standards referenced in that code are applicable to the project, even if they've been revised by subsequent editions. The building code establishes which edition (date) of standard is used--there's no need to repeat it in the specification. The documents should state which building code the project was permitted under. For standards not referenced by the building code, but specified in the construction documents, I would agree with Lynn's suggestion: use the date of the construction documents to establish the cut-off date. However, if an A/E uses a standard by specific date, and he/she knew it was superseded by a later edition , then I would definitely include the date in the CDs. I agree there may be times when a standard is revised just a few days before the date of the construction documents unbeknownst to the A/E. This may or may not be a big deal. Most changes that occur in standards are minor in nature (editorial, etc.), and would have very little impact on the application of the standard on a specific project. However, to avoid this potential problem, you can predict (to some degree of accuracy) when a standard is expected to be revised. Most standards, like building codes, are modified on a regular cycle; typically, every three years. So, if the standard you are currently using is dated 2002, I would expect it to be revised this year (2005). You can also contact the organization that developed the standard to see if a revision is in the works, and when it is scheduled for publication. To caveat Mark's final statement, not all new standards are more restrictive, so just because it's newer, doesn't necessarily make it in compliance with the building code. I would check with the building official before using a newer standard than the one referenced in the building code. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 49 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 03:15 pm:    In dealing with the edition dates of standards there are two basic approaches: 1) Establish some simple, but semi arbitrary criteria for defining the applicable editions. We can adjust the criteria to minimize certain types of risks but at the end of the day some of the contractually required standards will be the "wrong" standard. This is the common approach and is workable if we are willing to accept the inherent risks of this approach. 2) If we want to insure that we have clearly defined the "right" standards that comply with the Building Code provisions and the expectations of the design professionals then we need to change our practice. First all design professionals will need to obtain the latest copies of all of the relevant standards and be familiar with those that impact them. Second time will need to be set aside to review which editions of the standards are applicable for each project. Since many design professionals have never read most of these standards the time investment may be considerable. Thirdly we will need to specify the edition dates of the standards in the specification sections. The problem with this approach is that it will require more time and money. Are we willing to accept the risks inherent in the first approach or are we willing to spend the time and money needed to implement the second approach (read higher fees and slightly longer schedules). If we adopt the first approach where we accept the possibility that the "wrong" edition will be referenced, then I believe that that the various strategies mentioned have similar levels of risk.