| Author |
Message |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 110
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 05:21 pm: |    |
Our firm has offices in the US and in Canada. We are currently reviewing our front end documents, and this is my first experience with the CCDC 2 “Stipulated price contract”.
In reviewing the CCDC 2, we noted that paragraph GC 1.1.3 states “The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by any one shall be as binding as if required by all.” That language sounds very much like what we are used to with the AIA A201, but while AIA and the PRM go to great lengths to avoid setting up a precedence of documents, the CCDC 2 at the bottom of the same page sets up a very rigorous priority of documents order (paragraph 1.1.9). So, for any of you who have done work in both Canada and the US…
Question #1: Do you leave the order of priority in for Canadian work and operate with a dual standard for your practice, or do you remove it to standardize with US practice?
Question #2: The PRM implies that it is the standard for the construction industry in North America. How many other procedural discrepancies are there between practice in the two countries, and is there a good source that enumerates them?
By the way, I have read these previous discussions:
PRM Competitor? which is a discussion of a Canadian alternative to the PRM
If there is a conflict… which lists the CCDC precedence order, but is mostly a discussion of the US viewpoint. |
Curt Norton, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: curtn
Post Number: 105
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 05:35 pm: | |
I would say you don't change anything in the general conditions unless you are directed to do so by the Owner. Having said that, it never hurts to raise the question with the owner and your firm's legal counsel. Are you using an AIA owner-A/E contract? |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 66
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 07:38 pm: | |
My office's standard practice is to require the contractor to bring the conflict to the attention of the architect for interpretation. There is no priority order. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 99
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 - 08:56 pm: | |
George,
Our Canadian offices use CCDC 2 with GC 1.1.3 and GC 1.1.9 unaltered. It is accepted practice in the lower main land of BC and in Alberta.
The US has a different viewpoint but when in Rome do as the Romans do.
Specifiers should not play lawyer and write supplementary conditions. Leave the final decision up to the Owners and their legal council.
I agree with Curt's "don't change anything".
I write documents for the US marketplace using US standards and practices and avoid the language of priorities, but my Canadian counterparts use the Canadian standards of practice, notwithstanding the PRM is a joint CSI/CSC document. CSI and CSC also use differing page formats.
CCDC2 current verison has been this way since 1994 and I cannot remember what it was in the pervious edition but I assume the priorities language has always been included.
To go along with some adminstrative and procedural differences, terminology also differs vastly in some areas. Tender versus bid; hoarding versus site fencing; metric units versus inch/pound units of measure; bid depositry system for trade jurisdictions such as the Alberta Construction Tendering System (ACTS). Not all NA standards are harmonized like the way AAMA is going.
That is all I have say about that.
Wayne |
Gary L. Beimers, FCSI, CDT, CSC
Senior Member
Username: gbeimers
Post Number: 8
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 05:39 pm: | |
To correct a comment in the pervious post.
The PRM is not a joint CSI/CSC document. CSC is currently in the process of updating their Manual of Practice. I participated as part of a committee addressing Part 10, Glossary. Editorial work on the CSC MOP is in final stages and publication coming in the near future.
I can't speak to the specifics personally, but I am told by a SCIP member in a position to know, Wayne Watson, that there are statements included in the CSC MOP with respect to precedence of documents. |
Wayne Yancey (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2006 - 06:19 pm: | |
Gary,
I goofed when I said the PRM was a joint CSI/CSC document. I should have restricted my posting to mention only true joint publications. Senior moment. Thanks for the correction.
Wayne Watson (W2) is truly the person who should know.
Not sure why I am now an unregistered guest. Most likely my stupidity.
The other Wayne |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 111
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 03, 2006 - 12:46 pm: | |
Not a joint document, but I can see the confusion. PRM starts out with a strong implication that it is, discussing a close working relationship between CSC and CSI, and stating: “The Manual of Practice (MOP) is now recognized by the construction industry throughout North America as the basis on which construction specifications and project manuals should be prepared and administered and how products should be represented to the construction industry.” This from the Preface, then the whole subject of Canada is dropped for the remainder of the book.
And in our reading of the CCDC documents so far, the order of precedence stands out as the glaring difference between CSC and CSI. The rest of it seems pretty much in concert with what we are used to in the AIA documents. So some follow up questions, if any of you can shed more light on the topic:
As a matter of intellectual curiosity, and to better explain to our employees, does anyone have any history on how the order of precedence developed in Canada, and why it continues? I think there are some fairly good arguments on this board, in the PRM, and elsewhere, as to why we don’t do it in the US, so I’d like to see the other side of the coin.
Sounds like we should obtain a copy of the Canadian MOP. Is that the “Construction Specifications Handbook” referred to as “no longer available” on the CSC website? If so, any definitive word on when the new version will be out? If not, anyone know where we can obtain the current version?
Thanks for your responses so far. |
David Watson (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 11:54 am: | |
I can clarify everyone's questions here about the Canadian MOP, CSH, and document precedence. [I operate the Spex.ca storefront for CSC, and also actively participate in development of new MOP chapters.]
The Canadian Manual of Practice (MOP) is slated for release sometime in 2006 (probably summer/fall). the previous version was so old, it was removed from the shelf years ago.
The Construction Specifications Handbook (CSH) was the old 'beginner' spec manual, and has been replaced with the "Principles of Construction Documentation (PCD)" handbook. The PCD book is used to teach the 'principles' course, which is also required knowledge to take any of the more advanced education courses.
The precedence of documents will be addressed in the new CSC MOP. The CCDC precedence is outlined (for information), and the official recommendation will be that precedence SHOULD be spelled out in the contract general conditions (be it CCDC or some other contract form). If you read on, I'll explain why we do it that way up here in the arctic (IMHO).
The only purpose for establishing a precedence is to assist in a "conflicting requirement" situation where 2 requirements exist that contradict each other. In such a case, the "precedence" rules are referred to determine which clause shall be binding. The end result (we all hope, and most of us Canadians believe) is far fewer disputes caused by 2 conflicting requirements. Some of us might conjecture that we have far fewer disputes in Canada than exist in the USA because we use this concept, but there are probably too many differences between our legal systems to draw that conclusion.
Of course, we still have our share of disputes, but that's another story altogether! |
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco
Post Number: 41
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 10, 2006 - 02:45 pm: | |
A dispute: Engaging in argument or struggling against. (Websters)
A discussion: To investigate by reasoning.
Precedence does not avoid disputes, it avoids discussion. The concept should be when a conflict is found, let's discuss it. In precedence, however, the concept is when a conflict is found, you know what to do; i.e., follow the predetermined precedence.
If a specification identifies the characteristics of a perforated metal panel and a drawing shows this in detail and there is conflict, precedence instructions lead the contractor to one of these solutions. No need to discuss (the clause which is binding is already determined). I take issue with the end result being fewer disputes; the end result is fewer discussions. We down here in the warmer climates like to discuss things until we get them right.
I see the value in precedence of documents for pricing, but definately not for construction, even in Canada.
I support doing things in Canada when in Canada and I do not change legal language, but precedence of documents is the A/E's territory and should not be used except in pricing. |
|
4specs.com Home Page