|Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 04:37 pm: |
Has anyone developed specs language (willing to share) that addresses providing travel & accommodations to "inspect" stone at quarry?
|Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA|
Post Number: 209
|Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 05:28 pm: |
Sounds like a good question for the Indiana Limestone Institute at http://www.iliai.com/
Post Number: 153
|Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 06:08 pm: |
Below is wording we have used, with variations, for many years. There are costs associated with each of these items, so you need to review these requirements with the scope of work and degree of control that you want.
* * *
Travel to Quarries: Owner and Architect will travel to each quarry to select stone and establish acceptable range of appearance for each stone type.
1. At this time, furnish quarry map indicating specific locations from where stone blocks for Project will be cut.
2. For each stone type, slab and finish 12 sample panels cut from representative blocks for viewing at quarry, for Architect and Owner to select stone of acceptable range of color, finish, and appearance.
a. Sample Panel Size: Each not less than 4 feet by 6 feet.
b. Architect will select aesthetically acceptable slabs and will indicate aesthetically unacceptable portions of slabs.
c. Segregate slabs selected for use on Project and mark backs indicating approval.
d. Mark and photograph aesthetically unacceptable portions of slabs as directed by Architect.
3. Substitute new blocks for blocks from which cut samples have been rejected.
4. Mark, set aside and reserve blocks from which samples have been accepted and are visually approved for the Project.
5. See "Samples" for preparation of samples from stone selected at quarries.
6. Aesthetically acceptable slabs selected by Architect will establish the standard by which stone will be judged. Fabricator shall be responsible for maintaining stone within the acceptable range for the Project.
7. Make quarried blocks available for examination by Architect for appearance characteristics.
|William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS|
Post Number: 537
|Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 04:57 pm: |
How often do you actually get to use that. I mean, we use stone, and significant quantities of it in all of our commercial office buildings, hotels and corporate headquarters - and in high rise residential when we are also the interior designer for public spaces.
But, I can't think of the last time when a domestic stone was used on a project. Does the owner really know and undestand the expense for this when the quarry is, say, in Turkey, India, Scandinavia or other locations not in North America?
I also think that block analysis is not always meaningful. You could have a block which has great appearances and from which samples are cut that look great, but within the block the further you go you find variations. The one time we had a corporate headquarters that really wanted the control, and a stone known for variations, they paid to have one of our people on site at the fabricator verifying the stone as the slabs were cut. Some variations were permitted on some facades or above certain heights, and these were given 'template' sizes for the permitted 'spots'. For the duration of fabrcation he was there at the Italian fabricators site examining the slabs with the templates. Turned out quite well.
I have found that the best way to approach this entire effort is not as a contractor's expense, but as an owner's expense written as a paragraph related to qualitiy control and judging of the samples. The Contractor knows the architect may examine it, but the Owner is going to pay to get them there and back, not the contractor. Thus no markup by the Contractor.
Post Number: 154
|Posted on Sunday, February 19, 2006 - 05:52 pm: |
We have had only one project (in 24 years) where the owner stipulated that the contractor had to include travel expenses to quarries for the owner and architect in the contract sum (and of course the owner did pay for it, plus contractor markup; the travel costs were just buried in the construction budget).
The wording I gave above does not state that the contractor is responsible for owner and architect travel costs (on the one project I mentioned, we did explicitly state that such costs were a contractor responsibility). Of course the contractor/quarrier/fabricator is responsible for the slabbing and prep costs for the review.
Do we have this degree of control on every project with stone? --no, of course not, and it probably is more the exception than the rule. Some of these items were for a recent project where the architect had gotten burned on another project, and so were specifically included as a reaction to that experience.
As I noted, depends on scope of work and degree of control desired (and what the owner is willing to spring for). And I agree with you that this is quality control; that's the article where I put this paragraph.
|Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 04:32 pm: |
Thanks for sharing your text. It's a starting basis for me to add to and refine for our intent, which BTW is for GC to include in it's bid. I might include William's concept of a "full-time, on-site person" too, figuring that it could also be negotiated after the fact (or value-engineered...out). Thanks again.