Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1229
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 07:57 am: |    |
110119
HAVE YOU NOTICED WHAT HASN’T CHANGED?
THE REALITY OF THE “THIRD” CONTRACT DOCUMENT
by Ralph W. Liebing RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH
Despite the variations due to nuances in the many available project delivery systems, there usually will be a “set” of three Contract Documents-- the Agreement [Contract] between Owner and contracting entity; the complete set of drawings; and a Project Manual [perhaps in the form of several bound booklets] that contains the specifications in addition other pertinent project documentation.
The Agreement, of course, draws a lot of attention as it is the instrument that prescribes the exchange of money in return for a project correctly and completely finished, in accordance with the associated “plans and specifications”. Oddly enough while the “specifications” are included [as part of the definition of “contract documents”] they all frequently maligned, discounted, and virtually if not actually ignored, by any or several of the project parties [contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, manufacturers, code officials, etc.]. So why the effort, time and money to produce them?
Plain and simply, there are integral parts of “contract documents” [by definition!] and actually inseparable from the drawings. Specs are not subject to personal likes or dislikes; to actual dismissal, or game-playing; they’re not some type of mystical process, musings or writings, but rather are directly linked ancillary documents to the drawings-- complementary and supplementary! Besides, how does one “ignore” a definitive part of an entity that provides added and expanded information to the work?
Literally, one cannot execute any project without BOTH the drawings and the SPECIFICATIONS.
Hence, it’s wholly improper to consider any separation or obviation of the specifications with regard to any phase of the project. No project can be built with graphic pictures [i.e., drawings] alone, even if they contain voluminous notations]. Certainly it would take volumes to describe in narrative form, how a project is to be built and what materials, methods and systems are involved. Fundamentally, the situation is one of location of information. It is not a matter of preference, option or choice-- it is one of pure necessity in the communication of the requisite information from the design office to the contractors and their on-site and trades personnel.
In a very quirky turn, in the face of legal entanglements, almost without exception it is the specifications that receive first mention and scrutiny, by the attorneys and the court involved. Being “people of words”, the courts and attorneys turn to the specifications, in lieu of the drawings, for the answer to all of the pending questions. Often they will try to resolve or “try” situations based on specifications information, only, as improper a scenario as possible.
Even in the face of this unnecessary dilemma, the specifications remain maligned, and treated in an off-handed manner. And even more so by the contractors, manufacturers and suppliers to the project who ignore or fail to grasp the depth of information contained in specifications. In fact this information is vital to their benefit too, and is information that is not capable of being shown in a graphic manner.
The same misperception is a wide-ranging one too often held by fairly modest clients to large corporations. They share a collective thought that specifications are needless documents, serve no real purpose on the project, and merely are an added and unnecessary cost in the fee paid to the professional for their production. This perspective of cost-cutting is so instilled that the counter arguments that point out the loss of control over the work, the loss of legal recourse, and the lack of definitive information necessary for the faithful and correct construction of the project are marginalized, minimized, ignored, or simply overlooked.
Within the group of major commercial, institutional and industrial owners, the perception of major cost reductions by eliminating specifications needs to be addressed as highly risky myth.
While difficult to quantify, the value and benefit of specifications can be linked to insurance information, risk management, quality control, and value given for dollar spent. There is a distinct and irresolvable gap on construction projects where even the most prestigious client will spend far too much money to solve a situation that could easily have been avoided via good specifications.
Design professionals need to discuss their deliverables with their clients and create full understanding and confidence in what they produce as being fully in the very best interest of the client-- Fortune 500 corporation or small local entity.
Too often the view is taken that the vast, but nonetheless valuable, minutia of the project requirements can be enforced by sheer force of will, status or prestige of the owner. Such a view, since it operates outside contractual bounds, leads directly-- and frequently-- to conflict, confrontation, claims, and disputes, up to and can eventually include litigation. And all that may be forestalled by having well-founded, well-crafted and well-coordinated documents in effect.
In large part, many owners/clients do not realize, understand or tend to minimize the concept of supplementary and complementary documents-- the common relationship of Contract Drawings and Specifications. There is a lack of regard for, or a misunderstanding of the premise that some things are better written out than depicted, and vice versa [as outlined in the chart above].
Some companies and corporations instruct their outside professionals to use the “standards” the corporation has in effect. Here, in this age where corporate-level central engineering functions have been abandoned [for cost cutting measures] these standards often are obsolete, out of date, or needlessly parochial. Further, they are, more times than not, not in specification format or language, and at best can be used [in part] as input to Part 2 of specification Sections. They usually lack the general and execution aspects of the work. So, again, while the materials selected may be valid [for the sake of uniform plant or system wide use] and for products the client is quite specific about, there is no background, or back-up to ensure proper, correct and quality use of those products. And all this has a direct bearing on project cost.
The result is that the client/owner is left exposed and without real leverage and recourse in handling the smallest of items, much less the horrors of litigation [where things get far out of hand]. Perhaps the perception is that the situations are easily resolved if enough money is thrown at them, and, in the case of large corporations, the money amount is inconsequentially small.
Construction, though, should not be allowed to degenerate into a “push-and shove" contest, where the might of one party is pitted against others. A relatively small but skilled subcontractor should not be exposed to ridicule, and less than full payments or extremes of opinions about the work, when in fact, there is no specific indication or information about the material, the work, the processing of it, or the results required/intended.
Reality shows that no result in construction should be left so open-ended and so undefined that only a clash of opinions remains in lieu of a viable and rapid source of resolution! The construction world needs to know, now!, that there are THREE [3] contract documents-- and while not necessarily “equal”, they are inseparable, and none of them, singly, or in pairs can produce a properly constructed Project.
It takes ALL THREE OR THEM, ALL OF THE TIME! There is a message here, friends-- not that you don’t know, but rather that WE still have work to do that will enhance what we do and what comes to be via our work. Seems a task to be undertaken that all is well worth telling and “sharing” with our whole industry-- with added benefit to our cause, work dedication and continuing effort. |
4specs.com Home Page