Who Reads Specifications?

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

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message Mario J. Ibanez, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: mariojibanez Post Number: 7 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 03:18 pm:    Mr Gilboy makes a great point. Does CSI have a course on the MOP that can be taken to a local university, college or comm. college that offers either archtectural, engineering or construction courses and ask them to incorporate it into their program? CSI can maintain ownership of the course. I would believe that if the architectural community stressed the need to the educational comunity it may be a good way to achieve this, and the exposure to the up and coming professionals will be great. The hand that rock the cradle.... Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 280 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 03:25 pm:    CSI does (as I recently found out) have "courses in a can," so to speak. They're available on the CSI website as CDEP (Construction documents education program), CAEP (Construction Administration education program), CSEP (Construction specifications education program) and the Product Representative Education Program. Each are $195 for CSI members. I'll be giving a Construction Documents Technology class at Arizona State Univ. in the spring of 2007, and plan on using the CDEP as a basis for that course's syllabus. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 67 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 04:05 pm:    Jerome I have a guide by Andrew Civitello Jr, but mine is entitled "How Contractors Find Change Orders and Extras" (copyright 1999). But you're absolutely right, every A/E & Spec Writer should become intimate with this guide. I can't tell how many times it's saved my (& my clients) bacon. And the things to correct to avoid C.O.s are generally so simple. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 230 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 04:22 pm:    Civitello published a 2nd edition in 2002, I have both, but have never really compared the two to see the differences... Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 74 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 04:45 pm:    I got a copy of Civitello 2nd Edition and started right in on Chapter 7. Great reading. I turns my stomach, but great reading. However, I have a question regarding a statement he makes about contract time. He states, "When the time required to complete a project is stipulated in the contract documents, the owner implicitly warrants that the project can, in fact, be completed...within that duration." We only do a few hard bid jobs a year, so I may be confused, but when an end date is put in bid documents, isn't that asking the bidder to price the work, manpower, and overtime necessary to complete the project in that time? I always went on the assumption that the completion date in the bid documents was what the owner wanted, not what the owner warranted. Or, is the date considered “owner warranted information in the documents” under the Spearin Doctrine? If a bidder felt it could not be done in that time, it would be brought up at the pre-bid meeting and if the date was actually ridiculous, most bidders would decline to bid the project. If the date was doable with some overtime, the bidders would include those costs in their bids. I don't see where the date requested in the bidding documents is a warrant by the owner that the job can be done in that timeframe. The marketplace will tell the owner if he is mistaken. Any comments? Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 182 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 - 11:00 pm:    Don - A little bit aside from your comment, but still related to the issue of stipulated completion: I once worked for a public institution that unwisely accepted bids on a project with completion dates on the bid form stipulated by the bidder that became incorporated in the contract. The successful low bidder deliberately stipulated an aggressive completion date, knowing from experience that the institutional owner was not capable of timely response to the inevitable change order issues foreseen from site conditions. The long and short: a substantial delay claim from the contractor because of owner delays in approving change orders first requested by the contractor during site work, to the tune of nearly $0.5M for the delays alone, not counting the extra work. Nice work if you can get it. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 88 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 12:03 am:    Don In my experience a much better approach to time requirements in hard bid projects is to state the "owner desired" completion time in the Instructions to Bidders and then let the bidders fill in a contract time on the Bid Form also stating that the award will based on the owner's evaluation of both price and time. The owner has now expressed what is desired but the contractor is responding with a time commitment of his own. It is pretty hard to claim a time requirement is unreasonable if you proposed it on your own. When the time is stipulated it may be claimed that the contractor did not have a fair chance to properly evaluate (may be some hidden time requirements that would not be obvious to a competent contractor during the bidding period) or to negotiate (may not be a prebid meeting) and documents may preclude changes to the preprinted bid form. In other words if experts will testify that the time was unreasonable then the contractor may be able to justify why the bidding/contractual arrangements did not allow him a proper opportunity to negotiate a reasonable time requirement. In other words he was not in position that allowed for fair negotiating regarding an unreasonable time requirement. Another way to look at it is if the owner stipulated a time requirement, he must have done some evaluation to think that it was reasonable. How else could he make it a contract requirement? If you make anything a contract requirement, you are in essence providing an opinion that it achievable. It is pretty difficult to contractually require somoneone to do the impossible. If someone can provide reasonable evidence that a requirement is not achievable, I think they have a very good chance of the requirement being ruled unenforceable. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 540 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 08:33 am:    Hopefully the owner has given some consideration as to whether the time is reasonable. On certain types of projects, there needs to be a drop dead end date. Prime example is a school that must be completed for a September opening (or August if you're on the left coast). Still, there should be some effort to make sure that the requested schedule is feasible. That may mean weekend, overtime or double shifts in some cases. In fact, I have put such things in Contract Documents from time to time. Something like "... it is anticipated that the overtime, double shifts and weekend work will be necessary to complete the Work within the required time. The Contractor shall include such costs in their bid." This may not be the silver bullet, but I have not seen it challenged (yet). Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 410 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 08:50 am:    Letting the contractor establish the completion date, or "contract time" is reasonable, and should be tempered if the owner has an overriding issue and a need to finish by a certain date. One point that seems to allude us is that the contract date is too often perceived by the contractors as the date of Substantial Completion, or another interim date. We need to clarify that Substanital Completion occurs approximately 30 days prior to the contract date [allowing time for punch list work completion]. Also, we need to express the idea that work should not be scheduled to any time other than Substanital Completion-- every contractor cannot walk out the door on the same date [i.e., the contract date]; some work simply needs to follow others and that needs to be expressly part of our requirements. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 75 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 09:12 am:    Phil, Bob, John, Thank you for the insights. John's situation of the drop dead date with a school is what we encounter most often, gotta get those students in the dorm in August no matter what. And Phil, your issue with the owner being incapable of timely response, also occurs in the design phase (shocking), delaying the documents so that the end date does become a rush situation, requiring overtime to complete. Both Bob and John have good approaches when it is possible to discuss the issue with the owner. In many situations, the university, or state agency has a standard bid form that takes an act of congress to change. We have often had discussions with such entities regarding the fact that each job is different, and unchangeable rules, attitudes, and forms only make the job more difficult. Is the phrase "falling on deaf ears" a familiar one? So, the discussion of public bidding rules and how to improve them, shall wait for another thread. Of course, like most issues in this field there are no simple answers, but thank you for your comments. They certainly help clear the air. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 541 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:05 am:    Don, you are right about the challenges with agency-prepared forms. One successful approach I have taken (in my previous job) was to start the process of reviewing and commenting on the agency's forms immediately after the design contract is signed. That gives more time for a frequently slow process. I've found that almost all agencies are receptive, in the end, to carefully structured proposed changes. Ralph's point about the end date being the final completion date is also significant, though sometimes the best you can manage is for substantial completion to be the date you need to get in the door, with a requirement for punch-list work to be done around the owner's occupancy requirements. Whatever the decision, the important point Ralph makes is that the completion date given must be clear about whether its final or substantial completion. I also like to give a time frame for completing punch list work (the time between substantial and final,) usually 30 to 60 days. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 89 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 01:00 pm:    We should remember that the Contract Time is not necessarily what is intended by the Owner or A/E or preceived by the Contractor; it is what is defined in the Contract Documents. In AIA documents, the Contract Time is defined as the the period of time allotted for Substantial Completion which is defined as the stage when the Work is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Contact Documents so that the Owner can occupy or utilize the Work for its intended function. The completion of the punch list after Substantial Completion is beyond the contract time period requirement. The definitions may be different in other contract documents. The Owner and A/E should review the applicable contractual definitions in relation to scheduling project completion to make proper time allowances or to change contract time requirements as appropriate.