Condominium Specification Problem

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 242 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:02 pm:    Problem: Project Manual Permit Set is released for bidding; Several months later Project Manual Construction Set is issued after GC negotiations have been completed and specifications have been revised to include all VE items, permit issues, last minute coordination, etc. GC is requesing that we issued a set of specifications that identifies all the changes made between the two versions. Since this is a condominium project, I would rather not identify changes. Has any one had this request previously, if so how did you respond and how were the changes identified? Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 108 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:10 pm:    You said GC Negotiations have been completed, thus your Bid/Permit set was your Contract set. It is appropriate and should be considered neccessary to delta or highlight all changes between the Contract set and subsequent issuances of the contruction set(s). The purpose of the construction documents is to communicate to the general contractor the scope of work (work results?). The best & clearest way to communicate should be the choosen course of action, particularly on a condo project. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 243 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:18 pm:    Nathan, the Bid Set was not the Contract Set, it was indeed the set the bidders used to determine a low bid and the set the low bidder used to come up with Qualifications and Clarifications for a Contract Sum. The Project Manual that is identified in the Contract for Construction is the later one as it includes all the final negotiations - this is for a Privately funded project, not public work, where the ballgame is played entirely different. Besides that, how does one "cloud" specifications - this is something I have never done, working with wordperfect, can someone clue me in? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 685 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:25 pm:    Jerome, You said it. The problem is that the permit set was released for bidding. It should have been for permit only. I agree with Nathan. Since the bidders bid on the bid set, but you expect them to build on the construction set, you will have to indicate all the changes to project manual. If you archived a "permit set" copy of the specs you can use MS Word's "compare and merge documents" function. Are the drawings being reissued with all the appropriate changes indicated? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 296 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:41 pm:    Jerome: I understand your concern about identifying changes, especially for a condominium project. If your concern is about making changes contrary to your advice or recommendations, then all the changes should be documented as for reason why the change was made, who accepted the change (it better be the owner/developer), and any statement from you, the architect, stating that you do not recommend the change and have included the change at the request of the owner/developer. I've had to show changes within a specification based on VE and or other reasons, and I've used the MS Word tracking feature. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 244 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:50 pm:    I keep a log of all changes made between issued sets, and I have a stipulation in my agreements that I am paid for additional services to revise the specifications when the developer shoots the gun; I'm just not fond of issuing a PM that tells the Condo Association all the changes that were made to the PM, usually due to VE by the developer. Also, no one has offered any recommendations on how to "cloud" the specifications. I guess underlining would be an option, though we ocassionally use underlining for importance and hyperlinks already in the specifications. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 109 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 07:23 pm:    Jerome, no one seriously expects you to cloud and delta the text. I said cloud or highlight, depending on the media of course. All the specs I have ever seen use the convention of bolding the type that has been added, and striking out the text that has been superceeded, deleted, etc...then revising the date on the page. That should not be a technical difficulty, no matter if you are using WordPerfect, Word, Novel, Corel, Lotus, WordStar, Wordpad, Brother, Sharp, Compaq, or IBM Selectronic. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 245 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 07:42 pm:    Boy do they still make Selectronics? Its getting late, so we are all tired, Nathan thanks for your comments, but seriously I have had a contractor recently ask me why I could not cloud in all the changes and add the delta identification just like the drawings....only in America! Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 192 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 10:36 pm:    Jerome, I understand from the above that your final Project Manual is being issued to serve as the contract document between the owner and contractor and between the contractor and the subcontractor. Provided the owner and the contractor agree, there should be no reason to use a "strikeout and bold" type manual to track changes between the initial set and the contract set - that type of formatting is a convenience but not contractually required. The needs of the subcontractor's are not really an issue - that's between them and the contractor, and is addressed in their contracts or purchase orders. I agree with your suggestion that issuing a record of changes made is not necessarily a good idea. I typically delete all change indications and hidden text from record files for the same reason, as well as clean out my file directories and even ultimately PDF stuff and dump everything else. And BTW, MSWord's Track Changes function makes a mess of autonumbered documents; I usually hand apply strikeout and bold fonts instead to show minor changes to sections for addenda and construction sets on public bid jobs where changes are an issue. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 06:31 pm:    I respectfully disagree with Mr. Woods response. There is no legitimate reason for you to provide a Project Manual with revisions highlighted between the first issue for bid and the final document. The agreement between the Owner and Contractor incorporates the final set of documents, and has nothing to do with revisions that were made up until this point. The negotiation process can be regarded in the same way as bidding - documents are revised during the process via addenda. Once an addendum is issued, it modifies the bid (negotiation) documents and the final bid (GMP, negotiated price) includes all addenda. If there are multiple changes to a spec section through several addenda, only the latest addedum revisions will appear on that spec section at the end of the process - all previous addenda modifications will have been incorporated. Memorializing changes to the documents during bidding and negotiation has zero impact on the final set of documents and agreement. I see no reason to worry overly about whether this is a condo project or not - it doesn't make any difference. Nothing matters except what is in the agreement, no matter the project type. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 111 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 10:56 pm:    You are of course welcome to disagree. My perspective is as a dedicated CA guy who has to deal with the fallout of not doing it. Thus my encouragement to do it! Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 78 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 01, 2006 - 11:37 pm:    We are running into this situation more and more. Permit/"Bid" set for a CM project, prices come in high, VE then the request for the marked up spec. My argument is, if this is a bid set, why not just issue addenda and have the contractor sort it out? The usual response, in constructionesque (is that a word I just made up?) code, is the subs are too stupid to figure out what we are asking for. It is an argument I have yet to win. I go back seething about all the @#$&^ extra work required and use strike through for deletions and bold italics for adds. Messing with the numbering in Word or WordPerfect is a hassle. Track changes is a disaster. The worst part is that after the "marked up" set is issued, in about a month there is a request for a clean "construction set". Am I missing something? Or, is this a truly strange process? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 246 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 12:12 am:    Nathan - you know the guy who is giving me the most aggravation right now on this project is a dedicated CA guy - you guys must think alike. Still I appreciate the comments from all to date. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 112 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 12:18 am:    LOL, anything I do or request is learned from a painful experience in the not too distant past. The rest of the newer CA types in my office are always amazed at the extent I will go to avoid future pain, and the exacting proceedures I expect of them. They are so naive :-) Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 247 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 12:43 am:    Ahh, so you are a masochist, this would explain why you and I are both posting on this forum on Wednesday morning...I did my years in CA, now I prefer to write specifications, which would normally be less stressful, but then I complicate things by having my own firm - the masochist part of the equation - until you have your own firm and experience the pleasures of getting your clients to pay their invoices, that is true masochism. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 297 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 11:38 am:    Stepping away from the CA Mutual Admiration Society for a moment, I'd like to return to the original discussion. :-) I'm not a lawyer (and I don't play one on TV), but condominiums and litigation are almost synonymous; and with litigation comes lawyers. Whether specifications are marked up with bold and strike-out fonts, or not marked up at all, during discovery the lawyers will find the previous documents and compare them--the marked up sets only make their jobs easier (hence, more money in their pocket). Our firm has made its move into the multifamily residential market (primarily high-end condominiums), and we're starting to learn the risks of venturing into this arena. The key is to minimize documentation (lawyers can't use anything if there's nothing to find), or CYA by sticking to your professional morals or recording your opposition to forced changes by the owner/developer; and making sure they get a copy, too. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 433 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 12:27 pm:    What are your contractual obligatios, Mr. Lazar, in regard to the deliverables you are to provide? I assume you have no contractual relationship with the GC, and hence the request is moot if you have met your obligations by submitting the set used for or reference in the construction contract. I would guess that all is set out in your contract with your client. What went before the contract would appear to be irrelevant, except as some one noted,the GC is trying to make it easy by having you do their work [at no cost to them]. Also, where is your client in all this? Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 113 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 12:36 pm:    There is perhaps a crucial element to this that has not been discussed. Many, if not most, of the condo projects my office does (and it's a large percentage of our work), are developed by Owner-Builder entities. So the question, "where is the Owner in all this" is often answered by the fact that the Owner IS the builder. In that circumstance, the "postute" adopted in the responses above flat out does not work. It's something to keep in mind. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 248 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 02, 2006 - 12:38 pm:    Ralph, you are dead on right about the GC trying to avoid doing the work, and in rergards to my client, the Architect, I just received an email from him supporting my stance, so for now, this has been put to bed....ha, ha, you noticed I said for now, next week the GC will probably come back with another request after he pumps the developer into believing that the narrative will save the Developer money...its a never ending problem on condo work, for those comtemplating getting into it, CYA, CYA, CYA, I am fortunate that I have a very strong contract that covers me for this sort of nonsense, but still time is money and the time I have spent this week saying no, many times, in many forms will be uncompensated time.