| Author |
Message |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 48
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 10:20 pm: |    |
There was a good thread on this before but it is archived now. http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2195/53.html
Somewhere during the mind-reading process of developing the first full length CD set for a project, I am often faced with the choice of listing a paint substrate or 2 that don't seem to really be used anywhere on the project, versus dropping them out. By this time I would hope (naively perhaps) that the drawings would be developed enough to eliminate the interior aluminum substrate in a building that is all wood and drywall, with factory finished aluminum windows and storefront. Seems like listing it so they would know what kind of paint to use "just in case" might add to the bidders' pricing and waste the Owner's and taxpayers' money. But the voice from my other shoulder says what about change orders for that aluminum _______ that nobody told you about or they added later...
Any thoughts? |
Gerard Sanchis (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 13, 2006 - 02:01 pm: | |
I specify what's there and nothing more.
As one of my old mentor used to say, "words are money." If you specify paitaing an inexistant substrate, the bid will reflect it. |
Ken Moore, FCSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: kjmoore
Post Number: 8
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 02:47 am: | |
I agree with Gerard. Spec only what is required for Project.
I listened to a lawyer at a UWEX seminar some years ago state.
If you spec somthing that does not exist, some day you will have to reply to following questions by a GC or sub lawyer.
Your specification in Section xxx, article xxx stated to perform such work.
Where does this occur. Your reply will be it does not apply. After several more simular questions and same answer.
You will be asked "Now how was my client to know you meant him to perform the work you are presently insisting on when all the other items I just asked about are not required. |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 179
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 08:56 am: | |
That's what specification drafts are for. As an independent specifications consultant, I use my drafts to ask questions, asking my clients to verify (or not) an assumption, or a detail from the drawings, etc.
So in Chris' case, I might ask "verify no aluminum substrates". Or "there were aluminum substrates in DD set but not in 65% drawings--still have or not?" I'm not going to guess. And often the answer is "yeah, we forgot about that."
After I submit drafts, I review them with my clients, page by page. It takes time, but good communication is a key element of well-coordinated drawings and specifications. |
Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: lawrey
Post Number: 58
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 08:57 am: | |
The answer to the question posed by the lawyer in Ken's post would be "compare the specifications to the drawings".
However, I agree with Gerard. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 497
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 09:32 am: | |
Two axioms; one old, the other new:
"Don't lose carefulness!"-- Charles Chan, fictional detective
"Don't do things that may get you oppose an attorney!"-- Nobody in particular,just experience |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 234
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:12 am: | |
I have to disagree with you a bit, Steve. If you specify it, it IS in the project regardless of what the drawings say, at least according to AIA A201: "The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all."
That's why the General Conditions also require the contractor to seek clarification of discrepancies. But by the time lawyers get involved, I'd suggest modifying your answer to the question to: "Your client should have sent an RFI when he compared the drawings to the specification and discovered the conflict."
Of course the point in all this is to avoid the conflict in the first place by not specifying non-existent items. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 183
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 02:03 pm: | |
But A201 has its shortcomings also, with regard to ". . . what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all." Consider the following:
Long-standing CSI Manual of Practice tenet: The Drawings are QUANTITATIVE, and are intended to show materials, arrangement, location, sizes, quantities, etc. The Specifications are QUALITATIVE, and are intended to address quality of materials and installation.
With that in mind, three things that I preach to the folks here in our office:
1. If there is a discrepancy between the Drawings and Specifications, that means you have either Drawing information in the specs, or spec information on the Drawings. If you limit the two vehicles to only that which they are specifically inteneded to do, you shouldn't have (or should at least minimize the potential for) any discrepancies.
2. Something shown on the Drawings but not covered in the Specifications: The Contractor can make the case (probably to the receptive ears of a sympathetic Owner) that there is indeed a measurable quantity of something, but no quality specified. Therefore, you are at the mercy of whatever the Contractor feels generous enough to furnish. Count yourself lucky.
3. Conversely, something is not covered on the Drawings, but the quality of it is included in the specifications. Contractor will certainly make the case that you do, in fact, have a defined quality of something, but - unfortunately - ZERO quantity. No locations were shown for that item. No quantities. No size. How can I convince the Owner that we have all of that item that we need for the project, when they are hearing from the Contractor at the same time "none were shown on the Drawings, therefore we did not include it our bid." With few exceptions, the mere inclusion of something ONLY in the Specifications is not an enforceable indication that it is in the project and that thye Contractor should have included it in their bid. If you don't show it, you don't own it. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 01:12 pm: | |
A couple more axioms I learned from an old pro:
"When in doubt, leave it out."
"Don't specify what you won't enforce."
And I completely disagree with George that just because it's in the spec it IS in the Contract Documents. The exact opposite is true if not coordinated with the drawings. It is difficult, if not impossible, to make a persuasive argument that a coating specified for a non-existent substrate is part of the Contract Documents. It is an error, plain and simple. How would a contractor know how to price this coating system without drawings to indicate scope? And forget about getting a credit for something like this.
I am in agreement with other posts, that including things in the specs that are not coordinated with the drawings serves only as fodder for the Contractor (attorneys) to show that the documents are not very well put together. Not a good position to find oneself in. |
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco
Post Number: 63
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 04:01 pm: | |
The short answer is: Specify aluminum covers for the roof hatch and then specify paint for aluminum for field painting. (All within the spec and perfectly coordinated.)
The long answer is:
I agree with most of what has been said, but we should be cautious: Ideally, we should only specify what's indicated, but that's an ideal and not practical. We are not in the business of creating perfect documents and should not allow our profession to be judged by such a standard. (That may be overstated a bit.) Rather, there is a process that needs to be followed to get things right and that process includes the contractor during construction, including RFI's and modifications.
We use drafts in a very similar fashion as Dave mentioned. And we do have a meeting for a "page by page" as he describes, (nearly always anyway). But the assumption is that someone at the meeting knows the answers at that meeting time, for example, whether aluminum is on the project or not. This of course applies to any other item being questioned. Often, we are given a qualified yes, “maybe we have aluminum, now; leave it in”.
Also, we cannot allow ourselves to specify only what's there and nothing more. Drawings do not show everything; it's not a matter of physical items/quantities shown on drawings and quality requirements specified. Many items are not shown at all: Fasteners are not shown, hardware is not shown, shop finishes and galvanizing. [I deleted a long list here for simplicity.] The point is we need to "see" with specifer eyes and specify everything that is required for what is shown. There are decisions for these items and they need to be discussed. The page-by-page review should accomplish most of this. We are not always present during a page-by-page review, but we receive the markups.
Complementary? Not always. Sometimes the only place to identify an item is in the spec, and it may not be shown on the Drawings at all. Elevator pit ladders can be specified and identified as one per pit. In these cases, if it's in the spec it IS in the contract documents.
Besides using the coordination review with the specifier and the design team, the AIA A201 requires a review of the contractor. If read carefully, the contractor who notes an item as shown but not specified, or conversely, specified but not shown, I read that the contractor is obligated to report it. (There's no obligation to find errors, but the contractor is obligated to report known items that affect constructability, such as a product without a spec).
I've not heard of this A201 requirement getting someone off a hook after construction, but I have seen this process work well in finding missing items that need specs before serious consequences occur during construction. The system can work.
I remember in the “old days”, when we wrote with pens, "When in doubt leave it out". Now we should say, "When in doubt, ask".
If this is too much just stay with the short answer. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 55
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 04:33 pm: | |
I find myself in the "when in doubt, ask" position a lot these days. Almost any technical question can be resolved with a little research, but choices that the A/E must make before they can be adequately specified seem to be a frequent problem. (not so much with paint substrates, but e.g. which type of flood protection doors do you want - swinging doors, panels? Is there a basis-of-design product?) So I ask or add it to the issue list, then I wait and work on something else, or maybe switch to one of the other 4 projects on my list, then I ask again, and the issue list has grown to the point it is ridiculous to add more to it. Then it becomes time to print something for review. Then the review set is past, with still few answers. Suddenly it is time to print a permit set, or construction set. Meanwhile this same scenario has played out on 2 or 3 of the other projects, and they all come due at once.
I am thinking about telling folks if they are not on my calendar, I can't promise to meet their deadline. I'm very open to suggestions on tactful ways to do this. I guess that's really a new subject.
Understandably some answers aren't really knowable until right at the very end, or even during construction, e.g. if you allow the contractor to choice between several types of roof hatches. You don't know if it'll be aluminum or stainless steel or what.
Some of the difficulty is once something is deleted it is harder to add it back in (for non-database guide spec systems anyway.)
Appreciate all the feedback so far! |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 413
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, November 27, 2006 - 06:36 pm: | |
this is where working with the same clients over a period of years helps. I usually advise young specifiers to never make assumptions because we know the contractor will never make assumptions about what is needed. However with experience with the same client, you can ask some leading questions such as "you're probably going to need a XXXXX over here. do you want to put in what we usually use?".
And it is true that the person reviewing the specs often doesn't know the answers. in that case I usually do a memo that advises the project architect of items "that will have to be covered by addenum if necessary".
as for your (Chris) "new subject"...
advise a client that you need "20 more hours to complete the project" and that if you don't have the information by "Tuesday noon", it probably won't make it in the spec. That makes you look proactive, and makes them responsible. keep that email in your file just in case. What I have found that is that since I'm pretty good about meeting deadlines, the architects I work with take my "deadline warnings" seriously and either get me information or know that it will be handled later. if you're not consistent about meeting your deadlines though, no one will believe you when you tell them how much time you need.
And as said above: always communicate! even with deadlines -- keep your clients informed as to your progress and if you're running late, tell them that, and ask for an extension of a day or so. What clients hate is being surprised -- and I've found that if I simply tell them what the progress is, give them a realistic projection, I can usually navigate any schedule changes without anyone getting upset. this works in offices, too. |
|
4specs.com Home Page