Archive through May 10, 2006

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

Author Message Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 241 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:22 pm:    This was previously brought up in an older thread (I couldn't locate it, though) about using supplemental documents in this day and age of electronic documents. I thought I'd experiment on my next project where the Owner allowed us to use standard AIA documents with our standard modifications, plus any specific owner changes. I've just completed preparing AIA Documents A201 (General Conditions) and A701 (Instructions to Bidders) using the new AIA electronic document software. Instead of preparing separate supplementals to each document, I inserted/deleted text directly in the document. I have to admit, I think the readability of the documents are markedly improved by doing this. Has anybody done this previously? Any feedback from users if you did? Thoughts? Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 95 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:49 pm:    I'm glad you had a good result from the editing. My experience was less than agreeable. (May have been an older editing software or the typist.) But my concern is that because these are typically preprinted documents that most users know, (maybe not word for word but the basic information and principles,) that they won't go back and check for the changes that normally show up in the Supplemental Conditions. Actually, I was the one that started the other thread because I had a client that wanted and did do what you are doing. Then as now, I questioned it and looked to my colleagues here to either support my position or change my mind. As it turned out half way thru' the bidding phase, I got a call to redo the Conditions of the Contract to use the preprinted A201 and a Supplemental Conditions to modify it. These were issued to replace the electronicly edited A201. Same information in both, just presented differently. I never got an explanation of why my client changed his mind. Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 173 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 01:31 pm:    An attorney that we work with on public library projects edits the A 201 to incorporate the supplemental conditions. In the Table of Contents, the document is noted as the A 201 with the word "Modified" added. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 511 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 01:35 pm:    I believe you can also print the document showing strikeouts and insertions if you prefer to see it that way. If you don't print that way, a bar shows up in the margin at each location where an insertion or deletion has been made to the standard form. I would concur that having the supplemental conditions merged right in to the standard form is a vast improvement in understandability. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 343 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 02:48 pm:    My company does it electronically, with underscores and strikeouts. It is sent to the Owner with instructions to have it reviewed by a lawyer. To my knowledge, we've not had problems doing it that way. In a previous employ, we used separate Supplementary Conditions; it was cumbersome and in order to understand the documents, you had to have both of them in front of you and keep referring back and forth, reading the directions as you went. It's so much easier to grasp when words are struck through than when you read "delete such snd such..." George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 151 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 03:00 pm:    I agree with what has been said about track changes -- underscore and strikeouts -- starting to replace supplemantary conditions, etc. To extend the conversation, what about addenda changes being tracked within the individual technical sections? We still issue traditional addenda listing each change ["delete such snd such..."] except when a section is so much changed that reissuing it makes sense...but does anyone see the day when addenda documents, in the form we know them, will become obsolete, replaced by electronically reissued sections with tracked changes? The question presupposes a more "paperless" world than we seem to have today... Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 344 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 04:15 pm:    We do the same thing with Sections that are published as revised with subsequent packages. If a Section is simply published as reissued, it is so noted in the Table of Contents and at the top of the Section itself. If it is revised, deletions are struck through and additions are underlined and the Section is noted as Revised with "X" as noted above. We don't use "track changes" per se because it's too easy to "accept all" and screw up the ability to track the changes. We "manually" underline and strike through. Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 230 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 03:37 pm:    I prefer separate Supplementary Conditions because that highlights changes. Karen L. Zaterman Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 6 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 03:22 pm:    I don't like "track changes" either. For CalTrans projects we are required to submit Word documents with strikeout & underline in color. I find this so much easier to work with I'm asking the consultants to revise their sections in this way, too. Some past darling in our firm even created a macro to use in Word that achieves this more quickly. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 184 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 08:00 pm:    You can change the settings for MicroSoft's "track changes" features to do color with different people who may modify the document having different colors. Really spiffy if you are printing in color. Karen L. Zaterman, CDT Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 01:27 am:    Ah, yes... I've used the color for different reviewers feature. It is spiffy, but still gets cumbersome when there are several reviewers on the same page and comments get so long they end up at the end of the doc. I suppose it comes down to what you get used to & at what point you discover the tricks to make it a better tool. :-) Back on topic: I think that avoiding separate documents between original and supplement is always going to be a better, more efficient solution. --yeah I know that was weak, but it assuaged my guilt on the hi-jack.