| Author |
Message |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 602
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 06:53 am: |    |
WITHER GOETH THE PROJECT MANUAL?
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Cincinnati, OH
Humph! Now what the devil do we call it?
The AIA in revising and updating [?] Document A201, "General Conditions of the Contract” has divined that Project Manual is no longer..................... well, I don’t know what, but that “Drawing and Specifications” will now both suffice and be used.
Now with a zillion PRMs being used [OK, several thousand-- got to dreaming there!] and as many more stockpiled, the title for the major product produced via information in the PRM, is “gone”-- vanished; non-plus; obsolete; and hence forth confusing used.
Is this an improvement or some other nefarious venture? Was Project Manual so far from the point that it was misleading, confusing and inappropriate? Nah!!
Reality says, I guess, that the term was so “foreign” to AIA lexicon, so marginal that it simply had to go. Seems, too, that it was still catching on in normal conversation, replacing “the specs”, so in may be it was never really thoroughly entrenched, and deemed sanctum-sanctorum by the professionals.
Too, for years there may have been a covert, well-hidden, clandestine effort by some to call that “book”, The Ridiculous Epistle of Amazing Musings”-- REAM that is! Guess who was on that committee.
So now just as we got set with the latest [as of two days ago] release of CAD, and are trying to get it settle it before the next release [Thursday of next week we hear], we have to download, erase, re-train our tongues, delete from our computer, etc., etc., etc., the term “Project Manual”.
Wonder now where that wall is with all the Post-Em’s with suggestions of what to call spec writers under the BIM system.
Has to be one!
[Thanks to Mark Kalin, FAIA, FCSI for the watch-out on this topic] |
Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: rjray
Post Number: 72
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:06 am: | |
I read about this in some magazine a few weeks ago.
I plan to simply add the “former” definition of Project Manual to the Supplementary Conditions along with the other definitions I already have that AIA does not define. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 290
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:43 am: | |
I still get calls and references from "senior" architectural team members about "book specs." They are clueless about this new-fangled term, Project Manual, and get befuddled when advised that it was the good ol' A-1-A that came up with the title.
There is a carry-over in many firms, especially in the management ranks, from the days of "developer" documents (just enough information to get a building permit but not enough to constrain the contractor from saving money). Sometimes I get calls (and refuse) to "update our sheet specs." Those are the 3-4 sheets in the architectural series of drawings with "boilerplate" specs that are less detailed than what are normally called shortform specs. As some wise architect once pronounced, "Less is less."
Don't confuse the sheet specs with the 1-2 sheets of "General Notes" which repeat, contradict and generally confuse matters with inapplicable and inappropriate requirements that are repeated project after project, usually to make sure that the screw up on some project ten years ago never, ever gets repeated. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 260
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:23 am: | |
Has the definition of specifications changed in the new 201? |
Tom Good architect CDT, SCIP, www.VGBN.org
Senior Member
Username: tom_good
Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:37 am: | |
So I guess that means there will shortly be updates to all the other AIA documents such as AIA A101-1997 which includes:
8.1.3 The Supplementary and other Conditions of the Contact are those contained in the Project Manual dated ____, and are as follows:
8.1.4 The Specifications are those contained in the Project Manual dated as in Subparagraph 8.1.3, and are as follows: |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 705
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:53 am: | |
AIA will be releasing a number of revised documents later in 2007, all coordinated with A201 and each other. |
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob
Post Number: 314
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:57 am: | |
Does anyone have a list of the documents which will be revised and the changes that are contemplated? |
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob
Post Number: 315
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:59 am: | |
Where is this magazine article that Mr. Ray read?
Where can Mr. Kalin's tip be found? |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 449
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:00 am: | |
Sheldon:
I think this is how they're defining specifications:
"Specifications: The detailed and verbose ramblings of how the project should be completed, and are typically never read and understood by architects, owners, contractors, and building officials. However, they are thoroughly examined by attorneys when a claim is submitted." |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 291
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:08 am: | |
I made the mistake in education sessions at the AIA Convention the last couple of years of asking questions about specifications. The looks I got were as though I had farted in public. It's like, "what do specs have to do with architecture?"
Since construction specifications are rarely taught in architecture school --- or at least not more than a couple of lecture sessions over a 5 or 6 year curriculum --- they must not be important.
So, will the BIM make specifications and Project Manuals obsolete? Should we even be concerned? Alfred E. Neuman, show us the way! |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 603
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:36 am: | |
For John R. and others interested
ONE MORE, ONE !
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Cincinnati, OH
No, it’s not Count Basie! It’s “count basic”!
For various but rather obscure reasons, we are seeing a mounting crescendo in the concerns over BIM. This is insightful and good for those of us in specifications. There is a need, as soon as possible, to come to grips wit what this program MAY impose on us, or how we may be changed by it.
Now it is a little disconcerting to have the software industry doing “its’ thing” to the degree that our work and indeed, lives may be changed. Rather unfair [but I know, life’s not fair] but also rather shortsighted.
Once again, as with CAD the design elements of the professions have seen and embraced the newer technology and worked with the software folks to create new whiz-bang program. Of course, many of the features truly do embellish the design process and allow for greater analysis, and reckoning of the design concept.
But in a repast of history, the computerization folks are again ignored the more practical and “grunt” aspects of project-- the working drawings and specifications. Of course, with numerous iterations, release, and wholly new programs, CAD is now—as in eventually—involved in working drawing production. ‘Course, procedures HAVE to be re-fashioned to meet the “demands” or capabilities of the programming and MUST function within newly [relatively] process, and procedures.
One great and growing loss is the technical construction knowledge that is not contained in the mind of the average CAD operator [those with Associate degrees or no degree] who has been narrowly trained via the computer and not through instruction about means, methods, processes, equipment, types and intricacies of construction.
Are we facing a similar scenario with BIM? Here again, the high profile of the program is a design-oriented process that relates almost exclusively to the design process, and its evaluation. Then comes the “Oh, yes! We need construction information and knowledge—how do we get that in the model”? Hhhmmmm?
A document called, “Industry Foundation Classes (IFC)”, published several years ago [also addressed in “BIM (Building Information Modeling) Update”, AIA in 2003] calls for what appears to be “specification-type” information being transformed into IFCs, and then inserted into the BIM database. From this the program can “pull out” what it wants or needs when a specific item is utilized in the model for the building. For example, place a door, and you get “everything-you-want-to-know-about-doors [or this door]-but were-afraid-to-ask.
Seems to smack of “specifications, doesn’t it?
Yet, oddly enough, running a “Find” through most of the documents that mention BIM rarely calls forth the word “specification” in the context of what we consider project specifications. Almost always the notes allude to the specifications for setting up the BIM system-- certainly NOT the same items!!!
Where has cooperation, openness and collaboration gong? Why is the specifications industry “asking in” in stead of being INCLUDED right off? We suggest that yet again, specifications are the step-child-- out of sight, out of mind, until the blood flows.
Better we at least begin to understand that specifications and associated construction information/knowledge are equally!!!!!!!! as important as any other piece of data in the whole of the BIM system.
Hence if BIM purports to be all inclusive, best it incorporate the full array and all aspects of specifications from Division 00 through Division XX [as required by the project work.
OR do we still issue a reduced Project Manual for the administrative and legal issues of projects? |
Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob
Post Number: 318
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:41 am: | |
Ralph kindly forwarded this to me, it was in ARCAT specNEWS No. 17 - Mid-April 2007:
A201 Removes Project Manual Term
Specifiers have become accustomed to using the term Project Manual for specifications bound with contract forms and conditions of the contract. The CSI Project Resource Manual and the current edition of AIA A201-1997, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction published by the AIA refer to the term Project Manual. However, the new AIA A201-2007 is in the final approval stages and no longer uses the term Project Manual, deferring to Drawings and Specifications as sufficient terms for the contract documents. The updated AIA agreement forms enumerate the contract documents by individual name. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 604
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:42 am: | |
Now friends, neighbors, colleagues and others-- obviously my preceeding was written before the AIA "scope", but did CSI take part in the "negotiations" that revised 201? If not, why not? If os, how did CSI input get ignred or overturned?
And to Mr. Regener's issues-- hadn't we better get going on inteface or confronting the AIA, et. al. on the "issue" of specifications? Seems that is a massive initiaive required to get this stuff straight once and for all.
Specs are not looney-tunes, and often are financialand professional butt-savers for those who ignore their very existence.
Gosh I just think we have SOOOOOOOOO much to do and boy, have we got the goooooood folks to get it done!!! |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 57
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:25 pm: | |
It seems the word "manual" is sooo last century. Perhaps we need to update to "Project Data Storm" or "Project PDF Master File X". |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 195
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 01:01 pm: | |
Just a quick note as I am slammed today.
1. I know nobody loves us and most architects (and contractors) can’t read, women don’t want answers; they just want to talk, men can’t commit and the current government…..anyway
2. Autodesk’s Revit does indeed contain a Uniformat number (more or less correct) for each of the generic assemblies (objects like walls etc) that it comes with. Of course you can create your own assemblies and assign your own numbers.
3. They are creating modeling software. It is not their main intention to create software that is all things to all people in the construction business, BUT
4. as contractors and architects are forced into tighter and tighter alliance because of tighter time and money constraints…they are trying to hit the buttons that will make them money (sorry for being crass, but it is about making money)
5. Having software that looks for interferences between steel beams and HVAC ducts in 3D and points them out to you instead of you having to visualize from orthographic projections makes sense. Hell, orthographic projections are only 200 to 250 years old. The “devis” (cost estimates basic specifications etc) was a huge thing that rocked the Napoleonic world; they were the BIM of the time. Many architects cried at that time that the poetics was being ripped from architecture. The loss of craftsmanship etc. etc. Before that … Well, that’s a book called “Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science” by Alberto Pérez-Gómez.
6. More pragmatically; do we want to place all the “spec” information inside an already very large database? Perhaps we link the two databases. I already use a database for my specs called SpecLink. I’m working on ways to integrate the two. It’s up to me and you to do it; the Draw-ers in the shop will not be leaping forward. Several lawyers (one of whom I working with) and the AIA are all working on ways to assign risk when the data (skinny legs and all) is passed from Architect to Structural Engineer to GC to Fabricator to Erector and then to Owner.
7. The knowledge path from father to daughter (or son) was lost with the lack of Gen-Xer’s. We are all going to have to pull the youngsters up faster and hold on to the retiring baby boomers longer. Our craft is more specialized than ever before. Do you have a training program for the Associate Degree drafters you hire? If not; why not? Graduates from professional programs are just as ignorant. In the hand drawn days you’d set them to do presentation elevations (because that’s all they were good for.) Now we have them model in 3D because that’s… Do we have a training program for them (including the IDP)? They still need one AND there are no 40 year olds in harness to train them.
OK that’s my short note. I have a spec.. I mean project manual…, no I mean “big book of arcane knowledge” to write. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 536
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 03:06 pm: | |
BIM is not going to make specs obsolete. in the most linked version of the world, the drawings will be linked directly to the spec information that goes with them (and I have seen telecom drawings like this with hyperlinks), but as you all know, that information is more and more complicated than it used to be. I answer the same questions from young staff that I always answered -- and more so, because no one is coming out of school with much information about materials or very much understanding about how things actually get built.
Digital Project (another 3D modeling software that we use in this office) also references spec section numbers and in that way ties the 3D models more closely to the specs than before. what 3D models have done for this office is make the architects responsible for the information -- and the contractor relies on it. we get 6 bidders on a project with less than 1% deviation in price on very complicated structures. That's because they aren't doing take-offs, they are using the same modeling data to get their quantities. Spec writers aren't going away with BIM; spec writers are more responsible for providing the appropriate information so that the models are correct. I have more people asking me questions and more people coordinating with the specs in my current office using BIM than I did in my former location without BIM.
what we call the "project manual" isn't that important. what is important is that they aren't getting any smaller. |
Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI
Senior Member
Username: m2architek
Post Number: 107
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 03:08 pm: | |
There is rarley a day that goes by where i am not amazed at the micro managing of outsiders and it just blows me away. The very group that initiated the term "Project Manual" seeks a 'make work' change and confusion for all others to deal with now that we have convinced others that the term Project Manual is more acceptable. Why not leave well enough alone......
Ok...ok......"A large book of mosly unread and unused paper"
remember...... drawings are interpreted in the field.........Project Manuals are interpreted in the courtroom.
BIM will not make specifiers obsolete....only we can do that when we fail to stand up for what is proper means of doing so......and cave to the whims of others as they see through their little focused lenses |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 605
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 10:08 am: | |
THE SPECIFICATIONS INIITIATIVE
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Cincinnati, OH
OK, I’m ticked!
OK, we’ve griped, moaned, and talked too long, to each other!
OK, we, the choir, have the message-- we understand!
OK, it’s time to take the kid gloves off and really come to grips with the issues. Of course, we’re fighting from behind, but let me ask this-- When and where did specifications become so irrelevant, ignored, maligned, misunderstood, and dismissed by the very professionals who need them for their projects?
When? Where? and Why?
There are protestations all over the place about “Contract Documents”, in the realm of Agreement, drawings, and-- is it still true?-- SPECIFICATIONS?
If so, then why do the “other professionals” from designers on down look down their noses at specifications and those who produce them?
Why do we hold to the tripartite definition, A-D-S?
Why does the impact of specifications pervade almost every legal cases brought dealing with a construction project?
We a re left to wonder if Sullivan, Wright, Meis, Gropius, Breuer, Corbo and the other even older masters wrote specs. Perhaps not, but did they diss them? Did they utilize some [in some form] for their projects? The answer from this quarter is PROBABLY YES?
You see for generations there has been an underlying level of architects and engineers who well knew what was required in the documents to get the project built as designed and desired. Quietly these people produced the drawings and wrote the specs while the masters and the other principals got the glory, and cut the ribbons. This scenario still exists today!
Some may grump and quarrel that spec writers are not bona fide professionals—wrong! Hogwash!, as Grandma said. Their work is as dedicated and is really more precise than that of others working on the projects. It is a tough and most ill-advised stretch to utilize the specs in the definition of contract documents and then in some incoherent, unthinking way, eliminate them from bare recognition, only to cherish and stake your reputation and legal status on them when you are in court. Vacillation? Nope, pure egotistic dumb! They are firmly based documents, supportive of the drawings and project design, and not veil-like images that come and go for varying reasons. They do not exist to be used as “conveniences” when necessary, and as door stops when not
NO project can be built using drawings only, and
neither can any be built using specifications only—
By definition and by absolute cojoinery, drawings
and specs must co-exist and provide a combined
value and source of project information!
WHY then is there on-going dismissive ness of specifications; a lack of understanding of their purpose; a lack of support for their value and preparation; and a continual disregard for their contribution? WHY?
Every organization that deals with any aspect of the professional practice of architecture [and let’s include engineering] needs to be approached, addressed, [confronted if necessary] educated where necessary, and brought to bear on the issue of specifications and co-contribution of drawings and specifications—period!
All the cutesy software, the 3D models, the revolting images, the virtual projects and the other bells and whistles of project design MUST, at some point come to “light” in some form of specification. BIM is the new shtick-- the new do-all-end-all, but little is available that even begins to address how specification-like information [still vitally needed for the projects] is incorporated into the model. Is the use of links appropriate? Will links take one to a massive amount of irrelevant information? Who will refine and focus that information, reducing it to the cogent necessity? What must now be done to re-format the requisite construction information to fit the BIM program?
CSI has engaged this, we hear. But not a lot has come to bear of late, and certainly all the vociferous proponents of BIM have NEVER EVER mentioned this aspect of the modeling. WHY? In hopes it will go away? [scary thought!]
So blare the trumpet and let the “games” begin—sound the call to a strong, well –founded, direct, professional, astute initiative to engage all those involved in the construction process-- every group of architects, engineers, contractors, sub-contractor, IT folks, vendors, suppliers, manufacturers-- and present them with in-depth, incisive, decisive, and absolutely “stunning” information about specifications, their creation, use, impact and contribution!
And coincidently, and by no stretch the least, include NCARB, NAAB, ACSA and their engineering counterparts for full incorporation of at least minimal specification instruction in every professional school! That is far too long overdue and really should be placed on an “immediately” basis right now!
No rose-colored prospectus for the design professions, or high flutin’ principles, or visionary dreams should obscure the fact that we need to get everyone on board with all of this, NOW! We have too long phoofed away the true value and impact of specifications, in any format.
It is so easy!-- they are 1/3 of Contract Documents; they are co-equals with drawings; they are absolute necessities for every project!
You cannot practice, successfully, with one arm tied behind you or ignoring its existence. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 196
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 11:06 am: | |
OK love the rant, but let’s give FLW his due. The front columns at the Oak Park Studio contain a relief of "the tree of life, the book of knowledge and the specification" or so the tour guide told us. So that leads me to believe the old FLW took them seriously. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 606
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 11:24 am: | |
"...took them seriously"-- OK, Marc, I'll give you that.
But I cannot in my wildest thoughts see FLLW stooping so low as to WRITE them!!!!
And me thinks he was widely into the techniques of yelling instructions, waving arms, staring daggers and making threatening gestures with his cane [or baton, as you like it]. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 197
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 11:55 am: | |
You are probably right on there.
The State of Washington has just passed a revision to the law relating to architects that requires the architect's stamp on the "spec" title page and all pages of the TOC and you know that ALL architects "directly supervise" the work under their stamps! I expect great things from the architects of Washington State now that their stamp is on th edocuments ;) |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 234
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 12:22 pm: | |
Marc-- As I tell all of my clients, "You can't be cynical, that's my job!"
I am at a loss to understand why the AIA has moved away from "the Project Manual concept." That being said, the substance remains; the Work must comply with [all] contract requirements including Agreement, contract conditions, Drawings, and Specifications. This remains. It was convenient to refer to the Project Manual and know that it usually included not just Specifications, but other "stuff" as well. The other "stuff" sometimes included information that the Contractor needed to have, but which was not really part of the Contract Documents (the geotech report comes to mind).
This move by the AIA is annoying, but does not affect the substance of what we do. I am much more concerned by concerns on other threads which relate experiences of some colleagues with owners, architects, contractors, and others by which attempts are made to substantially weaken contract requirements. At their most extreme, these attempts, if implemented, would render the specifications almost meaningless. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 249
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 08:50 pm: | |
I am awaiting some explanation from the AIA Contract Documents office on the rationale for eliminating the definition of the Project Manual from the General Conditions. They may choose to comment, or not.
In the meantime, however, I'll speculate: Perhaps it was eliminated because inclusion of the definition of Project Manual is not a contractual issue, and therefore is superfluous to the content and intent of the A201? After all, those items in the Project Manual that constitute the contract for construction are still defined in Article 1 and enumerated in the Agreement. Many projects are issued without inclusion of bidding and contracting requirements documents, for instance. Future projects may frequently be issued without use of a "bound volume," with expanded use of references, links, web-based, and data-base materials.
The new document does not include a clause forbidding the use of the term Project Manual, as far as I can determine. So we can still use the term without fear of a knock on the door from the A201 police.
I'll be embarrassed if we hear that the definition is not there because they forgot it.
Back to your projects! Back! Back! |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 231
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 06:45 am: | |
If the definition of Project Manual has indeed been deleted, it also raises another question - what is it about such a seemingly innocuous provision that the 25-30 person committee thought it necessary to spend valuable time on? I mean, what was the true harm of leaving it in? Were there not more important matters - with far greater liability and legal implications - in the other 39 pages to spend the resources and effort on? I'm sure there were, and I commend the committee for scrutinizing the documents to that degree. But the term seems so harmless and has finally gained such wide acceptance, why bother?
Just wondering . . . |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 608
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 07:00 am: | |
How about this-- with the prognosis that BIM will catch hold, and run like wild-fire through the profession, within the next 10 years, there will be no "Project Manuals", per se.
By eliminating the term now, the AIA can retain its 10-year revision schdeule for its documents, and still be aligned with the various document production schemes.
Off the wall, but.................
And while a little cumbersome, we can call the book whatever we want; although we may have to include a new defintion that specifically mentions "drawings and specifications. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 12:24 pm: | |
I believe Ralph is right. More and more architectural firms are looking into BIM and many are thinking of it as the inevitable direction of the future for contact documents. I think AIA is just attempting to stay ahead of the game. They want to be seen as the leaders of the industry.
From what I’ve seen, I don’t know that either “Specifications” or “Project Manual” are the most accurate name for the documents anyway. Perhaps they could be more accurately called the “Dispute Resolution Documents.” Or maybe the “Architect’s Boneheaded Screw-Up Rectification Documents” (A.B.S.U.R.D. for short). |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 232
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 27, 2007 - 10:28 pm: | |
Upon further digging . . .
It would appear that Mr. Kabza is correct, and pretty much for the reasons he states.
A rather reliable source has indicated that as a CONTRACTUALLY-DEFINED TERM (in the A201 General Conditions), the term "Project Manual" will indeed be removed.
HOWEVER, it is now (still?) included in the Owner-Architect Agreement as an Instrument of Service (IOS). Since "project manual" means different things to different entities (owners, architects, contractors, etc.), it seems the committee felt a formalization of the limitation on the contents was no longer appropriate. Remember - the former definition basically said it was the bound volume that included bidding requirements, contracting requirements, and specifications. However, project manuals have grown to include drawings product data, and more.
SO YES - project manual is still the name, and we can still call it that without fear of catastrophic collapse of the written construction documents industry or worse - a 90-post discussion thread / tirade on 4Specs. But the limitations on its contents have been removed. (Oh goody - now they can be bigger!)
Also on good authority is that the current goal is to have the new A201 family contract document series publicly available by November 1, give or take (unofficial, just a goal).
So un-wad your knickers and get back to work. Last I checked, there was still a roof-top dogwalk problem to solve. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 611
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 06:55 am: | |
From a reliable source connected with AIA:
"The short answer to your question is that “project manual” has been deleted
because there is no generally accepted or acceptable definition of “project manual”.
It created too much potential for ambiguity and ambiguity is not desirable in
standard documents." |
Helaine K. Robinson CSI CCS CCCA SCIP
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob
Post Number: 326
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 09:32 am: | |
PRM 5.9.1 Project Manual Concept
The documents commonly referred
to as the specifications normally contain
much more than that name implies. The
procurement requirements, contracting
forms, and conditions of the contract are
usually included, but they are not specifications.
In most cases, these are prepared
by, or in coordination with, the
owner and the owner’s legal counsel and
insurance adviser. This information,
along with the specifications, is, in fact, a
collection of certain written construction
documents and project requirements
whose contents and functions are best
implied by the title Project Manual.
The project manual concept provides
an organizational format and standard
location for all of the various
construction documents involved. For
efficient coordination, document and
section titles and their sequence of use
should be the same for each project.
With different methods of construction
procurement, some documents become
unnecessary. For example, in the ownerbuild
delivery method and with negotiated
contracts, bidding requirements are
not applicable. Figure 5.9-A shows an
example of the recommended order of
information and documents in a project
manual.
Separate volumes of the project
manual are necessary when the number
of pages makes them impractical to bind
together in a single volume. Addenda
and modifications are difficult to add to
the bound project manual and are often
compiled in a separate volume. Separate
volumes can also be used for multiplecontract
construction projects. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 612
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 10:51 am: | |
Good and true, Holly, but this should have been "sold" to the AIA [indeed, wonder if it was presented], for mutual use and understanding |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 12:29 pm: | |
Actually, since the AIA coined the term back in the 1960's, I suppose they are free to pull it at anytime.
And it is my understanting that, despite urgings and requests, CSI was SPECIFICALLY AND DELIBERATELY exlcuded from having a seat at the table (so there really was no opportunity to do any selling).
Frankly, I've experienced first-hand the sort of 'cat-herding' it takes to get architects to be on the same page. And I suppose that since so many did whatever they wanted - in spite of the commonly-held practice Holly quoted above - their project manuals ended up containing all sorts of superfluous inserts (and omitting those essential).
And so, at least it seems to me, rather than hold steadfast to the industry consensus definition, and provide more education to architects in this regard, it was easier to dumb-down the document and delete the definition. Its almost as if they're acknowledging they lost the battle (i.e. ignorance prevailed).
Just one more example of the AIA delivering another one of their their all-to-common spiteful slaps in the face to CSI.
Sorry for the cynicism . . its been one of those days. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 541
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 12:42 pm: | |
actually, that's not true. the AIA invited most of the industry sources to comment on their documents over a two year period and at the last Masterspec meeting we were told that there were more than 100 PAGES of comments laid out in a spread sheet, all of which were responded to in some fashion or another before the final revisions. The revision of these documents is about a 2 year process and it goes through multiple drafts for comment. Not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome.
AIA does not give anyone a "seat at the table". these documents are their documents and the documents committee is responsible for them and seeking and responding to comments. many of the members of the documents committee are also CSI members. On a lot of these issues, the coordination between AIA and CSI is not overt -- it simply happens.
CSI can be equally short-sighted at times about how their things happen and lack of coordination with various parties who may be interested in some action or decision. This series of forums spends an enormous amount of time complaining about just those slip-ups.. |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 451
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 12:53 pm: | |
I really don't understand what all the fuss is about.
"Project Manual" is used only twice in A201: once when defining it and once when explaining that the Owner will provide copies of it to the contractor--that's it.
Why get all bent out of shape for a term that is already hardly used in a contract document?
We can still call it a "Project Manual," and most people will likely continue to do so, regardless if it's defined in another contract document or not.
Does A201 mention or define what an "Architect's Supplemental Instruction" is? No. It does describe, however, a minor change. The specifications, on the other hand, does (or should) establish the document used to issue minor changes, and in most cases this will be the ASI.
So, if it's absolutely appalling to you that AIA would do such a dastardly act, then define "Project Manual" in your Division 01 and be done with it. :-) |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 708
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 01:46 pm: | |
Thank you Ron. A clear head at last! |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 234
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 03, 2007 - 01:55 pm: | |
Ditto.
Good point about the ASI, too. It not being defined never stopped anyone form using that term.
For those who wish to do so, reference MasterFormat:
01 42 16 - Definitions
There's the designated location wherein one can define "Project Manual" (assuming its not already in the Supplementary Conditions). |
Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: tom_heineman
Post Number: 83
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 01:27 pm: | |
Ironically, the term came from an architect writing in the AIA Journal in the 1960's. He didn't like calling the whole diverse book "the specifications".
Its use was resisted by some in CSI in the early 1970's because at least one influential member was from an area where Project Manual meant what you and I now call Operation and Maintenance Manual.
However, that blew over and CSI, almost alone, made the term popular long before it appeared in AIA A201. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 616
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 09:37 am: | |
I grant that specification writers [and the CSI] can do as they please and see fit. We can define where there is no definition; we can establish where there are gaps, glitches or need to remove or clarify ambiguity.
We are professionals who are fully capable and authorized to do our work as we deem best for our office and clients.
Truth be known, we really don’t even have to follow CSI guidelines or the PRM if we choose not to [but they are well-founded and thoughtfully created documents].
But in the discussion in this thread, and particularly in Ms. Whitacre’s comments there is a very disturbing and really sad commentary. While our work contributes to and serves the work of AIA members, we [and CSI] are held in such low esteem that the AIA does not even acknowledge the fact that we know more about specs and combined with CSI create a plethora of information that is invaluable to the success of many AIA members.
Are we so shadowy; so mystic, so irrelevant that without even a “howdy-do” AIA does its things, and we are left to “follow the elephants in the parade”?
This is absolute evidence that the status of construction specifications, spec writer and CSI need to be ratcheted up-- in fact, an explosion may be in order-- to capture the attention of the “other” professionals.
While there is professed equality in the three Contract Documents, this is not reality in the minds of all too many practitioners. From the schools upward, Contract Documents is a mysterious term—ah ha, undefined!!—and instruments that barely make the list of professional needs, tasks, and necessities. The world is becoming” green”—why? Because it’s the latest fad, and because specifications will make it happen!!!! The world is on the brink of BIM, but the virtual tours of projects are valueless to the carpenter and mason in the field without drawings, and oh, yes, specifications!
Why do we plod along as if everything is fine and dandy, when in fact we are so marginalized that we almost cease to exist-- except when the court needs to hear abut the minutia and nuances of the disputed contract-- and the attorneys reach for.................... the specs!
Do we need to mutiny? No, because the only true boss or overseeing authority [as in Project Architect, Principal, etc.] we have lies within the cadre of the office. Why mutiny against your check-signer, when the problem is cultural within the overall demeanor of the profession, and the professional organizations.
We talk specs; we do specs; but we now need to better legitimize specs, much as you must prove you were born, when you’ve lost your birth certificate.
Dumb, but necessary! We need to rise up, but first we need to wise up-- ain’t no body else “blowing our horn”-- but blow it must!!!
We need to openly and loudly expound on, explain, and “advertise” our work and documents; their fit into the work of the professionals; their inherent value overall; the need for better education of the professionals to include specifications;
We need to do OUR work, OUR way, since the prognosis is that things must run parallel, and chances for cooperation and coordination, above the office level is very nearly zilch. |
Helaine K. Robinson CSI CCS CCCA SCIP
Senior Member
Username: hollyrob
Post Number: 327
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 09:47 am: | |
Having read Ralph's lament, knowing that 20,000 architects were in San Antonio TX last weekend for the AIA Convention, I provide one of the most famous of Talmudic quotations:
Pirke Avot Chapter 1 Mishnah 14.
Hillel used to say: If I am not for myself who will be for me? Yet, if I am for myself only, what am I? And if not now, when? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 10:37 am: | |
So where was Arcom during the revisions to A201? Don't they have a representative on the A201 committee? |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 298
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 11:00 am: | |
I'll say it again: the key to the well-being of specifications writers and CSI is the promotion of the value of well-prepared construction documents. Not just specifications, but the whole range of documents needs to be promoted. Documentation is CSI's strength and its greatest value to the construction industry.
Put before the construction industry the idea that well-prepared documentation means better achieving design intent, reducing potential problems and being more productive ($$$). Then, I believe, respect for specifications writers and CSI will come ... and so will increases in membership and sale of documents and services. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 543
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 05:09 pm: | |
Arcom submitted comments, as did the committee. again, the A201 committee is an AIA committee. they send out the document for review but the committee is not made up of people other than from AIA. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 05:51 pm: | |
Isn't Arcom an independent arm of the AIA? Or, does AIA treat them like all the other specifiers? |
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 110
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 05:58 pm: | |
Out of curiousity... how many specifiers who are NOT AIA members attended the AIA convention last week? |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 356
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 06:11 pm: | |
I did. |
Bob Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn
Post Number: 186
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 07, 2007 - 06:18 pm: | |
Since it was within convenient driving distance, I drove over and spent most of Friday at the product show (but didn't attend anything else). |
Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: don_harris
Post Number: 138
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 08:47 am: | |
My company sends me to CSI and others to AIA, but won't let me double dip. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 709
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 08, 2007 - 02:14 pm: | |
ARCOM is a private company that produces Masterspec for, and under license to, the AIA--they are not part of AIA. The Masterspec Architectural Review Committee (of which I'm a member) is a committee of the AIA, and gives editorial advice to ARCOM on writing of Masterspec sections and evaluations. ARCOM and the Review Committee are concerned with writing specs, not construction contracts. Obviously they need to be well coordinated, and like all specifiers, committee members have lots of opinions on pretty much everything. But, we (MARC and specifiers in general) don't write legal contracts. It's up to the attorneys and owners to do that. AIA does keep the Review Committee generally up to date on what's going on with documents. My personal belief is that they want the documents to be used by as broad a constituancy as possible, and do pretty well at getting lots of appropriate input. |
|
4specs.com Home Page