Hey Ralph - the dilemma continues!!!

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 460 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 11:15 am:    remember last years' dilemma that I thought I had won, well guess what as an XMAS present, the score is tied, 1 to 1, seems the dilemma continues, round two is about to start, the GC is up to the 53rd floor and the developer wishes to reopen the discussion - and here I thought 2007 for that job was going to end stress free. For those who have no idea what I am talking about check out the archives for 05-06 and look up my spec dilemma, if you have time to read all the posts...like I have time for this!!! George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 381 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 11:35 am:    This was the elimination of all referenced standards from the spec, correct? With the construction now underway, is the Owner seeking a credit from the Contractor for removing standards from the contract documents? That will be an interesting change order to write. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 748 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 11:42 am:    Whatcha you talkin' about, Jerome? You're in so many dilemmas, you should add "dilemma resolution" on your business cards! Is George right? Come on, give a guyt a break and a better idea of where to find your again- exposed skeleton. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 461 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 11:43 am:    Well I am awaiting receipt of another set of spec mark-ups to see how the specs have been bastardized this time....I don't know what to expect, I just know that is all starting again. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 462 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 11:54 am:    Ralph, your just jealous, we all need a few interesting dilemmas in our daily life - my business card says architect, I do specs for fun....oh, yeah and $$$ too. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 239 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 12:47 pm:    Jerome: What ever you do, just be sure you are paid by the hour. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 749 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 02:05 pm:    Jerome-- jealous of you!!!! Please! Well, yes!-- what with 4-inches of snow today and you basking in the warm sun with a large drink in your hand...... Are you telling us that there are to be new and different specs for the floors above number 53 as opposed to those below that level? Some logic. Use same tactics; same language; some charming, firm but fair rationale as the first time! Truth doesn't change! Oh, might be good to offer some insight into the ADDED cost that could well occur. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 463 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 03:06 pm:    Ron I don't pick up the phone these days unless I am paid for it...been screwed too many times in the past, playing hard ball these days...no more Mr. Nice Guy....besides I don't get those big royalty checks in the mail like Ralph from all those books he has authored, now there is a guy who works for the fun of it...by the way its a balmy 75 degrees today, beautiful blue skies and low humidity here in South Florida. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 464 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 03:09 pm:    Ralph I did not mean to infer that they are changing the specs above the 53rd floor, it sound like they have marked up the entire specs to match how they are building the building and they want me to revise the specs to match it....I don't know what to expect until I see the mark-up....isn't Florida construction fun! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 750 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 03:29 pm:    Oh, golly gee, thanks for the weather report-- I really needed that! Now read this carefully--- are you saying that you may be "willing" to do some really stupid work provided you're paid for it? Now that is NOT your work will be stupid, but why in the world would any one want to change the specs to match the building, other than for record documents? The building would still have been built using the standards and references..... Beats me! Go figure [your fee, of course!] Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 465 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 03:35 pm:    Ralph, sometimes Developers allow changes in the specs based on the buy-out of subs by the Contractor - its idiotic I know, but in Florida it happens a lot. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 751 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 03:46 pm:    And in 44 dilemma filled years, I thought I heard and saw it all. Oh well, off to shoveling snow! David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 943 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 05:35 pm:    Jerome, I can't find the original post that you are referring to. Can you please repost it, explain the problem or provide a link. Thanks. I moved to Seattle from Chicago because you don't have to shovel rain! Okay so maybe this year the strategy did not work so well.....he says while bailing out his basement. ;-) Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 466 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 05, 2007 - 05:41 pm:    David Enjoy!!! http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/3062/1611.html?1143142603 Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 752 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 06:56 am:    Oh, I see now-- I was but a small part of the first go round but gave you something you needed-- a cheer! So; Go, Jerry, Go; Hit 'em hard, but bill 'em high. Go for the "bomb" on first down but RUN if that fails. Discretion maybe the better part of valor, but it also let's you live another day! When your field is fertile, plant well but judiciously so as to preserve the soil. Oh, and blessings in the holiday season! George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 382 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 12:33 pm:    Does anyone else have that image of the old Monty Python bit in mind? "Whole blocks of high rise buildings held up by the power of POSITIVE THOUGHT". As long as you have faith the building won't collapse, things will work out... who needs standards? "My Brain Hurts" David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 944 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 01:20 pm:    Jerome, So let me get this straight. The Construction Defect Mitigation Service (snicker snicker) wants you to delete the references to standards in the specifications for a project that is already under construction? Sure! Why not! What the heck! Boy would that raise some eyebrows in the courtroom! How would you explain to the jury that you had build the job under time tested industry standards, then jerked the rug out from everyone and removed them. Bait and switch? Fraud? Professional negligence? If you are using IBC then the standards are already embedded in the project anyway. No way to run from them! Ask the Construction Defect Mitigation Service to show you examples where this procedure has been done on other similar projects. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 467 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 02:53 pm:    David In all the other projects that the CDMS is consulting on, they have managed to get the developer to delete the specifications from the Contract Documents. On my project from what I understand the specs are intact as I wrote them, unfortunately since I am not privy to the Contract for Construction, I do not know what the Contractor is following for construction; I hate to tell you how many projects I have written specs on only to find out that in final negotiations with the Developer, specifications were deleted from the Construction Contract - sounds absurd huh - not in South Florida. I agree that many of the standards are referenced in the Building Code, the CDMS does not care about that they only care about what is in the Project Manual - the interesting thing is that the CDMS will not give us an example of a project where specifications were re-written without standards - seems one does not exist yet. As far as I know I won the confrontation regarding deleting reference standards in the specifications. This is round two, they have not shown their hand yet, I have no idea what to expect, on the other projects where the CDMS tried the same, the specifications remain as written. It appears the Contractor would like us to revise the specifications based on how they have bought out the job. What that entails, I have no idea. The next few weeks should be interesting. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 240 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 03:03 pm:    Jerome: Seems to me that now would a good time to suggest that the owner/developer attend some of the several risk management courses that are available. I am sure the architect's professional liability insurer and most other insurance carriers can suggest some that are available. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CCS Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 37 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 03:10 pm:    Thanks for standing on your principles and doing the right thing. It may seem small in the big scheme of things, but it helps the rest of us in the long run when architects don't give in because the owner is always right. If I were a lawyer, mass mailings to condo owners in South Florida seems like a sure money maker . . . Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 468 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 03:37 pm:    Ron, Russ, David, if you do enough condominium work in Florida you become well acquainted with Florida Statutes Chapter 718 some of which is referred to as "Florida Condo Law" - very interesting reading or as many attorneys have told me, documents like these is why lawyers exist in the first place....and have so much work in Florida. I knew I should have gone to law school!!! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 754 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 04:04 pm:    Being quite old, old fashioned,and rather short of full intelligence, this all baffles me. Went on a search to better understand-- found this http://www.c-risk.com/Client_Services/Const_Defect_01.htm But more confused after reading the second paragraph under "Construction Process". Guess your guys, Jerry, operate differently yet! Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 102 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 04:21 pm:    Jerry, I did a 20-story condo over in Pelican Bay, FL back in the 80's and the Owner/Developer told us to remove the floor slab reinforcing mesh from the documents. Our Engineer said "no way". So the Owner said fine, leave it on the permit drawings, we just won't install it! Welcome to Florida...same old, same old. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 946 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 04:32 pm:    Jerome, I have a solution for you. Give them the original Word spec files and have them delete out the references. That way they are responsible for the changes and not you. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 220 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 04:41 pm:    Russell, that reminds me of the "reusable" paving rebar grids I've heard about (in place for inspection, but removed before pouring for re-use in subsequent paving). Ralph, I did the same search and noticed what I think is the same paragraph: "During the construction inspection process, C-Risk will verify that the work has been performed in accordance with the final set of approved plans and specifications, and that all applicable industry standards and manufacturers installation requirements have been met. We put a heavy emphasis on the critical areas of the construction process that have had a history of construction defect or homeowner warranty related complaints." So, eliminating referenced "applicable industry standards" -- even late in the game -- means that compliance with the "final set" of documents would be much easier to verify, right? And furthermore, it reduces (to zero!) the occurrence of defects due to non-conformance with those standards, right? And yet, how many "homeowner warranty related complaints" are based specifically on such nonconformance with standards? Few if any, I would guess. What an easy, simple, inexpensive way to eliminate so many potential defects, in one fell swoop... ;-) Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 146 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 04:44 pm:    Jerome, if you give them the word files to change make sure you have a dated set that showing what you originally gave them, then get a waiver regarding any liability for changes. PS make them pay for the copies big time. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 469 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 05:02 pm:    David We never give editable files to Developers, Contractors, or Architects. Sometimes we issue PDF's. Thanks for the suggestion, but there is no way I would ever do that. I'd rather they scan the specs and do that on their own, of course once they scan the specs, per our agreement, our limited liability and our agreement is null and void.