Owner's consultants specs in the proj...

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

Author Message John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 916 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 08:29 am:    What practices are firms using when the owner has directly retained engineering consultants (e.g. mechanical/electrical) who prepare drawings and specs? Concern is expressed about taking on the liability of a consultant not in our employ. We are considering having the owner bind and distribute those documents separately. We would prepare Division 01--there would clearly need to be significant coordination, regardless. What practices do you see in this situation? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 868 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 09:19 am:    John, is there a scenario that you proceed generally as with your own consultants, or do you have a lot, in Div. 01 that is very specific to constultants? Don't mean to minimize the situation, but the concept of 01, as you well know, is that they are project-wide provisions and EVERYONE follows them, [no matter their hiring entity] So, in essence, these consultants are much like any other. May be good to include something in coordination in 01 for general explanation of relationships to other project parties, but basic who-does-what is for the services contract not the specs [Agree??] And those contracts really are not contractors concern [or business] John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 917 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 09:49 am:    We are a full-service A/E firm (M/E/P/FP/LA/C), so normally we produce everything in-house. When we hire outside, we just include as if we produced it ourselves. Mostly I'm wondering how others package up a project when consultants are hired by the owner. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 276 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 09:49 am:    One office I do work for routinely makes the Owner's consultants issue their work separately on the advice of its liability insurance carrier. Drawings do not use the Architect's standard sheet border for the project. I put language in Division 01 Section "Summary" indicating that one or more consultants will be issuing documents separately. The Contractor is instructed to direct submittals, RFIs, etc., about these documents to the appropriate consultant. While this does not address all of the issues that might arise, it does alert the Contractor of how the job went together. This is a case of the scope of the design contract not being congruent with the scope of the construction contract. All documents (Drawings and Specifications) with requirements related to the Work of a particular construction contract are, conceptually, part of a single set of Contract Documents. In my experience, the Architect will be on the hook for some coordination whether or not compensation from the Owner has been arranged. Other design consultants are simply not equipped to coordinate the Work of a construction contract with other design disciplines. If the Architect attempts to shed this coordination responsibility, it usually will not happen (either in design phases or during construction), and the Architect may find itself with a bigger problem (and more liability). On many projects, many civil consultants like to have a separate contract with the Owner since most of their work is "up front." They can get paid and get out well before substantial completion. This is especially true on relatively simple sites where flood control issues are the primary ones the civil consultant must address. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 869 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 10:16 am:    We do follow somewhat what Mr. Jordan outlined. One thing I stress is that we do NOTHING with specs from those consultants-- we do not change headers, numbering, format, errors; nothing!!-- and we ID the "Consultant Documents" [as such] on the Table of Contents, so everyone knows who authors what. Often these come to us as .pdf files, so we just process them through, "untouched by human hands"!! It gets messy at times when we have to refer to "Interior Architect's" documents, and that person is hired by the Interior Designer, who is the Owner's basic consultant.. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 725 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 11:03 am:    From a specifier in an Architect's office: When an owner takes the contracts of consultants directly, there is also usually something in some of them (structural and typically MEP when it is NOT design build) that requires them to coordinate more closely with us and to follow our lead. That is, they are really consultants to us, but the Owner wants to process the payments. There are other consultants that they do not do that with, they are simply the owner's consultants. So that breaks down consultants into 3 categories. 1 - Consultants to us where we pay them and they are consultants to us. These consultants use our title blocks for their drawings. They mark up our master specifications for their specifications (structural always must markup) or if they are using their own sections (typically MEP, landscaping, and any others) we send them a page layout sample and guide for duplication. They print out and send to us for required review 2 weeks prior to the draft where we mark it up and return it to them for coordination corrections and 1 week before the final - so any corrections have time to be picked up. 2 - Consultants to us but whose contract is controlled by the Owner for payment purposes. Same as 1 above. 3 - Other consultants and design build entities. They do not use our drawing title block, they do not use our page layout. We offer to review for coordination but often the owner declines to require them to do anything other than drawing coordination. These range from major consultants like landscape, food service, theater consultants, sometime (but rarely) MEP, to smaller efforts like civil, interiors, pools, fountains, building security and many others. *** What we do with documents. 1 and 2 above, they are bound into our project manual. 3, they are not bound in, they are not listed in the table of contents. We include in Division 1 Summary of Work a listing of "Documents produced by others" meaning that the work is part of the Contractor's work, but are coming from someone else. We itemize by scope. We also include break outs for categories where these consultants are 'separate contracts with the Owner', 'work to be provided by the Owner and installed by the Contractor and if a contract is design build. Historically over the years (since 1983 here) this has always worked well with no complaints from any owner. Sometimes some of them have requested we include other consultants in our project manual. We resist this NOT due to liability reasons, but because this traps us into maintaining these documents, issuing their addenda and amendments over time. If you are going to publish items in the project manual, you have to maintain them or its no use to do so. The owners easily understand that point of view. A few attempt to prevail upon us to do so and we will ultimately say yes if the consultant will agree to our addendum number assignment, and methodology of maintaining the documents, and if they will also follow our markups to their specs for division 1 coordination. The issue has always died at that point - no consultant in this category has ever agreed to do this, their pseudo division 1 information almost always conflicts with ours and they never want to follow any system for addenda/amendments, they just issue stuff 'willy nilly'. Once or twice we have agreed to print them for the owner, we create a nice cover that identifies them and bind them separately. I think I can count the number of times this is done on 1 hand since 1983. And it has almost always resulted in problems. Worst case example being that the owner had the consultant send over their 'specs'. We had the separate book made and the owner issued it out, only to have the contractor call him and ask him why he was printing out of date specs. Seems the consultant had sent significant revisions with new dates directly to the contractor. We have never had any consultant them maintain the documents we have printed, no matter their process. We get down the road into construction several months and all their stuff on file with us is out of date and never printed again. *** A mention is made of pdf files. PDF files from any consultant even in categories 1 and 2 above are deleted before being opened. I won't touch them. I have 2 issues. A - we are doing the printing, and if something is wrong with their set up of the pdf and it prints incorrectly somehow it becomes our fault to redefine the page layout for each document. B - I think its damned inconsiderate to have any consultant think they can just send an electronic file and take my time, my paper, my printer usage to print off their files, and take my time to collate and verify that I have everything. Many consultants are small packages, and maybe every now and then for last minute and much groveling I will do this but if anything at all is wrong, its back to them to fix whether I notice it or not. But anything over 20 or so pages or more than 2 or 3 sections, is NO, I am not their clerk. William Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 251 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 11:46 am:    This may be covered by state regulations requiring documents prepared by various professionals to say who did what, since design professionals may not, except under certain conditions, seal documents prepared by others. In Texas, for example, when specifications prepared by professionals in various disciplines are bound together, their respective responsibilities must be clearly identified, and the rules also appear to require a disclaimer of responsibility for documents prepared or furnished by the Owner or others (sealed or not). The architectural rules say, “If only a portion of a document was prepared by an Architect...the Architect’s seal may not be affixed to the document unless: (1) the portion of the document prepared by the Architect...is clearly identified; and (2) it is clearly indicated on the document that the Architect’s seal applies only to that portion of the document prepared by the Architect...” Similarly, the engineering rules say, “When sealing plans or documents on which two or more license holders have worked, the seal and signature of each license holder shall be placed on the plan or document with a notation describing the work done under each license holder’s responsible charge.” Texas engineering regulations further require that engineers' seals be placed on the "title sheet" of bound specifications — more specific than the architects’ rule, which requires only that the architect's seal be placed "in at least one conspicuous location on the bound document." Since many of our projects include front-end documents prepared by the Owner (that we cannot change), we include the seals on a page identified as the “Title Sheet” listing the professionals-of-record with the divisions and/or sections prepared by each of them, along with a paragraph like the following: “Specifications divisions and sections are listed below with the professional-of-record responsible for their preparation, under whose authority, or seal and signature, each respective portion is issued for the purpose stated above. Seals and signatures do not apply to documents that are bound herein but prepared by the Owner or others instead of the professionals-of-record named below; these may include, but are not necessarily limited to, Bidding Requirements, Contract Forms, Contract Conditions, General Requirements, and other documents such as geotechnical reports.” We use this approach in both design-build work (with the builder's other consultants) and conventional work, where they may be either the Owner's or our consultants. If we include our firm name on each page, then the other consultants use their name on their sections (though usually in a uniform page format). Other consultants usually send specs to us in pdf format (we ask that they include blank pages for right-hand starts). Assembling a Project Manual as one big pdf is fairly simple. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 60 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 11:59 am:    We are structural consultants that are occasionally retained directly by the Owner. In our experience we operate essentially the same as when retained by another design professional. In this context our roles and services and responsibilities are essentially unchanged. With this approach we do get paid better and we typically have more influence when decisions influence our work. This approach has worked well with national and regional architectural firms. The goal is to produce construction documents that our client can use to contract with the contractor who uses them to build the project. No matter who your contract is with if the Owner has one contract with the Contractor there needs to be one point of contact. This means we all need to work together. Directing the contractor to send submittals directly to different consultants is a disaster waiting to happen. Who coordinates? Many “structural” submittals are of interest to the Architect. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 726 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 01:10 pm:    Mark, Absolutely good point. And for all consultants that are part of our scope, we do process all submittals with the architect's review and stamp on it. We do not though review or even accept submittals that are to consultants to the owner that are outside of our scope (scope for architectural services including structural and mep and sometimes some others, but at least those unless mep is design build). Any coordination needs to be done as contract documents are prepared and modified. If we are designing out to the substrate of the wall, meaning the drywall, but not the finish put on it, that's the end of our responsibility if the interior designer is doing the finishes in that space. We do bring this potential problem to the attention of the owner. And we do have some owners who pay us an additional service, or have it included in our scope up front, to actually do ALL the contract administration for the interiors package. Smart owner, frankly. If not, then its the owner's choice not to engage our services - and pay us for implementing someone else's work. *** Bob, We have an office in Washington, DC and in Dallas, TX. We have numerous projects all over Texas, not public work, but commercial office buildings and high rise residential (condos and apartments). Not a single project that we have ever done in Texas has ever had the project manual signed or sealed in any fashion. In addition, internally the project manual (some have included consultants to us including structural, landscaping, and interiors) have never had any identification as to who has prepared which sections. The same is true for our DC office with projects up and down the east coast in a variety of states. And no one, not even in Texas, has ever asked about it. The decision is not mine, its a consensus of the managing principals. If someone or some governing agency ever asked, we would, but its never been asked. I don't even have an 'unused format layout' for a signature/document identification page. William Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 282 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 02:11 pm:    Unfortunately, here in California, it its mandatory to sign & seal the Project Manual, especially when doing work for DSA or OSHPD. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 727 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 02:36 pm:    Public or government work is a different matter when it comes to signatures and seals. I am speaking here totally of private sector work like commercial office buildings an high rise residential. William Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 252 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 02:52 pm:    I don't think Texas makes a distinction between public and private work; private clients are part of the "public" protected by licensing laws. It never ceases to amaze me what design professionals might hope to gain by not sealing and signing their documents as required by law (i.e., state regulations). Do they somehow think that by so doing (or not doing), they reduce, or avoid, liability? Think about it: If liability were to become an issue, it may well lead to litigation. What does one say when asked, "Were you aware of the legal requirement that you seal and sign documents that are your responsibility? and "Then why did you decide not to comply? Not a good way to begin a deposition--as a self-admitted violator of one of the profession's basic legal and ethical obligations (or at best, ignorant of it). The impression on a jury could be worse in effect than a board's fine or other penalty. So, if it doesn't reduce or avoid liability, what other reason could there be? David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 112 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 03:30 pm:    It doesn't really matter what we think based on our experiences. On this issue, follow to the letter the advice of your professional liability insurer. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 728 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 03:59 pm:    What David said. And if no one asks for it and yet they issue permits and occupancy... William J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 277 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 - 04:35 pm:    For projects in Texas, there are some rather specific regulations regarding the sealing of specifications by design professionals. Failure to follow the rules can result in sanctions (including fines) from the authorities. They seem to change slightly each year so keeping up can be a problem. If you are doing projects in Texas and have not looked at these rules in a while, you should take a look. TITLE 22, PART 1, CHAPTER 1, SUBCHAPTER F, RULE §1.103 Required Use of Seal and Retention of Sealed Documents states "each specification: if a specification is included in a bound grouping of specifications that includes a table of contents or index listing each individual specification, the seal must be placed in at least one conspicuous location on the bound document; any individual specification sheet or electronic equivalent of a specification sheet that is issued separately must be sealed individually;" See http://www.tbae.state.tx.us/LawsEnforcement/StatutesRules.shtml for more information. Doesn't matter if the AHJ don't ask for it; doesn't matter what your professional liability insurer says; doesn't matter what your firm's policy is. If your firm is turned in for a violation of the rules, the alleged violation will be investigated, and the person responsible for the violation of this rule may be fined (or worse). The Board has no sense of humor about this (although the name of the person who will conduct the investigation is Mr. Stamp).