Specifications or Plans ?

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

Author Message Patrick Boone (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2010 - 08:18 am:    Hi all, If there is a discrepancy between the specifications and plan sheets which one governs? Here's a for instance.... Plan Sheets show 5/8" anchors to be used on a piece of equipment, but the contractor hired a third party structural engineer per specifications and they designed/calculated with 1/2" anchors, and it was approved through the chain of command. Now it's inspection time and the IOR is asking the question of why did you use 1/2"? Your opinions would be helpful hear. Thank YOu Patrick Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 906 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2010 - 03:10 pm:    It depends on what the contract states. If you're using standard AIA documents, there is no precedence; the documents are considered complementary. Since you don't state the specific requirements of the specification regarding the delegated design, I can only assume that the contractor is to design the component within certain performance criteria. But if the drawings indicate a specific size, that size should be considered a design minimum. If the delegated design engineer determines that a smaller size is sufficient, then the delegated design submittal should have highlighted that difference for the reviewer. Otherwise, they should have used the size indicated on the contract drawings. This reminds me of the K.C. Hyatt Regency bridge collapse, where an alternate design proposed by the contractor, although approved by the EOR, changed the design developed by the EOR. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 348 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2010 - 03:36 pm:    Contractually Ronald is correct but you should ask why did the plans show 5/8" diameter anchors. Unless there is a compelling reason you might let them use the 1/2" anchors. If there is a reason for the 5/8" bolts you would have to consider the cost of fignting it or potentialy having the client pay the added cost. Similar problems occur often when some part of the design is delegated. Regards K.C. Hyatt i believe the problem was that nobody did any engineering on the subject connection which I believe was shown on the architectural drawings. The connection had not been designed in the first place, a change was made by the contractor, and the engineer of record did not pay any attention to the revisions. If there is a similarity with this condition it is that something was arbitrarily placed on the drawings. James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 75 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 10:06 am:    Since Christmas is upon us I'll take the opportunity to be a "grinch." Mark is correct (and subtle) in referring to architectural drawings and not "plans." Plans may be part of the drawings like elevations, sections, or details but they are not synonymous with drawings. Now that I've exposed my high-handed side you may call me names behind my back or to my face. It won't be the first or last time for either. My whole message, including this next part, really belongs in a different thread about incorrect work usage, if such a thread exists, but I also read on-line this morning an article about businesses that failed in 2010. A most amusing malapropism was contained in a paragraph that mentioned the demise of the Mercury and Pontiac automobile brands. The author wrote that Pontiac had once been a "distinguished marquis" in the General Motors panoply of automobile companies. I believe he meant "marque" as in product brand and assumed, since the word has French origins, that it also had an acute accent and ended with a long-e sound as in a theater marquee. The irony of course is Marquis was a particular model of the Mercury brand. James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 76 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 10:10 am:    Rats! I ruined my great rant by typing "work usage" instead of "word usage." Other blogs let the participants edit their entries after posting but my goof is now "out there" for all time. Anyway, I was amused by the misuse of the WORD marquis. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 397 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, December 20, 2010 - 10:15 am:    Wasn't it the Marquis of Pontiac Michigan who owned the once "marque" product from GM? Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 54 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 12:45 pm:    Not sure how the AIA Contract is set-up, but the (Canadian Construction Documents Committe) CCDC 2-2008 standard form of Contract (Stipulated Price) that is widely used (and abused by some Owners) across Canada actually has definitions for Contract Documents, Specifications and Drawings among others (27 in all): Contract Documents: The Contract Documents consist of those documents listed in Article A-3 of the Agreement - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS and amendments agreed upon between the parties. Drawings: The Drawings are the graphic and pictorial portions of the Contract Documents, wherever located and whenever issued, showing the design, location and dimensions of the Work, generally including plans, elevations, sections, details, and diagrams. Specifications: The Specifications are that portion of the Contract Documents, wherever located and whenever issued, consisting of the written requirements and standards for Products, systems, workmanship, quality, and the services necessary for the performance of the Work. In the actual Contract form, and just recently in my Project Manuals, all defined terms are italicized to show they are such. (unfortunately I couldn't find a way to italicize them in this editor) By the way, the same holds true north of the border with regards to the complimentary nature of the Contract Documents. "1.1.3 The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by any one shall be as binding as if required by all. " My question is this...has anyone ever figured out a way to make that stick ever? "Yeah the whosi-whatsit was shown on the Architectural drawings, but it referenced the Structural drawings. There was nothing shown on the Structural drawings and my whosi-whatsit guy only had the Structural drawings when he submitted his quote." I'm sure you've all heard it 1000's of times before. One of the things I don't miss about doing CA, although the guys who are usually come back to me for my opinion anyways. Ride it like you stole it!!! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1085 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 - 12:53 pm:    AIA is set up the same way -- with definitions, and I often included the "instructions to bidders" as one of the contract documents because I wanted the mandatory pre-bid meeting to actually be mandatory. The documents are complimentary in the AIA docs, but that simply won't get you there. By the time you're arguing about that, you've lost the argument. When I've done expert witnessing, invariably the ruling comes down to this: whoever had the documents in their possession the longest (ie, the Architect) is the most responsible for their content. Essentially: if there is a conflict, the architect loses. Now in this case, because there is some delegated design, that might soften the blow a little bit. James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 77 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 09:54 am:    I believe we need to stand firm on the complementary nature of the Contract Documents if that is indeed what the Contract states. The idea that the "Contract" itself trumps the other constituent documents still holds but to allow specifications to over-ride drawings or the reverse of that is just silly. These documents are supposed to be coordinated right? Then they truly will be complementary. BTW, I'm really not a jerk but I must point out that some on this thread have been writing "complimentary" when I'm sure they mean "complementary." One of us even wrote the former then quoted the referenced document complete with the correct word contained therein. As Sergeant Esterhaus, of the show Hill Street Blues, used to say "Let's be careful out there!" John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1290 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 02:34 pm:    I'm not sure what is meant by the "IOR." Is this a government project where there is an "engineer" who verifies work is done per the contract documents? In that case, changes definitely need to be approved by the chain of command or the government will insist on the "thing" being corrected. If IOR is the public official who inspects buildings for compliance (called different things in different places), you may have a similar problem in that the submitted and approved plans show something different. It may require submission of the calcs and an affidavit from the designer of record (who did NOT actually design the bolts in the instance described). Either way there are cautions for all to heed, here. By the way, I see no conflict between plans and specs described in this scenario, unless the specs specifically indicated a size different from the drawings. Otherwise, the size on the drawings would be taken as a minimum as noted in a post above. This sounds more like a delegated design, where the documents indicated the contractor was responsible for the design of the bolts. If neither of these is true, and the contractor was just trying to save some money by going through this exercise, the designer of record should be sure that the design is acceptable. Also, if there is a cost savings, the owner should realize them not the contractor. Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 55 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 03:01 pm:    I would like to complEment Mr. Sandoz on pointing out the error of my typing! I typed this first instance and copied & pasted the second instance from the actual Contract. I guess I didn't pay attention to the red squiggly lines under the mis-spelled word (no Lynn this isn't one of my neighbourly spelling differences). This might be categorized as a PEBKAC. Ride it like you stole it!!! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1174 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 03:22 pm:    Well, I'm a geek when it comes to geometry, so I find it easy to remember the difference by thinking of angles...and how one completes the other to make it "right". PEBKAC? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 398 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 03:44 pm:    Paul, You were not alone in the incorrect spelling. "The documents are complimentary in the AIA docs." Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1086 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 04:04 pm:    no, I confess to that error also, even though I consider myself a spelling harridan. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 385 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 05:14 pm:    A spelling harridan? Is that how Queens of Specifications end up? The Boedicea of Spelling sounds better to me. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 351 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 - 05:45 pm:    IOR is Inspector of Record. This is a term used in California primarily in the context of public school and hospital projects where there is a full time inspector on the job who is expected to sign off on the total project. The IOR is hired by the owner. Usually when the documents require calculations by the contractor but show a specific size it is a sign that the designers had not thought through the issues or sloppy preparation of details. In such situations I do not recall the documents making it clear that the specific size shown is a minimum. If there is ambiguity the call goes to the party who did not prepare the documents. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 576 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 12:54 am:    When I was teaching CDT classes, somewhere I came across a great cartoon illustration of plans complimenting specs. Or drawings complimenting the project manual. "My, what a lovely cover you have on today!" or some such whimsy. I'll blame Spec Guy as the source, but not sure that is correct. Phil, was that you? Or can someone else claim credit. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 78 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 09:28 am:    Not only are the 4specs discussion forum contributors some of the most intelligent and insightful people I have come across, practially all have a fantastic sense of humor. That makes learning fun. Why, today alone I learned two new words. I COMPLIMENT you all. Anne, you do have a sharp wit but "harridan?" Well, if the shrew fits. . Today is my last work day of the year. I'll return from my vacation in the middle of the first week of January. No matter the "faith orientation" of others this is a very special time of year for me and my family. Please accept my most sincere wishes of peace and joy for you and your families throughout the coming year. All the best, James Sandoz (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2010 - 01:29 am:    The solution is to use the redneck speks, which I done founded on the Interweb: SPESERFAKATIONS 1) The work we want did is clearly showed on the attached plans and speserferkations. Our Architec, whose had plenty of college, spent one hell of a lot of time when he drawed up these here plans and speserferkations. But nobody cannot think of everthing! Once your bid is in, that’s it, brother. From then on, anything wanted by our Architek, or any of his friends, or any body else (excep, the contrakter) shall be considered as showed, speserfied, or emplied and shall be pervided by the contrakter without no expense to nobody, but his self (meanin the contrakter). 2) If the work is did without no extry expense to the contrakter, then the work will be took down and did over again until the extry expense to the contrakter is satisfactory to our Architek. 3) Our Architeks plans is right as drawed. If sumthin is drawed wrong, it should be discuvered by the contrakter, kerected and did right with no extry expense to us. It won’t cut no ice with us or our Architek if you point out any misteaks our Architek has drawed. If you do, it will be one hell of a long time before you do any more work for us or him (meanin the Architek). 4) The contrakter is not sposed to make fun of our Architek, his plans, or the kind of work we is havin did. If he do, It’s jest too bad for him (meanin the contrakter). 5) Any contrakter walkin around the job with a smile on his face is subject to gittin his bid reviewed cause he won’t be a smilin if he dun his bid like we want. 6) If the contrakter don’t find all our Architek’s misteaks before he bids this job, or if the contrakter ain’t got enough sense to know that our Architek’s goin to think up a bunch of new stuff, that’s just too bad for him (meanin the contrakter). 7) The contrakter gotta use all good stuff on this job, none of that crap from China. 8) The contrakter gotta plan on givin bak some uv the munny he is paid so we can git us a new fishin boat or he (meanin the contrakter) can just give us the boat instead (but it better be a good’un). 9) To git this job the contrakter gotta promise not to tell nobody ‘bout the boat and he gotta promise to take us on a duck huntin trip too.