Archive through January 29, 2007

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

Author Message Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 262 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 01:09 pm:    After 39 years, I should know this but my memory and hunting and pecking skills in 4Specs.com have taken a vacation. I have two templates forms for Subsitution Requests after Bidding: CSI 13.1A and one proprietary form provided by a peer. AIA A201 3.4.2 says "The Contractor may make substitutions only with consent of the Owner, after evaluation by the Architect and in accordance with a Change Order." My interpretation of 3.4.2 is the Owner is first in the chain of command, followed by the Architect if the Owner did not reject the request. My experience is the request is delivered directly to the Architect for evaluation circumventing the Owner. That is not to say the Owner is not in the know. They usually are but the process starts with the Architect's Evaluation. The nonCSI form commences with Owner's Action which appears logical. The CSI form does not commence the same way. It goes directly to the Architect. Thinking outloud, perhaps most Owners don't want to initate the review and response. What is the best practical process? If this topic is old news, and we have been there and done that, please point me in the correct direction. Thanks Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 387 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 01:16 pm:    The process should be through the architect. The architect should have first review and then advise the owner. The owner will have the final decision. If it's approved by the owner, then it should be documented with a change order. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 164 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 01:26 pm:    AIA A201 3.4.2 says "...with consent of the Owner, after evaluation by the Architect..." seems to be clear enough. "After" being the operative word. The Owner's sign-off would be the change order. However, if text in Division 1 differs [ie, a custom form for substitutions stipulating a different process] then there may the a coordination issue as to which takes precedence. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 263 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 06:07 pm:    Ronald L. G and Ron B., Ron, you are correct in your assessment "seems to be clear enough" but I wanted to put out an APB to others to see how the rest of the lower 48 + 2 was processing. I merged what I preceived to be the best of both documents. The latest version has a section for Owner's review , signature and date at the end of the document. Chain of command is: GC to A/E to Owner. Either or both the A/E and Owner may reject the request, with Owner having the final thumbs up or down. As an aside to Ronald L. G., did you recive the copy of the HICSI chapter newsletter, Trade Winds? Thanks to both of you. Wayne J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 215 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 06:22 pm:    This may vary from job to job. I would that the Architect evaluate the substitution request and then forward it to the Owner with a recommendation. In some cases, the Owner may decide to accept the substitution against the recommendation of the Architect. This is consistent with the right of the Owner to accept Work that does not conform to the Contract Documents. I have been told that in many jurisdictions, the AHJ may not accept a modification to the permit documents without an Architect's stamp so the Architect may reinforce his negative recommendation by witholding his seal. The Owner who unilaterally accepts a substitution request runs the risk of accepting a change which may cause problems with the AHJ somewhere down the road. I would hope that the entity proposing the substitution would know better, but this is not always the case. It would seem to me that the Architect may unilateraly accept a substitution not involving changes to the Contract sum or the schedule by implementing an ASI; however, the Architect should exercise a reasonable judgement in making this type of change in the work. The Architect cannot accept a Substitution Request involving changes to the Contract Sum or Schedule unilaterally without the Owner's approval since such a change would be implemented by Change Order requiring the Owner's signature. In cases where the architect of record is not the one providing CA services, this all get a bit strange since the architect providing CA services (which may not even be an architect) may have little or no idea of the design intent. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 389 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2007 - 10:42 pm:    Wayne: I started to write that I hadn't, but, since I've started my own consulting business, I realized you probably didn't have my new email address. So I checked my email at my former employer (I still work for them as a consultant, so they let me keep my email) and there it was. Thanks. BTW, my new email address is ron@specsandcodes.com. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 157 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 02:51 am:    With all due respect (and there is much respect!) I think that Ron's take on this is costly and potentially wasteful for the architect, and can needlessly expose the architect to greater liablity. The Architect should recieve the Substitution first, but should immeadiately send it to the Owner for consideration, prior to review. That transmittal may also include an estimated fee proposal for what the review will entail if so directed. If the owner has a national contract with Trane, and the substitution is for York or Carrier, the owner is likely not going to even want to consider it. Why should the architect spend any time on it? If the Owner says, "Gosh, I can save $100,000 with _____ HVAC units, maybe I might be swayed. Mr. Architect, please ask your team to review this substitution per the fee you quoted." I have a substitution request form that requires the GC to compare apples to apples, take some ownership in the reccommendation of the substituted item, and allows the owner to sign off indicating that the Architect should review. The form then has sections for the Architect to complete, as well an optional area for CM's. There is a final section that the Owner signs accepting the findings of the Architect and providing direction regarding acceptance or rejection of the submittal request. Yeah, the form is a little onerous, but it certainly reduces the number of substitution requets, and in my opinion, provides a better building to the owner. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 390 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 10:16 am:    I would hope that the architect, or the mechanical engineer if we use the example above, would know what the owner's requirements are because they had to design and specify it in the first place. Additionally, if you're using AIA documents, substitutions can only be approved through the change order process unless the General Conditions are modified to accept another document to record substitution approvals. Randall L. Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 29 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 05:14 pm:    I may be demonstrating just how dense I am, but if the project specs include an "or equal" clause (and sometimes they do), then when is the substitution process triggered? Changing from a specified sheet waterproofing membrane, to a spray applied system would require a substitution request and a credit change, but what about lesser differences? Is it triggered when something was tested with a different ASTM? Is it triggered any time the contractor wants to use an or equal product? I know some will say to eliminate the or equal clause, but some clients require it. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 158 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 05:56 pm:    I have seen it several ways. The two that have worked in my past expereinces are as follows: 1. Specify one product as the basis of design, list several others as comperable, but in Div 1 clearly define that listed products other than the basis of design shall be considered a substitution and shall be submitted as such. 2. Allow any of the [3?] listed products to be submitted without a substitution request. Jim Brittell Senior Member Username: jwbrittell Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, January 26, 2007 - 06:12 pm:    At the public institution where I work, a substitution request is required whenever an "or equal" product or system is proposed by the contractor. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 166 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 04:50 pm:    As an independent specifier, my clients have a wide range of individual administrative practices and levels of due diligence; and their clients add another level of diversification. Also, I find that even within a single firm, their individual "studios" and design teams may administer their projects differently. Staying with a standard practice, ie, AIA 201, is the most practical for me. I try not to customize this process without specific direction from the architect. This leads into the reason to NOT, or at least, be VERY CAUTIOUS about permitting others to use your Division 1 sections as discussed in another thread.