| Author |
Message |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 02:50 pm: |    |
The company I work for is building a new six million dollar facilty. We hired an architect to create the plans and write the specifications for this project. We invited four general contractors to bid the project. I am in charge of the construction process.
During the bidding process, I received a call from a supplier I know saying the architect rejected a substitution request because "The owner wants brand "x".(This was news to me because no discussion ever took place) I told the supplier I would call the architect and get a further explantion.
I called the architect and was told this was a misunderstanding. He would allow the substitute.
I didn't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I got off the phone from the architect. It seemed like something was wrong.
So I called a friend who worked for a door/frame/hardware distributor in California. I asked him some questions about the specs and he told me to email him the door hardware specs.
He sent me an email telling me that hardware specification was probably written by a distributor or manufacturer trying to lock out the competition. There was only one manufacturer specified. And to top it off, the key system was exclusively tied to the local distributor.
I ask four general contractors to bid the project, I expected all phases to be competitivley bid. Or at least for the architect to tell me what items or phases of the work I wasn't getting competetive pricing on.
I called my friend the hardware distributor and he said this "spec writing" was normal operating proceedure on private and public jobs.
Is this true?
I did further investingating of the specs and found out I wasn't getting competetive prices on light fixtures, plumbing fixtures, some HVAC equipment, door hardware, and composite wall panels. There could have been more that I didn't discover.
I found out in one instance that two manufactueres were listed in the specs, but both of the manufactueres were exclusively sold in my area by the same distributor.
I expected the architect to help me get competetive pricing. Is this an unrealistic expectation?
I told the owner of the company (my boss) what I found out and he came unglued.
We had a meeting with the architect and got equals inserted in the specifications before the job bid.
I am just a little frustrated to say the least.
Are architects to busy or lazy to write their own specs.
Do they need more education?
Are the distributors and manufactures taking them on so many golf outings and dinners, that they forget who writes them the check?
Please comment on this situation. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 03:20 pm: | |
"Are architects to busy or lazy to write their own specs.
Do they need more education?"
Architects have a vested interest in specifing products that they have positive experience with, that they know will function for the application you have requested, and will provide a tangible quality level consistent with the overall building design requirements.
We almost always specify a particular product that is known to us, for the owners satisfaction, and protection of our liability.
However, even with a "basis of design" designated product spec, the division 1 "front end" of the specifications can have language to allow equivelent products. Does your spec have this inclusion?
If your contractors are encouraged to submit substitutions for the Owner's benefit of pricing, how are you handling the Architect's increased work load in the submittal review and performance comparison process? How are you compensating the architect for their increased liablity in approving unknown/unproven products? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 03:35 pm: | |
I think the answer to all your questions is "yes". In my experience, most architects do not understand spec writing; they are too busy; they do need to be educated in writing specs; and they are extensively courted by distributors and manufacturers. Sometimes, they will request a manufacturer with good cause because of successful history, but many times that means they never gain knowledge of any other manufacturer.
Spec writers are more inclined to seek information about comparative products and manufacturers. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 04:03 pm: | |
"If your contractors are encouraged to submit substitutions for the Owner's benefit of pricing, how are you handling the Architect's increased work load in the submittal review and performance comparison process? How are you compensating the architect for their increased liablity in approving unknown/unproven products?"
How would I handle the increased work load?
If the specs had a couple of equals in them from the beginning, there would be no increased load. The contractors would not have to send in bunch of substitution requests if we had equals from different manufacturers and distributors. We wern't going to allow substitutions after the job bid.
I'm not asking for unknown products. None of the equals that were added to the specs were unknown. They were all quality products.
The specs did have a substitution request form (prebid form), but the architect rejected a particular request for no good reason. |
Jerry Tims
Senior Member
Username: jtims
Post Number: 46
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 04:28 pm: | |
I'm not condoning the actions of the architecture firm in question in this thread. However, I will go ahead and add my 2 cents worth, from the architecture side of things. Over the past few years, we've severely limited substitutions on our projects. If we only list our "basis of design" manufacturer, then we always allow for substitutions. However if we list 3 or more manufacturers, in most cases we won't allow substitutions.
The reason is that, at least in our area, if we allow substitutions, then the majority of the time, we'll end up with nothing BUT substitution requests from the contractors. This is especially true on projects that have a "CM at Risk" on board. Time and time again, we find that throughout the project, they'll base their pricing on manufacturer's and products that aren't in the specifications. Throughout the project, they're doing everything they can to "cozy up" with the Owner. Then, when we start getting substitution requests, and deny them "for no good reason" other than it is plainly stated that substitutions will not be allowed, the CM will start crying to the owner that the architect isn't being cooperative. When, in truth, their pricing has been based on non-specified, and often substandard products all along.
OK.....I'm stepping down from my soap box now. |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 457
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 04:33 pm: | |
Just because somebody is an architect doesn't necessarily mean they are a good specifier. The truth is that specifying is a specialty, and without additional training like the CSI certifications, most architects are not very good at it.
Just because somebody is a good specifier doesn't mean they can do a good job at door hardware specifying. We have had discussions here about the question of door hardware consultants (See: Hardware Consultants ). It is rare to find a truly independent door hardware consultant these days. Most are tied to one of the big hardware mega-companies, so their impulse is to try to steer work to their employer. But if you make it clear that the hardware spec needs to be open, a reputable hardware specifier from one of the big companies and do a very credible job. Look for the AHC, CDT, or CCS on the business card, and make your intentions clear with the consultant at the first meeting.
Product selection and specification is another subject that takes a quite a bit of practice and understanding. A full discussion of the nuances and principles here is impossible, but I would recommend to those who want to improve their understanding of this topic to look in the PRM, or to catch one of the classes on the subject at the CSI convention, or similar venue. I will plug seminars by Phil Kabza and by Peter Jordan, which I have attended. Both Phil and Peter are architects and specifiers, and their seminars were excellent discussions of how and why certain products get selected, and how the specification assures that the needs of the Owner are met. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 304
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 05:10 pm: | |
I am a specification consultant who is also an architect. With all of my projects, I try to "open the spec" as much as possible. While I understand that there are products which really do have no equal, there are usually (not always, but usually) similar products with adequate performance that are available. I do have one product representative who wants me to write a proprietary specification for CMU and cannot understand why I refuse to do so.
Many architects do have a "quiver" of products which satisfy most if not all of the following characteristics 1) They are usually appropriately priced for the project, 2) Their inservice performance is good (no complaints by the client and trips out to the jobsite to fix something), 3) The product is available in the local market, 4) The local installers are familiar with the product and do a good job installing it, or 5) The manufacturer or distributor offers good service and technical assistance during design, construction, and occupancy (as well as the occassional round of golf). An experienced architect (or firm) will understand the value of finding something that works and staying with it. Once a product has failed (not necessarily a catastrophic failure, but an annoying and potentially cost consuming failure nonetheless), the architect will have a tendency to stay as far away from the product as possible; even if the product has been sucessful on 999 out of 1000 projects and cost 20 percent less. These architects tend grow more conservative in their choice of products and may not have the capability to effectively research product options. It should be pointed out that this expertise does have value. This "quiver" of products will be the result of one or more careers dealing with building product issues.
There are economic issues associated with product evaluation and selection. When clients beat the architect down on fees and compress schedules, there is less time (and money) available for effective product research. The project team will be relying on tried and true solutions and office-standard details and specs. It can be argued that this approach embodies the "corporate memory and wisdom" of that design practice which is what the client is paying for in the first place.
There are also issues related to visual quality of the design. Developing a design that could be truly competitively bid could mean compromising on exact textures and colors that have been developed by the designer and approved by the client. In some cases these design issues are just as important as the building's overall technical performance, in many they are not. They may, however, lock the project (and the production/specifier team) into a pallete of materials offered by a particular manufacturer or set of manufacturers.
The architect may, in fact, attempt to elicit design (and performance) criteria from the client. This is often met with "I thought that's what I hired you for." Without adequate minimum performance standards from the client, the architect may tend to "over specify" so that the possibility of failure is extremely remote. Grade 3 may be adequate for the project but 3 times more likely to fail than Grade 1. In the absence of other criteria, I choose Grade 1 so there is almost no possibility that the architect would be called to the jobsite during Owner's occupancy and use throughout the life of the facility.
Finally; there is competition and there is competition. Some products are truly commodity items and anyone can buy them from anybody. At the other extreme, certain products are available for a single distributor with a select list of installers. Other products can be purchased directly from the manufacturer, bypassing the local distributor. Prices may be fixed by a manufacturer or a distributor, but more often, favorable pricing is available. In the case of door hardware, even though the item may only be available through a single local distributor, there is adequate competition in the bidding process from the installers. The supplier has an ax to grind since he handles a different line; however, even though the product he sells may have a less expensive price sheet than his competitor, one or more installers may be able to underbid using the specified product every day of the week except Wednesdays and alternate Thursdays (and the Friday after hunting season starts). Very little of this approaches any degree of transparency. The architect who is juggling as many as 40 or 50 different major products/systems (does not include consultants' products/systems or the accessory or minor products) simply cannot hope to fathom this mess.
You might want to insist that your architect uses the services of a specifier who holds CSI's Certified Construction Specifier credential. You could request that the specification be developed from one of the commercially available master specifications. You could also ask for (and pay for) design alternatives so that there could be the most competition. You could insist that no brand names be used unless two other brand names be listed (and pay the architect to truly research the alternatives). Even then, I would suggest that there are certain products that should be included on your project (with your approval and knowledge) even though no equal/comparable product exists. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 04:40 pm: | |
Jerry,
I see your point.
I want competitive bids on all phases of the work.
I want materials from different manufactures and distributors.
No substitutions after the bid.
If you limit your manufacturers to three, I'd make sure the same distributor doesn't have an exclusive on all three. Or that all three are still in business or viable choices. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 05:25 pm: | |
"If you limit your manufacturers to three, I'd make sure the same distributor doesn't have an exclusive on all three. Or that all three are still in business or viable choices."
We don't specify distributors, we specify products. We often have no knowledge of whether the item is only carried by Walters Wholesale or Dewey's Depot Center. I think its an unreasonable burdon to expect the architect to fathom the intracacies of manufacturing market.
I agree that products that are obsolete are often specified. This is lamentable, but hard to correct. Right now, new companies are springing up and long standing ones are disappearing faster than we can track! |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 424
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 07:08 pm: | |
The focus seems to be on a few products but there are dozens on a project that have unique considerations which the project designer (or by default, specifier) must consider in selecting the products to specify.
Interior finish materials: There are no true equals. Interior finish material schemes are developed after many hours of discussion between the designers and the owner. Sometimes it doesn't matter which acoustical ceiling panel is used but other times there is only one that will be acceptable. Designers and owners need to understand what are available products and communicate whether one and only one product will be acceptable. When it comes to a product such as paint, almost all paint manufacturers can duplicate another's color (it gets tricky when certain shades of color require exotic pigments, but that's not a typical problem).
Door hardware: The keying system does indeed determine which manufacturer of LOCK CYLINDERS must be used. For mortise locks, it's my understanding that lock cylinders of one manufacturer may adapt to be used in several manufacturers' mortise locksets and exit devices. Often, a facility owner will standardize on one lock manufacturer in order to have keying compatibility throughout a complex of buildings. Certain security features of lock systems may be essential according to the owner and the owner's security consultant. For other hardware products, there may be items that are considered like commodities: door stops, kickplates and 5-knuckle hinges. But there may be limitations imposed by the facility owner ("use only Von Duprin exit devices" or "use only US-manufactured hardware") that come into play. Door hardware is a complex matter requiring specialized knowledge that many architects and specifiers don't have. Thus, a Door Hardware Consultant (AHC) is engaged. Someone must pay for the AHC's services. The "free" door hardware spec writers are paid by door hardware manufacturers or suppliers. My experience is that there are excellent and unacceptable AHC's in each category. For the majority of my projects, door hardware specifications are written by a highly competent AHC who is employed by the manufacturer. I have also had projects where the AHC was independent and paid either by the owner or the architect and the door hardware specs was either excellent or deficient.
Lighting fixtures: These are typically part of a buyout package and it is impossible for a designer/specifier to know the individual prices of individual fixtures. There are pricing formulas between manufacturers, suppliers and contractors that differ. Various contractors may get different price quotes from the same supplier for the same fixtures and quantities.
The greatest difficulty I have with trying to create the idealized "competitive" specification is that it puts the designer into a position of directing how the contractor will procure products for the work. That is, the architect takes on additional effort with no additional compensation to relieve the contractor of work that the contractor is paid to do (manage construction). This increases the contractor's compensation at the architect's expense and risk. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 08:32 pm: | |
Keeping these comments specific to Door Hardware specifications I would note:
Architecture Firms often have two choices:
1. They pay someone to write the spec, either their own in-house employee, a consulting specification writer that feels comfortable writing door hardware specs, or a stand-alone hardware consultant.
2. They can rely on one of the "free" services provided by hardware reps.
Based on the no substitution language, it sounds like they went with option 2, which often can sound very tempting. For all we know, they tried to include a fee-based hardware consultant in their contract but the client nixed the idea. |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 720
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 09:08 pm: | |
Also keeping to hardware, I know (through CSI) several AHCs from three of the larger door hardware companies in my area (Assa Abloy, Stanley, and Ingersoll Rand), and I trust them all to provide products that meet the needs of the owner.
Typically, my client (the architect) will make the contact with the hardware consultant, but usually after my recommendation. My recommendation is usually based on the owner's preferences--and in most cases the owner does have a preference, especially with public work. For example, if the owner has a Best keying system, I give my client the name of the Stanley consultant.
Getting to the gist of the original post, you asked, "I expected the architect to help me get competetive pricing. Is this an unrealistic expectation?" Expectations are one thing--actual requirements are another. My question to the owner is: was the requirement to have this project competitively bid at all levels relayed to the architect in a clear and concise manner (and possibility written into the agreement) before the owner-architect agreement was executed? |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 113
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 02:16 am: | |
The big problem here is that your expectations are at odds with those of the Architect. I am not going to say that your Architect is totally right but until you are on the same page regarding expectations you will not be able to work things out.
First you are operating in an environment where there is often no right answer. The architect if he is doing his job can give you a good answer.
The decision as to what the most cost effective solution is often subjective and is unknown until the Contractor submits his bid. The process by which the contractor figures his price is partially objective and partially subjective.
There is always somebody who will give you a cheaper price and they will insist that their product is better. But also consider the fact that many General Contractors will not deal with certain subs because they have been too much trouble.
The Owner is often unwilling or incapable of participating in decisions regarding the tradeoffs between cost, performance, and risk. Thus the Architect is left to make decisions based on his preferences. Second guessing the decision after the design is incomplete may be unfair if the Owner was unable or unwilling to help make some of the policy decisions up front. It should also be noted that all too often architects do not involve the Owner in these discussions.
Typical design fees are not adequate to create the most cost effective design. In some instances the cost of selecting additional products and modifying the documents to reflect these alternates can exceed the likely cost savings.
Project schedules often do not provide enough time to do a first class job even if the fees were adequate.
A good architect will give you a design that is consistent with your budget and requirements. He will also focus on those costs that have the biggest impact on the final price. The impact of a 20% increase on a very small percentage of the project may be insignificant when compared to a 5% increase on a bigger portion of the project. A good architect will focus his attention on the areas of the project that will have the greatest impact on cost.
Note that in many instances the price for a specific product will not vary significantly whether there is one bidder or four. On the other hand the cost of the fabrication and installation can vary significantly.
If you want a sanity check then have an independent estimator give you an opinion as to the cost of the project. You can also sit down with one or two Contractors to explore potential savings. Both of these strategies are utilized by sophisticated owners.
You might want to retain an experienced construction manager to guide you through the process.
Do not get indignant and moralistic because that too often leads to litigation which in the long run is often more costly than working through the problems. Also do not focus only on cost since that will lead to long term problems. |
Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: don_harris
Post Number: 215
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 07:06 am: | |
Hardware is one of the more unique circumstances in any job. I used to write all of the hardware specs for my firm. As our projects became more complicated we turned to a number of AHC's to write the specs and create the hardware sets. The fact is they could do in two days or less what would take me a week or more to do, and do it more accurately.
For the past 10 years (or so) we have worked almost exclusively with an AHC that is an employee of one of the "Big 3". Of course he wants to write specs to help his company, but he also wants to write specs that help us and our client. He is more than willing to write-in other companies, especially if a campus has a lock and key system from one of the other "Big 2". We have rarely had any issues with his specs. We constantly review the content and format with him and we basically would have a difficult time producing our work without his services.
An architect can not just hand over work to consultants and issue their work without any oversight and review. This seems to be what happened in this case. However, the bottom line is that the problem was resolved, the hardware is competitive now, and life should just go on. Remember, hardware is a unique situation. Just because the hardware spec was proprietary, doesn't mean the rest of the spec is not competitive. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 937
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 08:42 am: | |
Few points with no accusations--
1. The comments of the others are quite correct and valid.
2. Was there a complete review, with the architect, of the drawings, AND the specifications, PRIOR to issuance for bidding?
3. Were there specific instructions [not assumptions, innuendos, inklings, etc.] that the specifications would provide for fully competitive bidding [observing that fully equal products often do not exist]?
4. Was the architect challenged, preferably before hand, about using products only within certain restricted distributors' areas?
Overall it appears there was a disconect between owner and architect early-on [perhaps before you came on board] and as noted they were not on te same page-- regrettable! |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 09:06 am: | |
I'm addressing the point of cost by specifying a single manufacturer or having an exclusive distributor.
I've worked for several distributors over the last 15 years. Some of the products were commodotites and some were somewhat special, but there was always at least two competitors who had an "equal".
1. When a single manufacturer is specified, the distibutor will not get any special or discounted pricing from the manufacturer. This is a big win for the manufacturer and distrubutor. The end user is the loser.
2. When a product is specified and the distributor has the exclusive on all two or three of the products is the specs, the distributor is the winner. The end user loses again.
3. When a product is specified with a single manufacturer with a exclusive distributor. CHA-CHING. The manufacturer wins, the distributor wins. The architect probably wins too (drinks, golf, dinner, sports tickets, fishing trips, Have I left anything out?) The end user pays for it all and more. The end user gets the priviledge of buying the overpriced material from the single source distributor and manufacturer. It happens every day. Everybody wins but the end user. The end user has no idea he is getting screwed unless he gets the phone call from the manufacturer or distributor as mentioned in the first post. I have seen 75%-125% mark ups on a $40k cost of material. Normal mark up would have been 18%-20%. There could be four or five products like this on a job that the end user is getting killed on.
Are these "free" specs free or do they cost the end user more in the long run? |
Jerry Tims
Senior Member
Username: jtims
Post Number: 47
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 09:55 am: | |
The ONLY time we (our firm) specifies a product or system is a) when it's a privately funded project or b) it's a publicly funded project, and we have documented "permission" from the owner to do so. And we only do it in those rare cases when we're convinced that the product or system is being selected because it's the best solution for the owner. Personally I resent the implication that we're doing so because of bribes or perks from the manufacturer. We run an ethical business. We work FOR the owner. Any implication otherwise is unfounded and offensive. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 305
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 12:14 pm: | |
A critical questions that needs to be addressed has to do with when the "best" product/system (or the one most suited to the project) is one that is sole sourced through the manufacturer / distributor / installer chain. And I am talking about a product that is critical to the success of the project. Although this may not be true in the case of the project under discussion, I have seen this on a number of projects (even some public work). Such a product selection may be driven by owner requirements or by design decisions approved by the owner. If the owner may want the "best price" from competitive bidding, this needs to be a part of the discussion even with fat-pen-on-napkin sketches over drinks. "I'm sorry; that special glass tint you want is only manufactured by XYZ Glass. Yes, I know that ABC makes a blue tinted glass, but it is a darker tint, and we really want more visible light transmittance through the glass wall." Of course, many designers I know (especially the younger ones) don't really know the sources of their materials or possible alternate products.
I, too, have some resentment over the implication that I would choose to specify a particular manufacturer because they paid for the last really good steak I had. If that is the case then we must be really cheap dates. If I am going to throw several hundred thousand dollars in the direction of a particular vendor because of a junket, I want something more than the $5,000 5-day Waikiki package with coach class tickets. Seriously, I know that it may look like that, but the reps I deal with know that I am a "hard sell." I ask a lot of hard questions, and I believe that there are reps who choose not to call on me because I expect answers they can't provide. I would be really surprised if there were vendors out there who would think I could be "bought." Most of the vendors know who makes the final purchasing decisions (it isn't me and it usually isn't the architect) and, if they are inclined, will spend the big bucks where it will do the most good.
As others have noted, door hardware has become particularly difficult. A good AHC will write a good spec that can be competitively bid provided the architect or the owner provides good design criteria. Often, these people are told what kind of building is being designed and provided with a floor plan and an incomplete door schedule with which to work. Although this can be enough for many projects, it can rapidly become inadequate. Is there an existing keying system? Does the owner have a preference for bored or mortise locks? What level and type of security is required? Who will be maintaining the keying/security system? Certain combinations of answers to these questions will lead to a "closed" specification. If a junior member of the design/production team is assigned to deal with doors and hardware, the AHC will probably have to make a best guess as to the answers, and, yes, he/she will write their own stuff in.
Oh, and as for going directly to the owner? A rep told me several years ago not to worry if there were errors in the specification, he would contact the owner directly and get it worked out. I told him that if I ever found out he was doing that on one of my projects, I would never again specify his products. He should contact me directly to discuss any issues with the specification. I have had several instances where this was done. A number of valuable hours were spent justifying relatively routine design decisions (previously approved by the owner) with the outcome being unchanged.
In the project that started this thread, the distributor did the right thing, going to the architect first. This does not always happen.
Bottom line? Most architects (and specifiers) are trying to do the right thing in an environment where there may be too little information, too little time, and too little money. Off course, there are also architects who work in an environment of too few ethics and who are a few triangles shy of a T-square. Clients with good ideas of what they truly need and with the capability of making timely decisions on design alternatives proposed by the design team will result in a better project. Of course, these clients are usually not looking for the cheapest architect either. |
Cecil K. (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 01:31 pm: | |
Sorry you are offended by my post, but don't shoot the messenger.
The manufactures that we rep and sell influence us somewhat with golf, dinner, etc...
The area where I work, we probably gave 15 architectural firms we deal with on a regular basis. I believe only one has a full time spec writer. And you can sure tell the difference in the quality of the specs.
We have three other large firms (my guess is they handle about 40% of the work). One of them "protects" my products and the other two dont. If the other two don't give me a satisfactory answer why my products aren't approved, I go to the owner. I have nothing to lose.
Most of the other firms let both parties write specs and accept sub requests.
So, in my area, 20% of the firms can be influenced by substantial perks, extras, freebees, etc...
PS - I always submit a sub request before I call the owner.
PPS - I posted the thread at 9:06am today as anonymous |
Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA
New member
Username: rich_gonser
Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 07:36 pm: | |
In the starting post of this thread, the accusatory tone presented that the Architect is at fault for anything he/she does regarding specifications and product selection. One of the things forgotten here is the Contractor. Who is proposing these substitutions? 85 out of 100 substitution requests I get are incomplete, have significant errors and propose products that are CHEAPER IN ALL RESPECTS, not equals. Their warrantees are less (if there are any); the impacts caused by these different products are not considered; and neither are the visual or construction quality impacts on a design.
However that all said, can there be better products for a particular application? Yes, there can. Without input from the guys who are putting in this stuff, we might as well be in an ivory tower somewhere on a university campus with the lawyers and other pseudo-intellectuals.
It does not matter how many of these alternates you put in, a subcontractor will try a different substitution. We cannot avoid this with our public contract law in California. Even if you follow the rules to avoid substitutions, if there is enough money in it, a particular trade can come in and threaten to sue for allowance into the project. I have been told, by an Owner representative, there was a recent legal case that the rules were followed and the judge still found in the favor of the subcontractor. It is the fear of this point that causes most public Owner representatives to just cave in.
In order to review these items, we ask the Owner for additional services. Each review can cost my firm thousands of dollars in review time. If the Drawings have to be revised, it costs even more. A simple change to a different manufacturer of HVAC units affects roofing, equipment screens, clearance requirements, structural supports, mechanical ducts, plumbing, electrical and acoustical engineering. If contract is written correctly, and the Owner is experienced, it is not usually a problem. Our essential position is that the amount of possible products out there for us to evaluate is unlimited. If you look at the 4specs website alone, there are thousands of companies. Each one of them manufactures a few, to a few dozen, to a few hundred products. How does each of them interact safely with each other? How many of them can be used in a certain geographic local? How many are for your house, your school, your office, or a hospital? These are the specific evaluations that we must apply to the specific application for the project in our review. However, it can be a problem for the Owner to recover these additional service costs from the contractor.
When it comes down to it, after a fair evaluation (that we get paid additional services for, or we don’t review them), we will note the strengths and weaknesses of the substitution and take the tact that we will recommend approving-not approving the product to the Owner. It is then the Owner's decision to accept it or not. Remember, this is changing the contract. The architect is not a party to the Owner-Contractor Contract. If we have not accepted, and the Owner accepts the product then the Owner assumes the liability. This leaves our conscience and liabilities clear. |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 315
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2008 - 11:49 am: | |
I used to write door & hardware specs "in-house" for a former employer (architectural firm)
Since we did primarily private projects, "single-sourcing" wasn't an issue. However, if the Owner has specific hardware requirements or keying system, we accommodated it.
Where I work now, we usually "farm out" the door hardware spec to a manufacturer's rep.who is an AHC and they do it for free.
We do a lot of public bid work with school didtricts and they all have their "District Standards" for hardware.
While the AHC works for a manufacturer, they don't sell the products directly to the school disitricts. The hardware is purchased by the Contractor from a distributor.
The AHC's for the manufacturer write the specs based on the District Standards and not necessarily based on the products they manufacture. They also list alternate manufacturers for products that are not district standard.
This is the way it should be done. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2008 - 01:09 pm: | |
My office used to use a local hardware distributor to write all of our hardware specs. We had a few failures on a job and got into a real sticky situation during construction. We could not get the truth out of the distributor since during construction the distributor was hired by the Contractor. Long story short we realized that we needed an independent consultant.
Now we almost exclusively use an independent hardware consultant. This consultant is not afraid to challenge the contractor, distributor, owner or architect. The consultant is extremely knowledgeable and has years of experience. In addition to writing specs he also reviews submittals and does punchlists.
I can't see us ever going back to using distributors to write hardware specs. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 331
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2008 - 02:22 pm: | |
same thing happened to me. all of a sudden my design team member became a contractor asking for extras that HE forgot when he "designed" the hardware schedule. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2008 - 11:10 am: | |
I posted the original thread.
I appreciate all of the feed back.
Just a few last comments or clarifications.
The building is a pretty standard "vanilla" building. There were nothing special about it.
I saw a few posts about additional costs to architects for reviewing sub requests.
My answer to that (if possible) include different manufacturers sold by different distributors in the original specs. It will cost me (the owner) thousands of dollars if you dont. |
|
4specs.com Home Page