Issuing Bidding Documents via .pdf files

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

Author Message Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 325 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - 10:29 am:    In the olden days, owners would require a deposit for printed drawings/project manuals for their projects that was typically determined by the replacement cost of each. Just recently, we had a contractor tell us that they wanted to get the documents as .pdf files. Has anyone else experienced that? Do they still pay a deposit? Do you include some kind of disclaimer that says they can't use the files for any purposes other than bidding? What about addendums and their issuance (the drawing printer our office uses distributes addendum to the plan holders right now). Tracy L. Van Niel, FCSI, CCS J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, AIA, LEED AP (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - 10:38 am:    For more than10 years now, the market in Houston has been moving away from issuing complete sets of Bidding Docs and toward a model of having Bidders (and subbidders) buy what they want. Bidding Docs (Drawings and Specs) are now routinely available only as PDF files through a reprographic firm. You can download from a secure site and print them inhouse or use them electronically or you can order printes of what you want from the reprographics firm. I have heard no complaints. At the sub level, many are already used to doing takeoffs electronically through various services (Dodge, AGC, etc.). It is my understanding that some of the larger contractors have secure sites that invited subs can use. It does make me nervous that it has become easier for Bidders and Subbidders to miss something (especially with a poorly organized set of documents), but the onus is really on Bidders to make sure that their bid is complete. Quite frankly, I have more issues with qualifications from Bidders and Subbidders. Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - 11:19 am:    In our local, north Texas, we have been issuing bidding documents as pdfs on a CD for the last 5 years. Addenda are also issued as pdf to all bidders of record, whether we, the Owner, or the repro house issues the CD. Currently we are about to issue a City project and they are requiring the bidders purchase the CD containing the bidding documents. Cost $25.00 Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 109 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - 12:46 pm:    It still varies with the Owner in SW Ontario, Canada. Some are perfectly fine with strictly PDF's by e-mail or posted on an FTP site, one school board we do work for still requires 1 hard copy set for the Contractors and a CD copy (because a couple of the Contractors complained about all electronic distribution), while others (mostly municipalities) still require hard copies that are either purchased or a deposit required; with or without CD copies. Personally, since we are all on the "green bandwagon", I really struggle with the purchase concept. What do the other prequalified bidders or any Contractor that doesn't get the job in an open Bid Call do with the Bid Documents after Bid Closing? They chuck them! You may say not the end of the world with a small job, but what about the jobs like the $45M Long Term Care facility we currently have out for Bid, where there are probably close to 1500 pages (double-sided of course) in the Project Manual and 344 D-size drawing sheets?? You guessed it, throw them out! Then the Owner prints another 20 sets of Contract Documents so they can build the project! Lets kill another couple trees!! Wonder what the USGBC or CaGBC would say about practices like this?? Ahhh, but don't get me started on that subject...that could be fodder over a couple of libations at CONSTRUCT2012!! (Yes, I think I'm going to go, hopefully I won't be the "token Canadian" like I was at the ArchiSpec Summit!!) Ride it like you stole it!!! Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 81 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - 02:59 pm:    Obviously you did not attend Sheldon's presentation on CDs. 1500 pages! NO ONE will read them. If that is 344 architectural sheets, then I say the same thing. Sheldon, time to give Paul a lesson. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1469 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - 03:54 pm:    When I worked for the Owner (a municipality), we required a deposit for bidding documents. If they were returned in good condition, the bidder got the deposit back and the documents were used as contract documents. That way, we didn't have to print off new sets for the sub-contractors and we didn't kill as many trees. Now I understand that same municipality has gone mostly electronic. Paul, it will be so good to finally meet you at Construct2012! J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, CCS, AIA, LEED AP (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - 03:02 pm:    One of the problems with the deposit/return system is going through the returned documents to make sure everything is there and then conforming them to changes made before Notice to Proceed is issued. Yes, you have a project with 344 D-sized drawing sheets, but two of the three that were returned by that Bidder only had 342 sheets while one was returned with 330 sheets. While it is easy to say, "Well that guy doesn't get his money back," who is going to go through every set of Drawings (not to way specs) to make sure that it is all there? Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1470 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - 04:48 pm:    Yeah, I understand all that, but it worked. We had people in the office dedicated to doing that. Your government dollars at work... Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 566 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 09, 2012 - 06:51 pm:    I hear the CIA is close to figuring out the Vulcan mind meld. Once we have that, we can do away with both drawings and project manuals. The USB implant may be done sooner, but after seeing Matrix I wouldn't want anyone to pull my plug. Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 116 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 12:51 pm:    Alan: Noooooooooooo 344 total drawings A/S/M/E/C/L/FS And 1500 pages for the PM is the same A/S/M/E/C/L/FS...and yes, I agree that is too many, but when you have: - a municipality who has 23 pages in their "Form of Tender" and 33 pages of Supplemental Conditions (the whole CCDC2-2008 form of Contract (equivalent of AIA 201) is only 30 pages, so to me if you have to change that much, why use it?) - a Mechanical Engineer who has a BAS spec that is 83 pages (how do find any salient info in 83 pages? copy & paste manuf spec :-S) - an electrical Engineer with a 33 page Diesel Generator spec - a Foodservice Consultant with a 78 page spec - Volume 3 "Information Available To Bidders" with 9 reports that is 450 pages by itself... it's not hard to see where the high number of pages comes from! My rules of thumb for specs are - if you have more than 20 paragraphs in an Article, you need a new Article - if you more than 20 pages in a spec Section, you need a new Section (i.e narrower scope Sections rather than 1 broadscope Section) I don't care who it is, single paragraphs with 20 lines of text blur together and are hard to read and even harder to follow. I am a BIG proponent of a general statement main paragraph with multiple indented Sentences listing specific details. Ride it like you stole it!!! Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 117 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 12:55 pm:    And Lynn, yes it will INDEED be a pleasure to meet you at Construct2012...along with, hopefully, a bunch of other faces from this forum who were not at the ArchiSpec Summit!! Even if it means seeing Hercenberg again!!...oh Ken, you know I'm KIDDING...I'm looking forward to having another cigar with you my friend! Same arrangement as Henderson!! Ride it like you stole it!!! Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 82 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 02:07 pm:    Paul, years ago, everyone would joke about the length of the novel "War and Peace". I think you may have surpassed it. This is where we as experts should lead. The things that Sheldon talks about and Hermon Hoyer emphasized is so important. Read the comments from any contractor forum and all they do is rail about how the documents are so bad these days. It is not just the architect. One complaint recently heard from a repeat client at one firm was there are drawings in your set that we don't even use. We are not paying for paper by the pound. Sheldon commented at Archispec Summit on how we used to create specs about 100 or so pages (can't remember the exact amount) but today we have 1000 or more. While there are reasons for some of the growth, we still should look into ourselves to simplify things for the end user. That is the contractor. Today, as a norm, many do not read them. I want to return back to the novel as an example. I recently had the thought about if writers did writing the way architects organize their drawings, would they read them? Honestly, no. You would be flipping to so many pages that you would throw it away after the first chapter (if you made it that far). Paul, this isn't about you personally, it is a passion that I have about realizing that we need to change things. It is about information overload. It is about understanding that the audience has changed and if we don't change, we will be what we are called many times, a necessary evil. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 230 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 02:46 pm:    Alan, I think you've hit on something. We should be paid by the word! All kidding aside, I'm heartened to see that people are agreeing that less is more. Increasing numbers of Architects and Contractors are realizing that reducing requirements, such as unnecessary submittals, reduces costs and wasted hours. One idea we've been looking at is eliminating lists of manufacturers for commodity items such as metal framing and standard gyp board products. As long as we can specify a Reference Standard and qualify the thickness, quality level, and other salient features, the only reason to include a list of manufacturers is to specifically exclude some. I've seen a number of specs recently, including certain master specifications, that list performance and warranty requirements that don't apply to what is being specified and often cannot be achieved. Exterior panel systems come to mind. Here's another question for everyone: If you specify an FM Global RoofNav number and identify wind uplift, snow load, hail, and other performance requirements, do you need to include any other information in Parts 2 and 3? RoofNav assemblies limit every aspect of that roof system including every specific product to be used. Repeating that information seems like a waste of time and increases the potential for including errors. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 149 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 02:49 pm:    Ken; “unnecessary submittals”.. You mean we don’t need to review a sample of a drywall screw? ;-) ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 231 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 03:23 pm:    From my point of view, if the Installer is providing what I specified I don't even need to see a copy of the product data. If they're not providing what I specified, the only Product Data I expect to see will attached to their Substitution Request Form. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 32 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 03:37 pm:    Alan, I agree. The primary purpose of specs does not seem to be to communicate to the users. I think we are struggling for 2 reasons: Claim avoidance, and production efficiency. Much of what we include seems to be there to respond to the contractor's complaint/claim: "you did not tell me that." We write to the lowest level of trade contractor, telling her/him many things that are means and methods, and burying the information s/he wants to know in pages of mind-numbing minutiae. We make it difficult for those who care, and can read, to determine what we want; and the others aren't going to read it anyway. The most important consideration when writing anything is: who is the reader? But in writing masters, we must assume that the users can't tie their shoes without us. Thanks to production methods, there's little penalty if the section is 3 or 4 [or more] pages longer than it needs to be. How many of us, upon opening a new appliance, read, or even scan, the useless warnings that are placed at the beginning of the manual? At least there, most of the BS is placed at the beginning and is easily skipped. Imagine that stuff sprinkled throughout the manual. That is what many current spec sections are like. "Concise" has been replaced with "comprehensive" and in the process we lost "communication," [which wasn't one of the 4 C's to begin with]. There are certainly many sections that are inherently complex, but do we really put forth an effort to make them easier to use? If users found specs easy and quick to comprehend, useful tools to execute the work and increase profitability, don't you think they might use them willingly? Unfortunately, I don't have a solution to how we might transform the project manual from a fearsome implement of torture and retribution to a user-friendly tool. Probably a pipe dream. _______________________________________ Write it like you say it!!! Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 83 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 03:41 pm:    Ken, you are hitting on exactly what I have been talking about for years. Don't need the data if you are providing me what I ask for. It also is about doing what our insurance people tell us all the time. Do not repeat information and do not wade into other people's responsibility. I don't need to tell them how to build it, persay. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 523 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 04:04 pm:    Ken, I have done several projects FMG insured that required a RoofNav number. I made certain I specied the products and method of installation as listed in the RoofNav. It is nice to think the RoofNav and all of it's parts and pieces are incorporated by reference only, but I think one should list the products to match the RoofNav to be clear, concise, correct, and coordinated. It was not a huge effort. Wayne Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 118 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 04:12 pm:    I don't disagree with the clear & concise ideology in the least. In fact I couldn't agree more, BUT larger number of pages does not always mean unnecessary crap! How many of you indent paragraphs, sentences, sub-sentences, sub-sub-sentences etc? I do and to some extent, this can affect the number of pages in a project manual. BUT in my HUMBLE opinion, specs that have no indenting where it doesn't get below the paragraph level and everything is 7.5" +/- across the page is much more difficult to read and follow. Being it's Friday afternoon (and almost wine:30), I went back and did a page check as to how many we had on that project to see how close my guesstimate was to reality. After converting my ToC to txt then into Excel, subtotalling by Division, then by Volume and then the Grand Total I was going to give a detailed report to my spec writing brethern/sisteren, UNTIL I got to the Grand Total. I just about fell off of my chair!! These numbers will go with me to my grave!!!!!! OMG! Ride it like you stole it!!! Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 84 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 04:21 pm:    Tony, it is achieveable. Look at what Apple did with the smart phone. They took it away from the businessman and made it for everyone. How did they do it? They simplified it. They made it easy. Same with the iPad. They reinvented the tablet. Many are trying to dump their laptops for the iPad. Also note that they have forever changed the software market, too. 99 cent apps. I actually had one of those tablet laptops. Junk. They chose to think outside the box, they chose to think differently. Where are they now? Market cap #1. What I challenge people is, why can't we find a new way to do things and organize things? If Apple had done what everyone else did, then they would not have survived. Look at your specs as the novel and think about the user interface. That is key. It is a user interface. Same with the drawings. Organize them like a user interface. That is one of the key components of Apple's success. The interface. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 85 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 04:25 pm:    Paul, Ken will get those numbers from you. All he will do is get a few drinks in you and a few cigars. The next thing you will know, BOOM! You will let it slip. Ken, be sure to post them here when you do! LOL! Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 86 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 04:29 pm:    Oh yeah, Paul, according to Wikipedia, the longest novel is "In search of lost time" by Marcel Proust. 4,211 pages in 7 volumes. 1.2 million words. I figure you didn't beat that one. I am off to do errands. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 232 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 04:38 pm:    So Paul, not as many as you expected? Unofficially, and without asking permission to divulge (it's public record anyway), my last Project Manual, issued in two volumes, for a Project just under $100 Million, came out to just over 1700 pages. There were roughly 400 Drawings. We are in construction and have received fewer than 50 RFIs, including bidding RFIs, which compared to my last firm is extraordinary. Seems to me that it pays to be anal, just don't be verbose about it. Of course the Addendum we issued two weeks later (the CM didn't want to wait for 100 percent CDs), clarified about 40 spec Sections but only added 3. That was 3 months ago. From the feedback we've received from the CM, the documents have been reviewed at length. I think we'd be hearing a lot more questions if we hadn't gone the extra distance to communicate intent. Of course we won't know for sure for another 22 months when construction is over and smoke clears. Wish us luck! BOBWOODBURN (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 04:32 pm:    Good example. Think of the time Proust would have saved by not writing that novel... ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 233 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 04:55 pm:    Sounds like he found an awful lot of time if he wrote that all by himself. At least parts of my Project Manuals are written by consultants! Bob Woodburn New member Username: shelby_n_gordonswyth Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2011 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 04:58 pm:    Probably one of the few novels with smaller readership than the typical spec. (I'm sure he has readers, though I don't know who either one of them is...) Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 119 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Friday, May 11, 2012 - 05:18 pm:    Ken: Oh I don't feel so bad now!! Since we're being so open & honest here I'll share my analysis too (a little more detailed than your's): Division 0 - 9 Sections - 95 pages - 10.56 pgs/Section Schedules - 2 Sections - 97 pages - 48.5 pgs/Section Division 1 - 38 Sections - 200 pages - 5.26 pgs/Section includes 7 Sections of LEED crap (oops was that my outside voice) for 53 pages (including Submittal forms) at 7.57 pgs/Section) Division 2 - 34 Sections - 184 pages - 5.41 pgs/Section (incl 40 pg Asbestos Abatement spec) Division 3 - 4 Sections - 37 pages - 9.25 pgs/Section Division 4 - 3 Sections - 29 pages - 9.67 pgs/Section Division 5 - 8 Sections - 59 pages - 7.38 pgs/Section Division 6 - 4 Sections - 25 pages - 6.25 pgs/Section Division 7 - 17 Sections - 101 pages - 5.94 pgs/Section Division 8 - 10 Sections - 167 pages - 16.70 pgs/Section (incl 79 pg Hardware Schedule) Division 9 - 11 Sections - 63 pages - 5.73 pgs/Section Division 10 - 8 Sections - 117 pages - 11.7 pgs/Section (incl 78 pg Foodservice spec) Division 12 - 1 Section - 5 pages - 5.00 pgs/Section Division 13 - not used Division 14 - 1 Section - 12 pages - 12.00 pgs/Section Division 15 - 51 Sections - 428 pages - 8.39 pgs/Section Division 16 - 37 Sections - 225 pages - 6.08 pgs/Section Volume 1 (Divisions 0 to 14) - 160 Sections - 1222 pages - 7.64 pgs/Section Volume 2 (Division 15 & 16) - 88 Sections - 653 pages - 7.42 pgs/Section Volume 3 (Info Available To Bidders) - 10 Sections - 459 pages - 45.90 pgs/Section GRAND TOTAL - 258 Sections - 2334 pages - 9.05 pgs/Section As previously stated, this is a $45M (potentially $48M) Long Term Care Facility (Nursing Home) Redevelopment (build new (in front), move people, tear down old (behind), site remediation) project And Alan - NO I didn't even come close to beating the longest novel!! Smart a$$!! Sounds like something I would say!! LMAO Ride it like you stole it!!! Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 215 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 12, 2012 - 02:10 pm:    Paul, are you still using MF95 numbering?