Reference Standard Versions

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

Author Message a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 06:25 pm:    Posted on Friday, September 14, 2012 - 06:21 pm: Our General Conditions state that: "All material, equipment and workmanship specified by the number, symbol, or title of a referenced Industry Standard shall comply with the latest edition or revision thereof and all amendments and supplements thereto in effect on the date of the Invitation to Bid, except where a particular edition or revision thereof is indicated in the reference." I realize there is probably no clear cut answer, as projects vary in length and schedule, but are there types of reference standards where this would best not apply? i.e. better to call out a specific year on those lengthy design projects. Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 17, 2012 - 10:36 pm:    It would be best to say something like "...the edition referenced by the applicable edition of the building code or the latest ..." Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 60 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 09:41 am:    As a matter of policy, I only reference the current edition of any kind of reference standard. (Citing an obsolete standard is a can o' worms.) You will occasionally run afoul of a product manuracturer's outdated information; i.e., they represent that their product complies with the 2007 edition of reference standard XYZ 1234, but that edition has been superseded by the 2011 edition. They're usually eager to get their literature updated and will work with you to get the references right. I also remember one case in twenty years where a manufacturer (of integral water-repellent admixture for masonry, mortar and grout, IIRC) insisted on citing an obsolete test method standard because the old version was actually *more stringent* than the new one, and their product performed better under the old test than their competitors'. I ended up compromising by citing the current edition of the test method, but mandating the tighter testing criteria in the body of the specification. Probably more than you wanted to know. Also, I would be remiss if I didn't toot my own horn a little bit: one advantage of a database-driven specifcation-writing software is that your reference standard edition dates are updated automatically... :-) Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1047 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 11:25 am:    As Paul alluded to, you may need to be careful about the editions of standards referenced, especially if they are to conform to the building code. Each edition of the IBC has specific referenced standards, and many times the one referenced is not the current one. Some building officials may not care--others might. A current edition of a standard may have gone through radical changes that aren't addressed in the building code. This is rare, but not totally out of the question. This is a nightmare for manufacturers, since multiple editions of the IBC are adopted--how are they to conform to the specific standards referenced by each? There are means for handling this, but that is a topic for another thread. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 587 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 11:48 am:    If you use the "comply with current version" text, updating references isn't necessary, as it isn't necessary to indicate the dates. The problem is not the date, but knowing what's in the standards. Several years ago, I learned about the change in ASTM C90 that eliminated CMU Types and Grades just after it happened, and was able to adjust my specifications accordingly. The change took a long time to work its way through the system, though, and even today, you will find references to Type 1 Grade N, without reference to a specific edition of C90. The City of Roanoke apparently requires use of current standards, yet still refers to Type 1 Grade N in its masonry section. One local agency still had specs for horse hair and tar joint seals until a few years ago. In general, it seems wise to use the most recent version, if only because older versions may no longer be available. As Scott suggests, you are free to cite a current standard, then modify it if needed. On the other hand, manufacturers often must re-test for compliance with new standards, often an expensive and lengthy process, so it may not be possible to get compliant products for some time after a new standard is issued. Nobody said this is an easy job! Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 371 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 12:16 pm:    Slightly off topic, but I was once involved in the restoration a museum that was a listed historic landmark. After a bit of negotiation, the final requirement was "conform to current California Title 24 for accessibility and the 1928 San Francisco Building Code" (for everything else). John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 575 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 07:16 pm:    re: "comply with current version", is that the version as of the date of the permit, date of bidding or date of submission? Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 478 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 07:37 pm:    Date of submission to the Agency. That is very standard Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 479 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 07:39 pm:    I could be more specific, it is the date of the code in effect upon submission of the permit application package, meaning first submittal. This is why there is often a big rush to finish everything and submit in December before a code adoption cycle. Tom Gilmore, AIA, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: tgilmore Post Number: 37 Registered: 04-2007 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 12:18 pm:    Scott mentioned product manufacturer's outdated information. In addition to out of date standards, I often find product manufacturers' specs with references to ASTM standards that have been withdrawn. It pays to check our your references. ASTM's Standards in Building Codes is worth getting, even if you only buy it every 3 years or so. And you can always check the latest dates at http://www.astm.org/Standard/index.shtml Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 517 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 06:04 pm:    Nathan, All this time I thought architect PMs were rushing to issue projects in December because the firm partner in charge was hoping to make his/her studio's end of year financials look better. Code cycles? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 577 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, September 21, 2012 - 12:07 am:    Nathan: I agree regarding date of building and related codes which will be planchecked according the effective version at time of submission. But there are many reference standards to consider, such as ASTMs. That is why tying the effective date of standards to the permit date, bid date or date of a submittal is helpful. I think it clarifies and better establishes the pricing of the work to set the date of the standard, especially if the contract documents state "current edition." This is beneficial not only to design professionals but also to General Contractors, subcontractors and product suppliers. And note how many manufacturer-produced specifications reference out-of-date standards such as ASTMs. I'll bet it would not be difficult to find in manufacturer specs references to ASTMs dated in the 1990s or earlier. I've seen them. I've also seen them regularly in plumbing, HVAC and electrical specifications.