Record (As-Built) Specifications

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

Author Message a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2013 - 05:43 pm:    Related to the recent post on project-tracking software... The firm I am now with (an owner) had spec masters that called for Record (As-Built) Specifications. But to my knowledge, it has never been enforced by the construction management group. This has made me wonder, has anyone EVER required and received a set of conformed specs? If so, what is the quality of the deliverable? If not, why do you NOT demand it? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 530 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013 - 12:26 am:    If you received a markup from the contractor indicating how the as built construction differed from the contract documents would he not be admitting to his failure to comply with the contract documents. Similarly would these as built documents indicate lack of compliance with the approved permit documents. In some case it might be appropriate to know which of the 3 alternates was chosen and not trigger these questions but you should be careful how you handle this. I would also think carefully why you would need this information and not ask for it unless there was a compelling need. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 603 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013 - 03:35 am:    Gee, isn't one of the intents of CSI's formats to provide documents for facility operations and maintenance? That would imply that there should exist a "project manual" that records "as-built" specifications for each project. I can't say that I have ever seen, much less produced, project record specifications. Those would be the construction contract specifications edited to identify from the listings of "specified manufacturer" and "acceptable manufacturers" which manufacturers and products were actually incorporatate into the completed "work results." That is, what tradename, series, model, catalog number, pattern(s) and color(s) were used. This would required an effort ($$$$), in my opinion, that would be equal to or greater than the effort to produce the original construction contract specifications. I see nothing that suggests that facility owners would be willing to pay for project record specifications. I also doubt that construction managers and general contractors would want to be troubled with having to produce such a record. Mitigating the effort would be the simple task of incorporating addenda and change orders if those modifications involved the issuance of full, modified specification Sections. Project record specifications would already be completed at the close-out of construction. Otherwise, it would mean searching through reviewed submittals and extracting pertinent information for use in creating project record specifications. Perhaps if production of project record specifications were part of an expanded commissioning process, the chances of getting beneficial "as-builts" would be enhanced. I think project record (as-built) specifications for some produts ... er, work results ... would be more pertinent than others. For example, fire and smoke penetration seals would be pertinent. Manufacturer and tradename of Type X gypsum board would be of little value in operating and maintaining the facility. Manufacturer and tradename of paint products would be of much less value than knowing the color and sheen of paint used. Other significant systems would be fire suppression systems, elevators, plumbing fixtures, HVAC heating, ventilating and air conditioning equipment and components (dampers and grilles,for example), switchgear, circuit breakers, lighting fixtures (luminaires) and power generation components. I guess the answer to all this will be found in the future when the Holy Grail of BIM is realized. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 90 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013 - 09:52 am:    About half the projects for which I develop specs include requirements for record specs. These are simply a markup of the Project Manual to indicate the actual product installed where it varies from that spec'd. I don't know how often this provision is actually enforced, but I'm sure some of my clients follow through to make sure the builder meets its obligations. Record specs are a simple means for recording deviations from spec'd requirements. These would not involve a failure to comply w/ the contract, since the contractor has a role in the product selection process. There is no expectation that record specs will be to the same level of completion and standards as CD specs. They are marked up as the work progresses, much the way dwgs are marked to show how actual construction varies from that shown in original CDs. s piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013 - 10:04 am:    I have never seen a as-built specification on any project I have worked on. The as-built information (in terms of product specifications) is typically contained within the submittals docutments and they become the record of which product, manufacturer, model number,etc. was used. This would not be an indication that the contract documents were not complied with but rather a detailed accounting of just what product was utilized. If you specify three acceptable manufacturers for the door closers the owner should have something that tells them that they have an LCN 4040 and not a Yale or a Norton. It is due to this fact that our office typically makes sure the contractor specifically identifies the actual product on their submittal documents so the owner can refer to it years later and know just what they have. A classic example is the light fixture cut sheet that shows multiple options for ballasts (quantity and type), lens, lamps, trim, finish, etc. If we get the manufacturers generic cut sheet we send it back to be customized to actually tell us what we are getting. This can be done very crudely with a red pen or a highlighter but if it is not done at all then you don't get the information the owner will need later. Our office does not typically need this mark-up but we require it to ensure that the information is there in the future. I good set of product submittals with actual detailed information has always been our method for providing the Owner with accurate as-built spec information. of course this goes hand and hand with accurate as-built drawings, O&M manuals, warranties, etc. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 28 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Friday, January 18, 2013 - 10:29 am:    My experience parallels others in that I seldom see the Project Record Specifications marked up by the Contractor to indicate products actually used and other changes. However, in our work for the Corps of Engineers, we are now typically being required to incorporate as plain text those spec changes that had been shown in strikethrough and bold italics, with ASI numbers, when issued during construction. In ther words, they end up in as-revised form, as if the spec had always been that way. IIRC, however, since they serve only as an historical record, after the fact, and are no longer to be used as construction documents, only as a maintenance resource, they are issued without seals and signatures of the Designers-of-Record. Similarly, Record BIM Documents are updated to final "as-built" condition. This may simplify their use in building maintenance, but it erases all traces of modifications from the original, which could be helpful in case of claims (to someone, not necessarily the design professional). Ironically, though, only those changes documented and issued through the official construction change process are so incorporated. To my knowledge, there is no requirement that actual manufacturers and products used, or other miscellaneous changes, be noted, though Record Submittals could serve that purpose to a substantial extent. Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2013 - 01:40 pm:    Virginia has required record (as-built) specs, as well as drawings, for state projects for 30 years or more. They used to have to be microfilmed, as well as hard copy. Now we can accept pdfs. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 604 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Sunday, January 20, 2013 - 06:31 am:    For Virginia projects, how do "as-built" specifications differ from the construction contract specifications? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1294 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 05:53 pm:    When I was doing institutional work (for various agencies and for universities) it was pretty typical for us (as architects) to have an extra service to prepare the "as-built" specs. its been a long time since I've worked on a set of those, and I'm pretty sure that the contractor isn't preparing the annotated spec, either. That means in five years when we do a renovation of the space, no one has any idea what is actually on the job. I wish we had a copy on every job, if for no other reason than to answer the question of "what did we do for that thing?". Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 96 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 06:30 pm:    Institutional owners see the value of getting record specs from the contractor. I wish all owners did. Whether or not the design team is supposed to prepare record specifications, I specify that the contractor is required to submit marked-up specs along with the marked-up drawings. The marked-up specs are supposed to indicate which products were used (in cases where more than one was listed, as well as in cases of changes to the contract). I think this is valuable to owners. I blogged about this last summer, when an architect-client of mine was begging the CM-as-constructor to please verify what the existing standing seam roof product was. (Sadly, they're still begging, although we're getting questions about what warranty is acceptable... on the roof that's supposed to match the existing... but I STILL don't know what's existing, so I don't know what warranties are available...) Here's my blog post: http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/if-youre-an-owner-do-yourself-a-favor-require-record-specs/ Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 09:28 pm:    As-built specs. for state projects in Virginia incorporate sections added or changed by addenda or change orders. I'm not sure whether they note which products were actually used. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 379 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2013 - 02:37 pm:    For California I-occupancy healthcare projects administered by OSHPD, we need to submit any construction phase spec revisions (RFI, Substitution, ASI, Owner Changes Their Mind) to OSHPD for approval at the time of the change. So we end up with a rolling as-built that is always up to date. I save the revised Sections with the reason noted (RFI#, ASI#) and the revision date in the file name in the current project file as a PDF and an original MSWord.doc and move the old version into an archive file for each project. An up to date as-built can be very quickly created by harvesting the PDF'S. This is part of our contracted scope of work for these healthcare projects. We do such a large percentage of this sort of work that I tend to do the same also for other project types when the CA activities are handled at my location and I control the project spec files.