| Author |
Message |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 958
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 01:31 pm: |    |
My client (architect) may face litigation due to leaving waterproofing off a drawing in a unique location (after construction leaks visible), the client thinks that the waterproofing section should have specified which surfaces were to receive the waterproofing. We don't list specific locations, other than referenced on the drawings. How do my colleagues handle this, want to avoid future confusion. |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 01:48 pm: | |
Drawings show where it goes and specs say what it is.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 959
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 01:56 pm: | |
Ron, I agree, that's what I say, but they are looking for a scapegoat, I need more of a defense...is this found anywhere other than the teachings of Ronald L Geren? |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 02:14 pm: | |
How about the teachings of CSI? All you need to do is look at the "Project Delivery Practice Guide" and the "Construction Specifications Practice Guide."
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 652
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 02:25 pm: | |
Or in AIA A201 (sorry I don't have the current, this is from 1997):
1.1.5 THE DRAWINGS
The Drawings are the graphic and pictorial portions of the Contract Documents showing the design, location and dimensions of the Work, generally including plans, elevations, sections, details, schedules and diagrams.
1.1.6 THE SPECIFICATIONS
The Specifications are that portion of the Contract Documents consisting of the written requirements for materials, equipment, systems, standards and workmanship for the Work, and performance of related services.
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies
St. Louis, MO |
Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: tony_wolf
Post Number: 42
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 02:32 pm: | |
It's rather easy to describe the design intent, something like: provide waterproofing on below-grade surfaces to prevent ground water intrusion, etc.
Since I'm a captive specker, I like to provide statements of intent and defaults, etc. to support the project. It's hard to say how unusual your project's condition is, and whether such 'backstop' language would help. Drawings are not perfect [and neither are specs], but conveying design intent is where the rubber meets the road IMHO. Sorry if this doesn't help your situation. Ron's comments are absolutely correct, and the best support for your position. |
Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: wilsonconsulting
Post Number: 91
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 03:39 pm: | |
In response to Jerome's original question as to how we handle this: I try to include a description of scope in each section specifying waterproofing -- specifically because I have found Dwgs notoriously weak in addressing the extent of these systems.
For example, directly following the "Section Includes" paragraph describing the types of waterproofing spec'd, my master for Self-Adhering Sheet Waterproofing includes a separate paragraph listing specific applications where sheet waterproofing is to be used (exterior face of below-grade foundation walls & footings, exterior face of elevator pit walls & under elevator pit slabs, etc). This means the question will always be raised when quizzing my client. If adequately addressed by Dwg notes, the description in specs can be deleted, but there will always be a discussion about how scope is best described in the CDs.
Although the general practice of using Dwgs to describe quantity, locations & extent and specs to describe quality are generally appropriate, there are plenty of systems that can more readily be described in words instead of Dwg details. Joint sealants are another class of products that are difficult to scope on Dwgs. Most specs typically include a detailed schedule for joint sealants, describing locations & applications. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 423
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 05:16 pm: | |
The mantra has always been "Drawings give locations and quantities; Specs give qualities."
Jeffrey, I sure hope you never use the term "Scope" in your documents. Scoping documents, whether called out or implied, are dangerous.
If you list something that isn't supposed to receive that waterproofing system, or if you fail to list a location, you've got a major problem on your hands. You can no longer say that it's included because it's shown on the drawings. If I'm the Contractor my argument is that you obviously forgot to spec the waterproofing on that surface. Must have been in another Section that you forgot to write.
The other issue is when the term 'waterproofing' is used for more than one system. I'm hoping you make a distinction between your systems and keep the nomenclature consistent between Drawings and Specs (Waterproofing Types 1, 2, 3 or Plaza Deck vs. Foundation vs. Blind-Side). Looking through the Drawings and finding each place where each type is shown is important because most CAD/BIM jockeys don't know that different products are used for different functions. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 611
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 05:19 pm: | |
Assuming you're working with AIA documents, George has the only reference you need. I don't object strongly to "scoping" work in spec sections, but when you do, you introduce the possibility of other errors, and you assume some of the contractor's risk. For example, if you list locations for waterproofing and miss one, the contractor will argue the omission is your fault.
If you know the drawings will be weak, it would be better to address theses issues before the documents leave the office. |
Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: tony_wolf
Post Number: 43
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 05:33 pm: | |
Doesn't this carry any weight:
The intent of the Contract Documents is to include all items necessary for the proper execution and completion of the Work by the Contractor. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all; performance by the Contractor shall be required only to the extent consistent with the Contract Documents and reasonably inferable from them as being necessary to produce the indicated results.
You can use language based on this, rather than writing in absolutes. "...and similar locations" [etc.] after a list of specific locations is necessary to handle the odd conditions. The drawings cannot show every condition, and the specs cannot list every location. |
Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: wilsonconsulting
Post Number: 92
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 06:52 pm: | |
Points taken about "scoping" work in specs. We would never use that term in a spec, of course, and the intent of indicating applications isn't to define the scope, but to identify the places where the spec'd waterproofing systems are being used.
I think this is appropriate & it helps avoid problems like Jerome is facing. If the aim is for specs to be truly complementary to the Dwgs, I feel obligated to fill in where weaknesses are evident.
In my view, we as specifiers & design professionals are responsible for producing accurate, comprehensive documents that do attempt to designate every condition. Sometimes a general statement can accomplish this, but of course we have to be cautious about overstepping. We must be aware of the implications & hazards of trying to describe every condition, but at the same time I don't want to hide behind legalese intended to hang the builder if something really is missed in the documents. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2013 - 07:42 pm: | |
I take the tactic that whatever I can provide that will help the person doing construction administration, I do -- and that often means listing specific locations of items on the drawings in the specs. I see my "client" as the person doing CA on the job. Once I took that tactic, it over-ruled a bunch of CSI "rules" about what goes in the specs.
Clearly this is a coordination issue, but its pretty common for me to have a notation such as "specialty waterproofing shown on Sheet A-201, detail #7. " I will leave the actual location blank until just before the documents are issued, but I always have a tickler file of last minute coordination things. And with some things like waterproofing, I help the team make a schedule of waterproofing items (like a keynote list, but differnt) and we make sure that every item on the schedule is addressed somewhere in the specs.
As for Jerome's issue: no matter where the drawings showed the waterproofing, doesn't the spec section call for a preliminary meeting with the waterproofer to discuss where and when? how did this escape the project meeting? Every waterproofing section in my file has a paragraph under Preinstallation conference that says "review waterproofing requirements, ... special details.." and then of course the shop drawings showing all the locations where the material was to be applied. The drawings may have been in error, the specs may not have listed locations... but shop drawings and preinstall conferences should have picked up the issue.
of course if the architect isn't actually doing construction administration, then they have absolutely no defense. |
scott piper (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 11:58 am: | |
Anne is correct but I would go one step further to say that we should not write specs to make the job easier for the person doing CA but rather make it easier for the guy or girl wearing the tool belt. The best way to convey the message sometimes requires us to step out of our comfort zone and try and give the builder information that gives them a clearer picture of the intent.
This will increase our exposure to potential mistakes and maybe even liability but with increased risk often comes increased reward. I have only anecdotal evidence to support my theroy but I believe that the architects who work hardest to get more project specific locations and information to the contractors (in both the plans and specs) are better equiped to stay busy and thus weather the depressed economy that our industry is presently in.
Sports metaphor an old empolyer of mine liked to use: "if you play the game scared you are going to get hurt." A lot of architects are hurting right now. |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 452
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 04:27 pm: | |
I like to use wording similar to Jeffrey's description, especially for products that often are not well-defined on the drawings such as waterproofing, insulation, and sealant.
For waterproofing, where each section is unique to a specific W/P type, I use the following wording in Summary:
1. Rubberized asphalt membrane waterproofing system [(Waterproofing Type WP-**], complete with flashing and terminations, for the following locations:
a. Parking Garage slabs.
b. First Floor Terrace and planting beds.
c. Concrete planters.
d. Other locations indicated on Drawings.
Line d is important, just in case we miss a location or a new one is added.
For insulation and sealants, where multiple types are specified in each section, I specify locations in Part 2 for each associated product type, but have an introductory paragraph that reads:
Locations specified below are solely for Contractor's general information and shall not limit locations of each insulation type. Provide insulation at locations specified below, and at additional locations indicated on Drawings whether or not such additional locations are specified below.
We have never had a comeback or argument about this wording, nor complaints that it's weasely. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 960
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 07:45 pm: | |
Dave, we do the same, however in this case the architect did not flag the area in question, a welled off area on the pool deck that contains 'rooftop equipment", the architect has yet to clarify how the area was treated as a roof or as a waterproofing event...in my opinion someone accidentally erased the note describing how to treat this area and apparently no one picked up on it; the space below is parking, the City does not consider the space below as habitable, so its treatment may have been overlooked; the architect's team who worked on the project were let go during the recession, and apparently media depicting the management of the project has been misplaced. I've asked for Jpegs of the area so I can see for myself, it seems that I am the only one who had history on the job that is still around. Bizarre!!! |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 383
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 07:56 pm: | |
Jerome,
With all of the layoffs over the recent years, I as the in-house specification writer will often be the last person standing with history on a project.
It has made for a very unfortunate form of job security. |
|
4specs.com Home Page