"by others"

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

Author Message Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 284 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 11:46 am:    Since A201 says the contract documents do not control how the Contractor divides up the work, it seems there is undue emphasis on things being "by others" or by such and such trade. I'm sure this originates from manufacturer's guide specs and details. Anyone else have thoughts on this? If "by others" were to remain in a detail and become part of the final contract documents, could that be construed in the new context to mean it is not in the Contract at all? Because the Contract is only between the Owner and the Contractor, not the subs and not controlling how the Contractor divides work to the subs. On a similar note, designers may want something to have a finish or a profile that matches something else. Is requiring it to be done by so and so the way to address that need, or does that conflict with the General Conditions and make the requirement really have no effect? It seems the emphasis should be on exactly what those profiles and finishes are, and qualifications of the installers, so any qualified sub and supplier may bid it, with provisions for samples for architect's final selection, and mockups if aesthetics are paramount. In so doing, it seems unnecessary to say by such and such. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 582 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 11:56 am:    I will typically direct my clients to remove "By Others" from any notes on the Drawings unless it is "NIC" (Not In Contract). This is frequently found on details downloaded from various manufacturers who don't understand that just because they don't do it, it still has to be done (and included in the general construction contract). I also try to strip this out of the specs. For certain types of finish materials and finishes, I will restrict finish options and sources. If the Architect attempts to direct the Contractor on how the Work is divided, the Architect takes on the liability for that responsibiliy. For certain items, it is appropriate for the Architect to do so. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1123 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 12:10 pm:    Here are my thoughts: Keynotes No. 6 Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 12:53 pm:    Our office is diligent (or attempts to be) about removing any "by others" references in the CD's. However we do sometimes direct the contractor on how the work is divided. Not because we want to take on the liability but rather because sometimes we need to take it on to avoid problems during construction. A typical example is coring walls and/or creating openings to facilitate a subs work. Does the mason have the opening in an existing masonry wall covered if it is for a new duct run or does the mechanical contractor have it covered. If the project is being done with a CM you might be able to make sure their "scope of work" covers this question but if it is a GC job we may be willing to take the risk of dictating the work to make sure the work is covered by someone. If something gets missed and the finger pointing is taking place it is difficult to defend yourself to the owner with an answer like "the architect does not take the liability for dictating the work". This might be a true statement but it might also be the last project you do with that owner. I believe this is the type of item that Mr. Jordan is referring to as an instance where it may be appropriate to dictate the work. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1124 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 02:26 pm:    The drawing shows a duct, the drawing shows a wall, the drawing shows the duct going through the wall...why should the documents say who is responsible? If the GC misses it, that's their problem. I may occasionally restict a work result to a specific contractor, not out of concern that it will be missed, but for quality assurance purposes. For example, I don't want electrical amd mechanical subs doing their own firestopping--I want someone who really knows what they're doing. So I specify that firestopping be performed by a certified firestop subcontractor. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1511 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 02:52 pm:    The term "by others" can absolutely mean not in contract. I even strike out "by others" when it appears in shop drawings and note that the GC must coordinate it. As to matching existing finishes or materials, there is anything about this that contradicts the general conditions. However, the contractor must be able to have reasonable access to the samples finish or profile, and they must be reasonably available on the market. So the designer should not request a plastic laminate pattern no longer made, for example, even though custom laminate is available, unless custom is specifically requested. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 665 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 03:47 pm:    A project architect I used to work with wanted to get out of architecture and form a contracting company called Others Brothers Constructions. He figured he could make a pretty good living on all the work that would be directed his way, supposedly without the need to bid it, from all those "By Others" references in CDs. "By Others" can sometimes be inferred from passive voice. I have seen a savvy contractor gain an unexpected change order from a site plan note: "Existing storm sewer to be removed." His contention was "Oh, I didn't know you meant for ME to remove it. I thought it was going to be removed before I started construction." Active voice and imperative mood "Remove existing storm sewer" would have removed the implicit "by others" and prevented the change, which ulitmately was granted by an arbitrator at the end of the project, to the owner's surprise and displeasure. This goes back to the CSI edict: "Write language in contract documents in the voice of the Owner directing the Contractor." All work in the contract is by the contractor, none of it is by others. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 593 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 04:10 pm:    George, I have experienced the same event with "Precast to be removed." $25K later the precast was removed. I find "to be" all the time in drawings. Wayne John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 640 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 04:43 pm:    Uh, would it help to say (and save two words and one letter), "Remove existing precast"? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 541 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 09:55 pm:    So "to be" is really "not to be." George, I had a similar idea; setting up a supplier firm called "Approved Equal". As other's have pointed out there are no 'others' to speak of, or that should be mentioned. There is either Work included in the Project whether CFCI, OFCI, OFOI, or some variation thereof, or Work that is NIC. Anything else is meaningless. This sure makes keynoting look a whole lot more attractive. djwyatt (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 03:35 pm:    Ron, I followed the link to your publication "Who's 'By Others'?" It is very good. Thank you for presenting the problem so clearly. Dave Wyatt anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 04:10 pm:    Ron - totally, completely agree with you. Assuming that the smartest and best frequent this forum, how scary is it that some among us continue to perpetuate inaccuracy and inconsistency! Very. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 04:36 pm:    I agree that the drawings don't need to specify who is responsible but in my experience sometimes it is prudent to do so anyway. QA is very valid reason but simply attempting to make sure you do not end up with a finger-pointing episode is equally valuable at times. In the duct opening example: Is it the GC's responsibility - without a doubt. Will the GC have to cover it one way or another - without a doubt. Will the GC plead their case to the Owner - almost always (at least that is the case in my experience). While this scenario may not have any impact on the job at hand it can make a client reluctant to pick up the phone and call the same architect the next time (this may not be justified but it is often true). We try to avoid winning battles on individual jobs. We would rather win the war and work for clients for decades at a time. I am not suggesting that anyone make extensive instructions for assignment of work but sometimes it COULD be prudent. Every case is different of course. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 649 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 11:35 pm:    LOL, Ken. Brings new meaning to Hamlet's "To be, or not to be, that is the question." Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 579 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - 11:33 am:    Individuals will always rationalize an exception to good practice. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 458 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - 04:18 pm:    Like Peter, for certain specialty finishes (such as gold leafing or Venetian plaster) we have often restricted bidding to a specific list of pre-approved subcontractors. Occasionally we have allowed the GC to bid to other additional subs, but in those cases we have included an explicit and restrictive list of qualifications detailing minimum required experience etc. A similar situation to the use of "by others" can arise on renovation projects, where there is substantial new work/additions. I prefer that components which are existing (to remain) be specifically noted on the drawings as "existing", with all else considered to be new; ie, if something is not noted as "existing", then it must be provided by the contractor. The converse means that if some items are noted "new", those that are not so noted can be assumed by bidders to be existing. Of course, if there is very little new work, with the project consisting primarily of repairing and refinishing, then I'd do the reverse. The basic principle is label the exceptions, with all else being the default, whether new or existing. Is that clear as mud? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 542 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 09:06 am:    Dave, I prefer to 'cloud' or otherwise graphically show items that are either existing to remain, existing to be relocated, existing to be salvaged, etc. With ongoing reduction of drawing sheets, and use of electronic media to view PDF files of reduced drawing sheets, I'm finding that it's too easy to lose written data on the drawings. Still, it is necessary to graphically show locations and items and to designate which are existing vs. items to be provided as part of the Contract. I'm not crazy about scheduling these in my Selective Demolition spec other than perhaps existing equipment and items that the Owner considers to have value. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 459 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 09:11 am:    Yes Ken, I agree, having a light tone or shading is a simple and effective graphic way of indicating existing items, as long as the shading does not obscure other information. And I also agree to it is better to show existing to be demolished, to remain, to be relocated, to be salvaged, etc on the drawings rather than in the specifications. Steve Taylor Senior Member Username: steveatwi Post Number: 62 Registered: 07-2008 Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 02:47 pm:    Regarding telling the contractor how to divide the work: I strongly recommend that when paneling, casework, and doors within a room are intended to match the specifications should require that they all be finished by the same party. I have seen several blueprint match jobs ruined because the doors were finished by the door manufacturer, and the paneling and casework by the millwork company. Even working with properly sequence matched veneer and the same finish sample finishes from two different shops will not match. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 544 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, July 01, 2013 - 11:53 am:    Steve, I agree with you completely that it makes sense to specify it that way especially with high visibility surfaces that require a specialty firm to handle both fabrication and installation. Same can be true for certain metal finishes in close proximity to each other. SectionFormat allows listing of specific fabricators and installers when desired by the owner. It also identifies in PART 1 items that are furnished by one Section for fabrication or installation by another Section. There should be no problem requiring that the doors furnished in Division 08 be delivered to the Division 06 fabricator for finishing. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1354 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 08:14 pm:    and of course another thing you can do is review the scope of all subcontracts and make sure there is no overlap. we've done that a few times in a couple of firms I work for -- and you can save the owner a lot of money that way. You're not "taking responsibilty" for dividing up the work, you're pointing out that four different subcontracts all think they are doing the sealant application for the building. agree with the typical posts: remove "by others" unles it is NIC Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 653 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 09:03 pm:    That (reviewing scopes) is called "playing well with others." And, by the way, mitigating potential problems at the same time.