Issuing "old" specs

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

Author Message Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 472 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 06:43 pm:    curious...what is the longest period of time you would allow to pass (while a project is on "hold")and still use prevously produced specifications? For example, I prepared specifications in 2007, the job went on hold, and the clients wants to issue the same specs (and doesn't want to pay to have me review and update them). I am arguing against it strongly, but am curious what everyone else thinks or does. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 632 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 06:56 pm:    A lot could have changed in 6 years - Building Codes, Standards, products & manufacturers may have gotten bought out or went out of business, etc. I'd say they would have to be reviewed and updated, regardless of the time frame. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 473 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 07:03 pm:    I agree Rich. Already explained all that. They don't care and won't pay to have them updated. Of course, none of the other consultants have a problem re-issuing their specs. Other than outright refusing to re-issue them (which i have thought about), i am not sure what to do. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 629 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 07:30 pm:    Real simple letter explaining that this course of action is strongly ill-advised, that the minute amount of money the client saves from having you do your job will be eclipsed by the mountain of money they will pay to fix every hole that will exist. The other part of this is that, if you carry insurance, your carrier probably won't cover the project since you were not permitted to update the documents. If you are working for an A/E, they may want to check with their carrier as well. This client may be setting themselves for a big hurt. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 633 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 07:44 pm:    I concur with Ken. There also may be an issue here with the Architect's "Standard of Care" if the specifications do not comply with current codes, etc.? Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 474 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 07:50 pm:    believe it or not, i explained all that, and wrote a letter and suggested they talk to their legal counsel. My problem now, is there is a newly designed pool building, so they want me to prepare new sections (that aren't already covered in the primary building) and it would be a "supplement" to the prior building. I think, by doing that, i am giving my blessing on re-using the old specs. Would you outright refuse? That is the direction I am leaning, but wanted to see if there is any argument for just going with it with a lot of written disclaimers. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 634 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 07:54 pm:    I would consult your own legal counsel. If there is a subsequent lawsuit, you will be dragged into it. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 630 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 07:57 pm:    Again, I would check with the insurance carrier. If you can get your a/e client to allow you access to their legal counsel, that would be best. Unfortunately too many a/e firms would rather sell their souls to get a small commission than protect themselves and their consultants from lawsuits. One big takeaway I had from a recent insurance seminar is that clients who pull this type of stunt are the last to pay and the first to sue. A few wisely spent minutes with your insurance carrier or a few dollars spent on legal counsel now may more than pay for itself later. Sorry to hear that you're in this conundrum. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 475 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 08:00 pm:    Thanks guys...i appreciate the input. I don't have insurance and I am my own legal counsel, so i will stick with my guns. Thought i would see if anyone else had any experience or other suggestions on how to handle the situation. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 414 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 09:03 pm:    We have a project currently in construction with a somewhat similar issue of old documents that were created in 2008 and then shelved. The project has a crazy history which I will relate briefly below. The client did not want to pay for anything more than a very quick restart effort with minimal revision of drawings and specs. First we did the sort of peer review we would normally do as a professional service as a third party, but in this case for our own project. Next, we did a re-selection of the architectural finish materials which had all long since gone out of production (or at least re-named). We allowed the specifications for lab and MEP equipment to stay as-is but with the bid instructions that these represented a basis-of-design with relaxed substitution requirements for bid phase substitutions. The effort was made much easier because we did not need to revise to a new code because the public entity client had the authority to stick with the previous code edition. The major cause of redesign was an almost complete change over of the University teaching staff who would use the labs. They each got an opportunity to make minor changes to their lab areas. The project is a university lab remodel at a University of California campus. Architecture firm "A" did the original design that went all the way to bid in 2008 before the university cancelled the project as the economy rapidly went sour. Then firm "A" was purchased by firm "B" and was totally absorbed into that much bigger firm. As the years went by and people moved on the UC project on hold was virtually forgotten in dusty flat files and archived on servers. Then firm "B" merged with my firm, "C". What we shared with the original firm "A" was geographical proximity and a couple employees who had worked for both over the years. So it was our now merged office that got the unexpected cold call in 2012 from a UC project manager that they wanted to restart the project and put it out to bid all over again and we all better get crackin'. It is a very strange experience to have someone cold call you and say you are the Architect of Record for a $25 million dollar university lab project and that you need to promptly start submitting invoices. I have to say that with the University's help this actually worked. We are about 75% complete with only about 150 RFI's with changes well within the University's contingency. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 613 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - 09:07 pm:    The codes have changed. Thus it is likely that the original specifications have code violations. Once you are aware of this I do not see how the architect or engineer can legally stamp and seal the documents. I am assuming that you do not have an active permit that has been kept in effect since 2007. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 690 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 01:05 am:    Contrary to what appears to be common belief, specifications are not boilerplate. I track many of the changes I make to our master specifications, and it's amazing how many there are. Some, such as restating or moving a paragraph aren't critical and would not cause problems, but others are essential. If a project goes on the shelf for even a year, I compare the edited sections with the masters, with a little help from my log of changes. Inevitably, many updates are required. Five years out, I'd be inclined to start over, but the new specs should take much less time because the old ones would (should) have most of the information covered. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 224 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 08:59 am:    Robin, We had a similar situation recently. The Architect-client took our 2007 draft specifications and issued them to bid in 2013, without our knowledge. I don't know if they reviewed their Drawings, but I doubt it. The exterior framing, sheathing, air/vapor barrier, and insulation went up before the building inspector shut down the jobsite for failure to meet Code. As we used to say, penny-wise pound-foolish. - Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 59 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 09:18 am:    Maybe the lesson here is to include language in the original architect-owner or consultant contract, anticipating the situation and permitting a graceful, or at least legally sound exit/negotiating stance. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 110 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 10:34 am:    I think outright refusal to reuse the old specs is the best course of action to protect your interests and other members of the project team -- whether or not they understand that. I have taken that stance, and had clients ultimately agree to a reduced fee to rewrite specs from current masters. The old spec serves as a valuable resource, substantially reducing the spec development effort. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 477 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:11 am:    We've faced this on a number of jobs; we call them night of the living dead projects. Generally, if a specification has been more than 3 or 4 years old, or if the jurisdiction has adopted a later edition of the building code in the interim, we have been successful in having the owner agree to pay for updating the specification. The extent to which the previous specification can be reused is also dependent on whether the designers have changed their minds on what products they're using since the documents were previously issued. Ed Storer Senior Member Username: ed_storer Post Number: 7 Registered: 05-2009 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 12:26 pm:    Part of your argument can be made by simply directing the Client to the "Changes" section of 4specs that Colin keeps so well updated for us. It might help to point out that the IBC has a 3-year revision cycle. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 631 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 12:50 pm:    As does ASTM and ASME A17.1, ASCE 7, and who-knows how many other Codes and standards. Oh, not to mention the new ADA. Robin, I'm sure you won't experience this as much since I've got a long learning curve, but when I think about how much I've learned since 2007 I worry about what I used to include, and leave out from, my specs. I don't even want to think about what I used to issue back in the 70's and 80's. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1541 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 01:26 pm:    I would definitely not use a specification that old. However, using the old spec as a reference for the selection of systems and materials would make preparation of a new spec much easier. Likely many things would not need too much revision (say, drywall and toilet accessories) but others may need significant research and rewriting. However, whatever revisions are needed due to code changes would require some work, or if there is a desire to incorporate a sustainability certification (like LEED). Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 476 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 04:22 pm:    sometimes things happen for a reason. While explaining to my client why i wasn't comfortable doing this project, it came out that he thinks he merely tells me what sections to use (marking up an index) and i just include those sections in the spec. When i mentioned reviewing the drawings he said, "I am not asking you to do that, you are volunteering". Apparently, he has no idea of the service i provide or what we do as specification consultants. So, there is a bigger problem going on here!! Thanks for everyone's suggestions and input! Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 477 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 04:26 pm:    PS: Architect claims their legal counsel and insurance didn't have any concerns about issuing the documents from 2007 "as is"...BIG red flag! Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 478 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 04:32 pm:    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 635 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 04:34 pm:    Robin, Sometimes it's better to walk away, in this case, run, than to risk litigation later at probably more cost than your fee, especially if this architect doesn't want to pay you anyway. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 632 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2013 - 11:48 pm:    Being naturally cynical anyway, I'm just curious as to what compelling reason they expect you to feel about participating in this. I presume you were paid for the work done 6 years ago. If you are not being paid to review and revise them, why on earth would anyone think you would be willing to allow anyone to use the outdated specs? My best guess is that it's safest to go on record that you do not advocate using the specs 'as is'. I don't know if you have any rights in terms of copyright or other means to stop them from issuing the specs as part of their document set. At least you can have a paper trail removing you from the future lawsuit on the horizon. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 628 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, October 25, 2013 - 07:13 am:    The code review cycle is useful as general information only. The current building code in Houston is based on IBC 2006 which will chance at the end of the year to IBC 2012 (don't quote me on that). Energy code has been updated. One of the biggest changes for us was about 12 years ago when they boosted the wind speed requirements from 90 mph to 110 mph. This created all sorts of interesting impacts , especially for shelved projects. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 482 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 10:45 am:    Quick update... after some correspondence, the client emphatically insists that I am "incorrect" and there is nothing wrong with issuing specs from 7 years ago, and they have "made arrangements" with the contractor to handle outdated items through submittals. I am sure that is more cost effective and efficient than having updated the specs in the first place (ha ha) There may be an architecture firm looking for a new spec writer soon... Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1722 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 11:00 am:    Send a disclaimer removing yourself from responsibility and wish them luck. Then you can sit back and watch the papers for the latest update on the project. Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 82 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 12:07 pm:    <headscratch> Building code edition? Reference standard editions? New products? Old (discontinued/rebranded) products? New laws and regulations? Fuhgeddaboutit. Once again, an Owner takes the advice of a Contractor... (who even if perfectly honest, makes money on the difference between what he/she bids and what he/she actually spends, and what he/she can convince the Owner was not covered by the original bid) ...over the word of a Design Professional (who receives a more-or-less finite fee that represents a tiny fraction of the project's cost, and has a legal duty to protect the client's interests). In my experience, Owners never seem to learn from this. Even if they end up paying more than they'd had to if they'd listened to the architect/engineer/designer, they tend to "solve" the problem by firing the Contractor and finding another one to believe, instead of listening to the Design Professional a little more. I've seen this from almost every angle, and never understood it. Can any of you explain it to me? Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 483 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 12:11 pm:    Scott: In this case, it is the Architect (my client) who refused to take advice from me (professional specification consultant). I don't get it either, but, IMO, this tells me the value the architect puts on (1) specifications and (2) my professional expertise. It is mind boggling to me! Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 143 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 12:21 pm:    Robin, a couple of suggestions, if you haven't done so: 1. Do not change the date of the specifications. It may indicate to an attorney that they had been reviewed and since ASTMs/code requirements may not have been changed, it may lead to attorney to claim E & O mistakes. 2. I also suggest that the issue be labeled as a reprint. This will inform everyone that these are old specifications. 3. Talk with your legal counsel. A disclaimer in writing to the client is nice, however, what is to stop you from putting a disclaimer in the specification. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 484 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 12:26 pm:    Thanks Alan, but the specs were already issued, without my knowledge. They literally took the package from 2007 and issued it, as-is. They did not want to pay me ANYTHING to update the specs in any way, shape or form. This issue came up recently when they had to re-design one portion and wanted me to update the specs for that potion and i refused. It is VERY clear that i was not involved with their decision to issue the old specs and will not have any involvement with the specifications moving forward. I am just passing along this experience to others in case they encounter similar situations. PS - I am my own legal counsel and have sent them a very clear letter documenting my position. :-) Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 55 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 01:01 pm:    I come across this all the time. To answer the question of explanation why the Owner listens to the Contractor, I have reduced it to a very simple description. "Who are you going to listen to; the guy you pay $500k or the guy you pay $10 million?" We get to fight the battles for coin change, the contractor has already won the war of "big money". Until Architects move into being a Construction Manager, this is not going to change. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 113 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 01:15 pm:    Robin, thanks for posting this update. Too few architects understand what kind of work goes into preparing a good specification, and that's a really hard thing to demonstrate to people. Even if codes, standards, and new regulations aren't on the radar screen of the architect, discontinued products should be. Any architect who's done even a little bit of construction contract administration should know what a pain, and what a time sink, trying to find new products DURING construction will be. There are extra constraints that cause design-during-construction to take more time and cost more money ("but that other item is already installed, and this isn't compatible with it," "those guys are already on another job," etc.) Good spec writers approach the project specifications as a whole, taking into consideration what systems and assemblies work with others, and which ones don't. Often, bits and pieces can't just be substituted. You all know this - I'm just trying to think about this in terms of explaining to architects one facet of our work as specifiers. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 144 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 02:04 pm:    @Richard- I totally agree. Money is the only thing that talks with the Owners anymore. They think by paying more you get better quality. @Scott- Owners are beginning to look at Architects as hurdles versus helpers. Partly due to the architects, partly the contractors taking advantage of this and partly due to their own beliefs. Some think that they can do it themselves better and don't always need an architect. They also feel the same way about GCs. I am finding an interesting rise in Self performing Owners in the business. @Robin- Out of curiosity, what building type is this? Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 485 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 02:20 pm:    Alan: High rise condo/timeshare with parking garage and amenities J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 636 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, November 08, 2013 - 02:28 pm:    OK... When the Contractor starts submitting change order requests because the specs are out of date... I have a hunch the Owner will spend much more on that thay they would have to bring the specs up to date.