Proper "Expansion" of Language

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

Author Message an (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, April 18, 2014 - 02:10 pm:    I understand the need to properly coordinate and *expand* on language, but I just noticed a difference when comparing these two situations: 1) Submittal Time Frames: Our tech specs properly expand on submittal due dates in Division 01 because, while our General Requirements call for a default time, it also states "...unless noted otherwise". So any other duration in subsequent technical sections properly modify Division 01, and not simply state a contradictory time frame. 2) Warranties: But, our technical specs (Div 02+) vary the warranty time frames from our General Conditions ("This Warranty shall apply to Defective Work and Non-Conforming Work that is discovered within twelve (12) months after the date of Acceptance") by simply including a varied duration on warranties (e.g. 5-20 years). *IMPORTANT: Disregarding the issue around correction period vs. warranty...substitute any other similar topic you want. Would "proper" expansion of the General Conditions require similar "unless noted otherwise" language, or a Special Condition to modify the General Conditions, to make it theoretically correct? anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, April 18, 2014 - 03:47 pm:    ARCOM MasterSpec does a good job of explaining the difference between the Contractor's 12 month warranty stipulated in the General Conditions versus "Special" (or extended) warranties called for in technical specification sections. There is a difference. this is why you will not find any warranties in any MasterSpec section of a duration of 12 months or less - because this is addressed in the General Conditions. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 736 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, April 18, 2014 - 05:39 pm:    The one-year correction period should not be called a “warranty period” because it has nothing to do with product warranties, nor with the Contractor’s warranty. This is the contractor’s warranty: “…that products, materials, and equipment will be new, of good quality, free from defects, and will conform to the requirements of the contract documents.” [quoted from the PDPG, derived from AIA A201]. Product or workmanship warranties in Division 02+ sections provide the owner with recourse beyond the expiration of the one-year correction period, or extend the manufacturer’s or installer’s standard warranty beyond its normal time. My standard practice when writing specifications was to include only those warranties that truly did extend the owner’s protection. That’s consistent with what “anon” indicates about MasterSpec practice. I never listed a one-year warranty in a technical section because for the first year the contractor is responsible to the owner for correcting faults, failures, and defects, and bears this responsibility from the general conditions. The owner contacts the contractor (with whom the owner has a contract still in force), and the contractor contacts the individual supplier or subcontractor. After the expiration of the one-year correction period, the manufacturer or installer (if a warranty was in place) becomes directly responsible to the owner, and the contractor is out of the picture. Disclaimer: this discussion has nothing to do with latent defects, which can legally obligate a contractor to correct non-conforming work for a much longer period of time, regardless of warranties. To your broader question, I am of the opinion that “unless otherwise noted” is generally superfluous in the situation you describe. Special Conditions expand upon the General Conditions and govern the specifications sections in Divisions 02 through 49. Expand upon can mean to modify, to change, to add more detail to. In situation 1, you are not contradicting your default time. The default time simply applies only in the absence of other time requirements properly stated elsewhere. In situation 2, take a look at the Warranty provision in AIA A201 (Paragraph 3.5 in 2007 version). That’s the contractor’s warranty. I think what you are describing is the one-year correction period. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand) St. Louis, MO a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2014 - 03:45 pm:    If expand can mean modify, change, or add, then wouldn't the absence of such 'superfluous' language, mean possible misinterpretation of a "modification", or be seen as a 'conflict'? e.g., if the GCs stated a certain time frame or duration, but Division 01 listed a different number of days, how could the Div 01 language be seen as expanding on the GC language (vs. being 'in conflict')? And since the General Conditions always trump the General Requirements, would not the Division 01 duration be dismissed? George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 738 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 11:47 am:    There should be no conflicts in your documents. General Conditions, presumably a standard document used on every project, may state a maximum time that a party may take to respond to a written correspondence, for example. If that duration needs to be changed throughout the project, it should be done in Supplemenatary General Conditions. That then is the default time. If a different maximum time is needed for a type or class of correspondence, say for submittals, that time would be stated in the appropriate Division 01 section. If another different time is needed to reply to a submittal for a specific product or installation, that would be covered in the appropriate Division 02+ section. So, I don't see any conflicts, or any need for superfluous "unless otherwise noted." But just because I feel that way, or CSI's recommendations for good specification practice suggests it, it doesn't mean you can't liberally sprinkle all the "unless otherwise noteds" all over your spec as you see fit. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand) St. Louis, MO Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 753 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2014 - 08:04 pm:    It's "unless noted otherwise (UNO)" in this area. It does have a place, but when I see a drawing littered with UNOs, it looks to me like the people working on it don't know what they're doing. I'm sure the bidders' interpretation is "F'n architects!"