I am going to refer to section 10, toilet accessories, for clarification. If you have the original specs and plans and the specs detail the items but the plans conflict with the specs, because a toilet accessories schedule is on the plans that state otherwise, when the addendum comes out to change some of the items on the toilet accessory on the plans but has changed nothing on the specs, does the addendum override the specs?
Scenario:
specs say to provide an expensive soap dispenser and the plans schedule list a cheap soap dispenser but an addendum comes out that changes the whole schedule except for that one soap dispenser, are you expecting us to follow the new schedule provided in the addendum or what is specified?
Based on your post I'm assuming your a contractor. Please clarify if this is wrong.
The expectation is that when there is a conflict between the plans and specs that you ask for clarification in an RFI. Drawings should not be given priority over specs and vice versa. They should be complimentary and taken together as a whole.
Aside from submitting an RFI, which should always be the first attempt, some specs will indicate that when there is a discrepancy between the drawings and specs that the contractor is to provide the more expensive or greater quantity of work. Check Div 01 sections to see if this is the case in your contract docs.
The demonstration of knowledge only goes to illustrate one of two things; you didn't read the spec, or drawings thoroughly to catch the conflict, or you knew of the conflict and bet your bid on the wrong item. Either way, it's an oversight architects make, and it's a poor bet by the contractor.
However, this niggling little thing can't be a budget buster, you have to be capable of making it up in the project elsewhere. Right?
EI is correct. Instead of arguing over spec. vs. Addendum you can always send an RFI based on the new addendum for clarification on the soap dispenser.
Well, now that that's all settled, let's call out the architect (because given this is a site for architects, I'm assuming more architects will read this than contractors. Also, I'm naive enough to think it might make a difference somewhere).
Why did the architect have all the toilet accessories in the specs only to schedule them again on the drawings? Then, when they decided to change the accessories in the addendum, did they not think to modify the spec as well? Or was the issue that the schedule modification in the addendum was supposed to align the schedule on the drawings with the spec, but the lone soap dispenser was overlooked? If that was the case, why are they duplicating the information in the drawings and specs again?
Oh, that's right. The architect probably just copied the spec over from the last job and didn't bother to review or edit it for this job. And since we all know that no one pays attention to the spec until there is a problem, nobody thought to review or edit it as part of the addendum either. No worries, everything gets worked out during CA anyway. If we got paid a decent fee for these types of projects we could afford to spend the time to produce our documents properly the first time (except that we wouldn't, we'd just spend that fee redesigning something else).
We use a general catch all clause on the front end of our drawings that state that details overwrite plans an that specs overwrite details. This is important since specs are often written by senior staff who know a thing more that the draftsman.
Check the contract. Usually it defines the hierarchy.
That said, some types of projects may be bound by state or agency regulations that trump the owner-contractor agreement. When things go to court, if there no contract or regulation defining what takes precedence, specs are usually assumed to be the top of the hierarchy.
WTF? Everyone knows you ignore plans and specs when it comes to soap dispensers. You get the one that the owners low bid janitorial service installs. No point in specifying, scheduling, detailing, buying or installing one.
True... esp when the client's union custodian decide to install their own accessories after occupancy because the model installed uses different size paper rolls or whatever.
NS-exactly. Just look around in all restrooms. You'll see the pretty, useless, unused toilet room accessories specified by the arch, and the functional ugly ones that the janitor actually stocks.
I've got one large multi building complex restroom renovation project in construction and it's a bitch convincing the GC to get us exactly the accessories I specified. Don't care if it's cheaper (for you), it needs to fit the stock the client uses.
In a perfect world/project, both the drawings and specs are carefully reviewed and produced by the same person but this is hardly ever the case. In most offices and all medium or larger projects, plenty of people take turns banging away at various pieces. Perhaps not that important when it comes to accessories, but take hardware, or membranes, or sealants for example. You want to most detailed piece of the project, and the one most likely produced by senior staff. Errors are bound to happen and when they do,a hierarchy clause allows the most detailed element to take precedence if an RFI or dispute takes place. This is why I try very hard to not mention any products, finishes, or manufacturers in drawings. If the contractor wants to know what membrane type 3 is, then he/she needs to open the specs.
Let's take this one part at a time to analyze the issues.
1) Details take precedence over plans. There should be no reason to state this as plans and details should not be showing the same things and one would not need to be prioritized over another. The information presented in each are inherently different. If there is a conflict between your plans and details, it's because you aren't drawing things correctly ... you're either showing too much in the plans, or repeating information unnecessarily in the details.
2) Specifications take precedence over details or drawings. Again, different formats for different information. You seem to be putting the information in the right place anyway based on your comment above: "This is why I try very hard to not mention any products, finishes, or manufacturers in drawings. If the contractor wants to know what membrane type 3 is, then he/she needs to open the specs." This is the correct way to do it. So if you are doing it this way, then why do the specs need to be prioritized above the drawings? Put what is supposed to be in the specs in the specs, and put what is supposed to be in the drawings in the drawings and you'll never have this issue.
3) Errors are bound to happen. Absolutely correct. I'm not trying to say that we live in a perfect world or that we should have perfect documents. So errors happen, and when errors happen, the correct way to resolve them is not to prioritize one portion of the contract above another portion. It is to write an RFI asking for clarification. The architect will respond to the RFI to correct the error.
4) The hierarchy you've set up with specs being the most important, then details, then plans is just asking for trouble. Which portions of the documents take the most time and require the higher paid, senior staff (keep in mind we don't live in a perfect world and we are trying to minimize our effort producing documents to try and make a decent profit on our projects with tight fees)? With good reason it is the specs and details. But which portions of a project's documentation are most likely to be copied from the last project in order to save time and fee? That's right, the specs and details. So you've created a hierarchy that prioritizes what was done on the last project more than what was most likely intended (aka something drawn for the actual project) if there is a conflict. I'm not saying that all the specs and details have to be written/drawn from scratch ... I'm saying don't try to prioritize those over other elements of the documents.
5) The final issue is that with the hierarchy you've set up, you're saying that more detailed things are more correct than less detailed things. I could have a roof detail showing a 3-ply SBS-mod bit system. But if the intent was always to have a single-ply membrane and that is what is annotated on the roof plan, does that mean we need to have a 3-ply mod bit system because the detail said so? Of course not. In answering the RFI do architects always respond with whatever they can find that is the most detailed, or do they respond with what is correct? Balkins could give very detailed responses, but that doesn't mean his responses were always correct? In the event of an error it should never be about what is the most detailed, the decision should be made about what the intent of the documents is, or if that isn't clear, then a modification should be made to the documents to clarify them.
EI, correct again. I'm in the camp where more communication, rather than less, is what's necessary to building these fucking things.
I had a sub call me the other day, not how I'd prefer, given that this is a Uni project, and the GC has an onerous method of communication, but I digress. The sub asked why I RR'd his drawing of a specific detail, and I looked at why I did, and saw what he was referring to. My response was simple, oh, I see what you did, instead of changing the drawing, you guys just erased the dimensions, and wrote the new dimension in there. Well, I look at the totality of the information, and the drawing was the same thing that was submitted, after the RFI 271 was issued, and if you are going to do that, you can't have a scale under the drawing, and you need to put in break lines.
The second question, same sub, was about a piece of formed ceiling finish panel. I explain that it didn't appear that any other trade caught this finish piece, and that this finish panel needed to turn down, and meet his perforated panels. Given that was the case, and that they were to be the same color, that I was giving them the task to do this, but that if he felt that he needed more, then they needed to submit that to the GC for an additional cost.
EI, I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion several times over with other architects, but the only difference is that there is often (read: always) beer involved. With that said, I propose we do this subject justice and meet up a convenient pup... say, in 30mins?
You're correct in your elaborate explanation however, in my experience (from small to uber large projects), we live and die by the specs ruling the land. I wield ours like a southern preacher wields a bible at your weekly book burning. Perhaps it's just a region thing perhaps you have more experience with top-notch draftsmen with impeccable discipline. I don't... and I always get the one GC who points out that one detail showing 1ply or whatever... although, If I was the only one assembling the CDs, then I can assure you I would build them as you describe.
Beta, I normally don't accept my own drawings returned to me as shops. And as per scales on drawings... who scales a drawing? That's note no.2 on our front-end notes. Don't scale the drawings. I was in an argument 2 weeks ago with a site super who tried to convince me my walls were incorrect but the sleeves where. (spoiler alert, the sleeves were wrong). He scaled the concrete sleeve drawings measuring from the face of a counter-top... and not a grid line. I may be wrong, but I don't recall seeing granite vanities on site while they were forming the floors of this 10-storey office building.
point of this whole thing is this, strangely enough, as architects have different ways of communicating documentation, contractors also have different ways, and it extends to regionally accepted conventions too.
some communications are intentionally misleading in the manner of presentation and timing, which makes this profession all the more difficult. I spend a great deal of time trying to understand the GCs stick/spiel and MO. most are easy to decipher but some GCs have a con down so well it takes some experience to decipher and sometimes you have to work with it to get the job done. the paper trail as architect is the only thing that always confirms gut suspicions......young architects learn the art of presentation in the realm of CA and then learn the cons.
this post itself is a dig for a con. the "contractor" is essentially contracted to do the job, the communication between is the game. i do not think most people understand what an architect does mentally, but we have to approach each project with its own set of rules and laws, its like writing a government constitution for every project and then debating the 2nd amendment as needed for the action towards completion.. if this post is by a GC they are looking for an out, a method of a Change Order, etc.......as you can tell I am a wee bit cynical as I let people lie to me, I rarely call anyone out until the documentation does it for me.
It would be great if everything were perfectly coordinated every time, but that's not reality. Our typical sealed contracts have a hierarchy written in, based on the front end of the spec. Specs rule, by law in Canada at least (CCDC contracts anyway).
I've had the same discussion before many times as well. Maybe beer is the only way to take the edge off of the discussion. I don't really find it to be a regional thing, my firm does work all over the US in our various offices and we always try to prevent establishing a hierarchy between drawings and specs (sometimes a client wins out because they pay the bills). We also do small to uber large projects as well for many small to uber large clients. Taking what bowling_ball mentioned, perhaps it ends up being more of a US vs. Canada thing.
The AIA has long opposed establishing any order of precedence in the contract documents, even the ARE teaches the same (you can search plenty of ARE forums and find the answer, as well as plenty of confusion on this issue). The furthest it has gotten with the AIA is the text in the Guide for Supplementary Conditions (Document A503) explaining why they don't think it is a good idea and an example of what is a good practice if the client insists on it (see section 1.2 here) ... note that drawings and the technical specs are the same priority.
We don't have top-notch draftspeople, they're just as bad as yours probably are. I don't think anyone is trying to say that all the CDs should be put produced by one person (not sure why you keep bringing that up). Do you have dedicated full-time specifiers, or is it just senior staff (PAs, PMs, etc.) who write the specs for your projects? What about QA/QC reviewers?
We do have good full-time specifiers and QC reviewers (although not all senior), and they really work hard to get coordinated documents (sometimes it works better than others). All the specifiers have their CCS certification (would that be a CSP under the CSC in Canada?) and probably write some of the best specifications out there, but not one of them would advocate for a hierarchy between the drawings and specs for many of the reasons I outlined ... plus probably more reasons that I'm too dumb to think of.
At any rate, glad it has worked for you in the past on your projects, and I hope it continues to work without issue. As long as your specs are always right, I don't foresee any problems.
EI, Bowling sad what I was trying to. It's a contractual heirarchy and I'll look for the wording when I get to the office. The AREs don't have much impact here anymore. We have our own tests base on Canadian codes and professional practice. Which, I guess is not at all surprising.
As for your spec writer note, we don't hire people specifically for specifications typically. We do have a few senior associates who will write the larger project specs but in my cases, we all have a go at them (we being the licensed individuals who run CA). My current beef on two seperate projects is proper fire/smoke assemblies and materials. GCs just do not understand the difference between product and assemblies as well as what testing standard is required. If they read my specs they would. Perhaps beers are required after all.
plans vs addendum
I am going to refer to section 10, toilet accessories, for clarification. If you have the original specs and plans and the specs detail the items but the plans conflict with the specs, because a toilet accessories schedule is on the plans that state otherwise, when the addendum comes out to change some of the items on the toilet accessory on the plans but has changed nothing on the specs, does the addendum override the specs?
Scenario:
specs say to provide an expensive soap dispenser and the plans schedule list a cheap soap dispenser but an addendum comes out that changes the whole schedule except for that one soap dispenser, are you expecting us to follow the new schedule provided in the addendum or what is specified?
The expectation is that when there is a conflict between the plans and specs that you ask for clarification in an RFI. Drawings should not be given priority over specs and vice versa. They should be complimentary and taken together as a whole.
Aside from submitting an RFI, which should always be the first attempt, some specs will indicate that when there is a discrepancy between the drawings and specs that the contractor is to provide the more expensive or greater quantity of work. Check Div 01 sections to see if this is the case in your contract docs.
However, this niggling little thing can't be a budget buster, you have to be capable of making it up in the project elsewhere. Right?
EI is correct. Instead of arguing over spec. vs. Addendum you can always send an RFI based on the new addendum for clarification on the soap dispenser.
Well, now that that's all settled, let's call out the architect (because given this is a site for architects, I'm assuming more architects will read this than contractors. Also, I'm naive enough to think it might make a difference somewhere).
Why did the architect have all the toilet accessories in the specs only to schedule them again on the drawings? Then, when they decided to change the accessories in the addendum, did they not think to modify the spec as well? Or was the issue that the schedule modification in the addendum was supposed to align the schedule on the drawings with the spec, but the lone soap dispenser was overlooked? If that was the case, why are they duplicating the information in the drawings and specs again?
Oh, that's right. The architect probably just copied the spec over from the last job and didn't bother to review or edit it for this job. And since we all know that no one pays attention to the spec until there is a problem, nobody thought to review or edit it as part of the addendum either. No worries, everything gets worked out during CA anyway. If we got paid a decent fee for these types of projects we could afford to spend the time to produce our documents properly the first time (except that we wouldn't, we'd just spend that fee redesigning something else).
Check the contract. Usually it defines the hierarchy.
That said, some types of projects may be bound by state or agency regulations that trump the owner-contractor agreement. When things go to court, if there no contract or regulation defining what takes precedence, specs are usually assumed to be the top of the hierarchy.
True... esp when the client's union custodian decide to install their own accessories after occupancy because the model installed uses different size paper rolls or whatever.
I know, I know...
I've got one large multi building complex restroom renovation project in construction and it's a bitch convincing the GC to get us exactly the accessories I specified. Don't care if it's cheaper (for you), it needs to fit the stock the client uses.
All the clauses trying to establish some hierarchy between drawings and specs do is say that the architect can't coordinate their documents properly.
I respectfully disagree EI.
In a perfect world/project, both the drawings and specs are carefully reviewed and produced by the same person but this is hardly ever the case. In most offices and all medium or larger projects, plenty of people take turns banging away at various pieces. Perhaps not that important when it comes to accessories, but take hardware, or membranes, or sealants for example. You want to most detailed piece of the project, and the one most likely produced by senior staff. Errors are bound to happen and when they do,a hierarchy clause allows the most detailed element to take precedence if an RFI or dispute takes place. This is why I try very hard to not mention any products, finishes, or manufacturers in drawings. If the contractor wants to know what membrane type 3 is, then he/she needs to open the specs.
Let's take this one part at a time to analyze the issues.
1) Details take precedence over plans. There should be no reason to state this as plans and details should not be showing the same things and one would not need to be prioritized over another. The information presented in each are inherently different. If there is a conflict between your plans and details, it's because you aren't drawing things correctly ... you're either showing too much in the plans, or repeating information unnecessarily in the details.
2) Specifications take precedence over details or drawings. Again, different formats for different information. You seem to be putting the information in the right place anyway based on your comment above: "This is why I try very hard to not mention any products, finishes, or manufacturers in drawings. If the contractor wants to know what membrane type 3 is, then he/she needs to open the specs." This is the correct way to do it. So if you are doing it this way, then why do the specs need to be prioritized above the drawings? Put what is supposed to be in the specs in the specs, and put what is supposed to be in the drawings in the drawings and you'll never have this issue.
3) Errors are bound to happen. Absolutely correct. I'm not trying to say that we live in a perfect world or that we should have perfect documents. So errors happen, and when errors happen, the correct way to resolve them is not to prioritize one portion of the contract above another portion. It is to write an RFI asking for clarification. The architect will respond to the RFI to correct the error.
4) The hierarchy you've set up with specs being the most important, then details, then plans is just asking for trouble. Which portions of the documents take the most time and require the higher paid, senior staff (keep in mind we don't live in a perfect world and we are trying to minimize our effort producing documents to try and make a decent profit on our projects with tight fees)? With good reason it is the specs and details. But which portions of a project's documentation are most likely to be copied from the last project in order to save time and fee? That's right, the specs and details. So you've created a hierarchy that prioritizes what was done on the last project more than what was most likely intended (aka something drawn for the actual project) if there is a conflict. I'm not saying that all the specs and details have to be written/drawn from scratch ... I'm saying don't try to prioritize those over other elements of the documents.
5) The final issue is that with the hierarchy you've set up, you're saying that more detailed things are more correct than less detailed things. I could have a roof detail showing a 3-ply SBS-mod bit system. But if the intent was always to have a single-ply membrane and that is what is annotated on the roof plan, does that mean we need to have a 3-ply mod bit system because the detail said so? Of course not. In answering the RFI do architects always respond with whatever they can find that is the most detailed, or do they respond with what is correct? Balkins could give very detailed responses, but that doesn't mean his responses were always correct? In the event of an error it should never be about what is the most detailed, the decision should be made about what the intent of the documents is, or if that isn't clear, then a modification should be made to the documents to clarify them.
EI, correct again. I'm in the camp where more communication, rather than less, is what's necessary to building these fucking things.
I had a sub call me the other day, not how I'd prefer, given that this is a Uni project, and the GC has an onerous method of communication, but I digress. The sub asked why I RR'd his drawing of a specific detail, and I looked at why I did, and saw what he was referring to. My response was simple, oh, I see what you did, instead of changing the drawing, you guys just erased the dimensions, and wrote the new dimension in there. Well, I look at the totality of the information, and the drawing was the same thing that was submitted, after the RFI 271 was issued, and if you are going to do that, you can't have a scale under the drawing, and you need to put in break lines.
The second question, same sub, was about a piece of formed ceiling finish panel. I explain that it didn't appear that any other trade caught this finish piece, and that this finish panel needed to turn down, and meet his perforated panels. Given that was the case, and that they were to be the same color, that I was giving them the task to do this, but that if he felt that he needed more, then they needed to submit that to the GC for an additional cost.
Communication.
EI, I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion several times over with other architects, but the only difference is that there is often (read: always) beer involved. With that said, I propose we do this subject justice and meet up a convenient pup... say, in 30mins?
You're correct in your elaborate explanation however, in my experience (from small to uber large projects), we live and die by the specs ruling the land. I wield ours like a southern preacher wields a bible at your weekly book burning. Perhaps it's just a region thing perhaps you have more experience with top-notch draftsmen with impeccable discipline. I don't... and I always get the one GC who points out that one detail showing 1ply or whatever... although, If I was the only one assembling the CDs, then I can assure you I would build them as you describe.
Beta, I normally don't accept my own drawings returned to me as shops. And as per scales on drawings... who scales a drawing? That's note no.2 on our front-end notes. Don't scale the drawings. I was in an argument 2 weeks ago with a site super who tried to convince me my walls were incorrect but the sleeves where. (spoiler alert, the sleeves were wrong). He scaled the concrete sleeve drawings measuring from the face of a counter-top... and not a grid line. I may be wrong, but I don't recall seeing granite vanities on site while they were forming the floors of this 10-storey office building.
this was a shop, and it wasn't my drawing. i always have don't scale from drawing, however, people do, as people are want to do.
point of this whole thing is this, strangely enough, as architects have different ways of communicating documentation, contractors also have different ways, and it extends to regionally accepted conventions too.
communication.
some communications are intentionally misleading in the manner of presentation and timing, which makes this profession all the more difficult. I spend a great deal of time trying to understand the GCs stick/spiel and MO. most are easy to decipher but some GCs have a con down so well it takes some experience to decipher and sometimes you have to work with it to get the job done. the paper trail as architect is the only thing that always confirms gut suspicions......young architects learn the art of presentation in the realm of CA and then learn the cons.
this post itself is a dig for a con. the "contractor" is essentially contracted to do the job, the communication between is the game. i do not think most people understand what an architect does mentally, but we have to approach each project with its own set of rules and laws, its like writing a government constitution for every project and then debating the 2nd amendment as needed for the action towards completion.. if this post is by a GC they are looking for an out, a method of a Change Order, etc.......as you can tell I am a wee bit cynical as I let people lie to me, I rarely call anyone out until the documentation does it for me.
It would be great if everything were perfectly coordinated every time, but that's not reality. Our typical sealed contracts have a hierarchy written in, based on the front end of the spec. Specs rule, by law in Canada at least (CCDC contracts anyway).
I've had the same discussion before many times as well. Maybe beer is the only way to take the edge off of the discussion. I don't really find it to be a regional thing, my firm does work all over the US in our various offices and we always try to prevent establishing a hierarchy between drawings and specs (sometimes a client wins out because they pay the bills). We also do small to uber large projects as well for many small to uber large clients. Taking what bowling_ball mentioned, perhaps it ends up being more of a US vs. Canada thing.
The AIA has long opposed establishing any order of precedence in the contract documents, even the ARE teaches the same (you can search plenty of ARE forums and find the answer, as well as plenty of confusion on this issue). The furthest it has gotten with the AIA is the text in the Guide for Supplementary Conditions (Document A503) explaining why they don't think it is a good idea and an example of what is a good practice if the client insists on it (see section 1.2 here) ... note that drawings and the technical specs are the same priority.
We don't have top-notch draftspeople, they're just as bad as yours probably are. I don't think anyone is trying to say that all the CDs should be put produced by one person (not sure why you keep bringing that up). Do you have dedicated full-time specifiers, or is it just senior staff (PAs, PMs, etc.) who write the specs for your projects? What about QA/QC reviewers?
We do have good full-time specifiers and QC reviewers (although not all senior), and they really work hard to get coordinated documents (sometimes it works better than others). All the specifiers have their CCS certification (would that be a CSP under the CSC in Canada?) and probably write some of the best specifications out there, but not one of them would advocate for a hierarchy between the drawings and specs for many of the reasons I outlined ... plus probably more reasons that I'm too dumb to think of.
At any rate, glad it has worked for you in the past on your projects, and I hope it continues to work without issue. As long as your specs are always right, I don't foresee any problems.
As for your spec writer note, we don't hire people specifically for specifications typically. We do have a few senior associates who will write the larger project specs but in my cases, we all have a go at them (we being the licensed individuals who run CA). My current beef on two seperate projects is proper fire/smoke assemblies and materials. GCs just do not understand the difference between product and assemblies as well as what testing standard is required. If they read my specs they would. Perhaps beers are required after all.
EI, below is the clause from the CCDC mentioned by Bowling.
GC 1.1 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
1.1.6 If there is a conflict within the Contract Documents:
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.