Architects, CSI Is Not Just About Specs

October 28, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Fellow architects, solutions offered by the Construction Specifications Institute take the brain damage out of communication in many phases of design and construction. Also, taking advantage of the educational opportunities CSI offers can help you be a better architect.

The Construction Specifications Institute is not just about specs. CSI offers formats and processes for the project team to use for many phases of a building’s design and construction, from Preliminary Project Description through Punch List. (You don’t have to reinvent these things for your practice.) CSI also offers educational programs about technical topics from building envelope performance to daylighting.

It’s fun, and fulfilling, to design. It’s a great accomplishment to listen to a client’s needs and put solutions on paper in the form of a building design. My favorite phase of design, when I worked as an architect, was design development. The inefficient (in my eyes) schematic design process was out of the way, and the complicated construction documents phase was yet to come. In DD, I didn’t have to detail things, and the client’s needs had already been taken into account in schematic design. I could just focus on the big picture of the building itself, and coordinate and refine plans, elevations, and sections. Fun!

But the practice of architecture is not all about fun with drawings. Fellow architects, we are part of the construction industry. Most of us don’t design “unbuilt work” on purpose. Most of us are designing buildings for the purpose of getting them constructed. When we produce construction documents, the end users of those documents aren’t our clients, and they aren’t magazine readers, they’re the people who are supposed to build a building from those documents.

The technical information that the contractor needs to know (in order to build your design) doesn’t all reside in that big book called the Project Manual. An awful lot of the technical stuff needs to be drawn, in detail, on your drawings. Architects (not just spec writers) need to understand the technical details of construction.

It’s great to have a good-looking rendering. But it’s better to have a design that gets executed really, really well in construction. A building that lasts and looks good as it ages speaks well of its architect.

Here’s how you get a great building, a great execution of your design: First have good construction documents that clearly communicate to the contractor the technical details of your design intent. Second, have excellent communication with the contractor throughout the construction phase.

CSI has solutions that help tremendously with construction documents and construction phase communication. You don’t need to be a CSI member to take advantage of some of the things CSI offers, such as education, standards and formats, webinars, and construction industry news. But membership opens the door to more benefits, such as networking opportunities and member discounts on the things I mentioned above.

If you’re considering joining CSI, this weekend is a good time to do so. Right now, today through Monday, you get 20% off national membership dues. (If you want to join your local chapter in addition, which you should to get the full benefit of CSI, that separate membership is still at the normal price.) Here’s the scoop from CSI:

Join CSI by October 31 and pay only $192 for national dues — a 20% savings.

1.    Visit www.csinet.org/joincsi
2.    Select “Join Now”, and then click “Sign Up as a New Member”
3.    Enter Promotion Code 1220ARCH when prompted
4.    Click the “Add Discount” button

We recommend you also join a chapter, where you can attend local education sessions and networking opportunities (chapter dues are not included in this promotional offer).

Specifying Masonry

October 16, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Last Wednesday, I was part of a panel discussion at the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute (RMMI). We discussed “Specifying Masonry.”

I was there to be the “put the info in the right place” person on the panel, and I learned a lot from the other panel members: Diane Travis of the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute, David Eatherton of Eatherton Masonry, Jay Retzko of Boral Best Block, and Brad Olson of Acme Brick.

Here’s the link to download a copy of my “Specifying Masonry” reminders hand out: http://www.lizosullivanarch.com/uploads/LizOSullivanSpecifyingMasonry.pdf

One of the things that I stressed in this panel discussion is that when architects need information on the masonry products that they’re designing with, they should contact the technical reps for those products. The reps know more about their products than anyone else could be expected to know.

And for technical assistance beyond the masonry products themselves, architects can contact RMMI’s technical director Diane Travis at dianet@rmmi.org.

Architects can get AIA continuing education credits for attending the Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute Take-Out Talks, which are at 11:30 a.m. on the first and second Wednesday of each month, at RMMI, 686 Mariposa Street, in Denver. Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute’s website is www.rmmi.org.

Hey, Architects, When It’s in the Specs, It’s in YOUR Contract, Too!

September 19, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Architects, if your agreement with the Owner includes construction phase services, you are contractually obligated to administer the contract for construction according to the procedures defined in the agreements, the conditions of the contract for construction, and the specifications!

A commonly used Owner-Architect Agreement, AIA Document B201-2007, Standard Form of Architect’s Services: Design and Construction Contract Administration, states,

“The Architect shall provide administration of the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor as set forth below and in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction.” – from Article 2 of AIA Document B201-2007

So that leads us to look at AIA Document A201-2007, which states,

“The Architect will provide administration of the Contract as described in the Contract Documents…” – from Article 4 of AIA Document A201-2007

Remember:

“The Contract Documents…consist of the Agreement, Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary and other Conditions), Drawings, Specifications…” – from Article 1 of AIA Document A201-2007

So, you know all those sections in Division 01 that say things like “Architect will review each submittal…” “Architect will review each RFI…” “Architect will request additional information or documentation for evaluation within one week…” Those are things that you are contractually obligated to do, because they’re part of your contract with the Owner.

If things get really bad on a project, and you end up in litigation, the lawyers will ask YOU, the Architect, “Did you request this? Did you review this?” etc. If you didn’t do the things that the specifications indicated that you would do, you could be in trouble. The attorneys working to protect the interests of the General Contractor will do everything they can to shift blame away from the General Contractor. That’s their job. Don’t make it any easier for them than it needs to be!

Know, understand, and follow through on your obligations for procedural and administrative processes during construction contract administration. Start by reading the agreements, the conditions of the contract, and the specifications!

Additions to Historic Buildings

September 13, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I believe that there should be a clear separation between an original historic building and an addition to that historic building. I happen to strongly prefer traditional additions onto historic buildings, but I consider my style preference to be personal, and not something that should be dictated by historic preservation guidelines or zoning codes.

I want to see the historic building as its own entity expanded by what is obviously a later addition. I do not want to see a historic building with an addition with brick toothed in and a new seamless roof over the entire building. This misleads future observers of historic buildings into believing that the building was originally built that way. It waters down future observers’ understanding of the integrity of historic forms and construction methods.

If It’s in the Specs, It’s in the Contract

September 5, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I’m going to say it again: If something is required by the Specifications, it’s required by the Contract.

A procedure or item specified in the Specifications is part of the Contract, just as much as if the procedure or item were specified in the Agreement. (The Agreement is what many people usually think of as the “Contract,” because it’s the particular document that gets signed by the Owner and the Contractor, and it has the Contract Sum indicated in it. But the Agreement is only ONE PART of the Contract.)

The Contract is made up of the Agreement, the Conditions of the Contract, the Drawings, the Specifications, etc. AIA Documents state this requirement most clearly; Owner-generated Agreements and Conditions of the Contract sometimes fall short of being explicit about this. (This is one of many good reasons to use AIA Documents instead of Owner-generated documents.)

This requirement is SO IMPORTANT that it makes up ARTICLE ONE of AIA Document A101-2007 (Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor where the basis of payment is a Stipulated Sum), a very commonly used Agreement.

“The Contract Documents consist of this Agreement, Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary and other Conditions), Drawings, Specifications, Addenda issued prior to execution of this Agreement, other documents listed in this Agreement and Modifications issued after execution of this Agreement, all of which form the Contract, and are as fully a part of the Contract as if attached to this Agreement or repeated herein.” – from Article 1 of AIA Document A101-2007

I don’t think I can say this any more clearly.

But somehow, there are a number of Contractors out there who don’t seem to realize that the Specifications are part of the Contract, and there are even a few Architects out there who don’t seem to realize that the Specifications are part of the Contract that they are supposed to be administering during construction. An Owner agrees to pay a Contractor a certain sum, the Contractor agrees to provide the Owner with certain things indicated by the Drawings and Specifications and other Contract Documents, and, in a separate Agreement, the Architect and the Owner agree that the Owner will pay the Architect a certain sum, and the Architect will administer the Contract between the Owner and the Contractor. We all have contractual obligations during construction, and we all need to understand, and follow through on, all of those obligations.

Remember, if it’s in the Specs, it’s in the Contract.

Contracts, and My Hope for the Day

September 1, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I hope that today is the last day in my life that an architect-client of mine tells me that the Contractor will not be providing the project record documents required by the project specifications because the requirement to provide record documents “is not in their Contract.”

Remember, per AIA Document A201-2007, (which is the General Conditions of the Contract that I most frequently work with) the Contract Documents “consist of the Agreement, Conditions of the Contract (General, Supplementary and other Conditions), Drawings, Specifications, Addenda issued prior to execution of the Contract, other documents listed in the Agreement and Modifications issued after execution of the Contract.” Specifications are part of the contract.

For more of the basics like this, check out my informational website, www.specificationsdenver.com

To better days!

Old Windows, LEED®, and Historic Character

August 14, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

We have storm windows on the outside of the original windows on our century-old house in Denver. From inside our home, I get to enjoy the wavy character of the old glass and the beauty of the old wood. I try to discourage neighbors and friends from window replacement, and encourage them to get storm windows instead. LEED® encourages window replacement, but it shouldn’t. Here’s why, taken straight from a publication by the National Institute of Building Sciences:

“LEED® fails to acknowledge that historic windows are important features and that their energy efficiency can be upgraded. LEED® encourages the use of highly energy efficient windows, which often requires the removal of historic windows that are potentially reusable. Moreover, original windows are character-defining features of historic buildings and their removal can significantly alter a structure’s integrity, thus conflicting with preservation goals and the Secretary’s Standards.

“With proper maintenance, windows built from old growth wood can function indefinitely and their performance can be substantially bolstered by using storm windows, caulk, and weather-stripping. Studies have shown that these simple improvements can result in efficiency similar to that of new insulated glass windows. Modern windows also have a relatively short lifespan and can be difficult, if not impossible, to repair. Once modern windows fail, there are few ways they can be recycled, and they will likely end up in landfills. This begins an environmentally insensitive cycle of removal and replacement.

“Therefore, the most responsible approach is to retain historic windows that last and retrofit them with increased effectiveness rather than install new windows that, without exception, will fail and cannot be repaired. Regrettably, the replacement window industry is strong, and old windows are touted as poor performers, so the common practice of replacing windows in not likely to change much in the immediate future. To combat this, LEED® should consider awarding points for the repair and continued use of old windows where significant improvements in energy efficiency are demonstrated, as well as where significant amounts of historic fabric are being retained and reused.” – National Institute of Building Sciences, Whole Building Design Guide, WBDG13 “Strategies for Sustainable Historic Preservation”

The bold text above highlights the important issue. The most sustainable thing to use is what you already have, especially when it’s as precious as a historic window.

Rejection of Submittals

August 12, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

“The rejection of a submittal for good cause is not a cause for a delay claim on the part of the contractor. The contractor should anticipate the potential need to resubmit incomplete or rejected submittals in the submittal schedule.”

My thought of the day, from The Project Resource Manual – CSI Manual of Practice.

We all know this, right? Let’s practice it!

In Defense of MasterFormat 2004

August 8, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

As Don Short pointed out in his blog post today http://blog.tempestcompany.com/2011/08/08/masterformat-2004-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem/comment-page-1/ , the most obvious upside of MasterFormat 2004 is that it makes writing specifications easier.

In the 16 years since 1995, we in the construction industry have been introduced to many new technologies and materials. We have outgrown MasterFormat 1995. MasterFormat 1995 does not give architects, specifiers, and building product manufacturers enough direction about where to put the information we need to communicate to the contractor team. MasterFormat 2004, along with its updates issued in 2010 and 2011, provides us with the framework to let us know exactly where to put our information.¹

MasterFormat 2004’s more fully developed framework, which the more compact MasterFormat 1995 did not provide, produces more consistency in construction documents across multiple construction projects, no matter who the architect and specifier are.

Clear, concise, correct, and complete is the goal for construction communications. MasterFormat 2004 can guide design professionals to that goal better than MasterFormat 1995 can. When the design team’s documents are clear, concise, correct and complete, everyone, from the owner to the estimator to the constructor, benefits. To use Don’s phrasing, “ease of writing” leads to “ease of use.”

Notes:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. In different projects which used MasterFormat 1995, I’ve seen the same information in different divisions – not just different sections, actually different divisions. One example: water repellent products intended to be applied to exterior masonry assemblies. When using MasterFormat 2004, we know where to locate the specification information for these products. MasterFormat 2004 guides us to “07 19 00 Water Repellents” which is further broken down into different types of products. On MasterFormat 1995 projects, I’ve seen these products specified in Division 4 (under “Masonry Assemblies”), in Division 9 (under “Paints and Coatings”) and, just as in MasterFormat 2004, in Division 7 (under “Dampproofing and Waterproofing”). Inconsistencies from project to project lead to problems in construction. MasterFormat 2004 is a solution to these problems.

“Well, If It’s Not on the Drawings…”

July 1, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Recently, I was preparing a masonry spec section for a remodel project. The project has an existing CMU wall which is to receive a small area of new CMU infill. It’s an exterior structural wall, and the architectural drawings indicate that the infill CMU is to be grouted solid.

I asked the structural engineer if we need reinforcing bars (rebar) in the cores of the CMU, and I told him that I would delete rebar from the spec section if we don’t need rebar, so that the Contractor knows he doesn’t need to provide it.

The engineer said, “You can just leave it in the specs. If the rebar isn’t on the Drawings, they’ll know they don’t need it.”

NNNOOOOOOOOoooooooo…..!!!!!

“Drawings and Specifications are complementary and what is called for by one shall be as binding as if called for by both.” This is according to the General Conditions of the Contract for this project. This is a typical provision in construction contracts.¹

So, if rebar isn’t required for that wall, there should be no rebar in the spec or on the drawings. If rebar is in the specs, even if it’s not on the drawings, rebar is required by the contract. If rebar is on the drawings, even if it’s not in the specs, rebar is required by the contract.

Design professionals need to completely comprehend this concept, and for some unknown reason, many don’t. Contractors need to completely comprehend this requirement, and for an understandable reason (it’s not in their best interest at times) they don’t always seem to grasp this.

The lead design professional on the project, the entity who is performing construction contract administration, is the party who must enforce the contract documents, including the specifications. This party has to understand the relationships among contract documents before he or she can properly enforce them. If the specifications and drawings have been prepared to be complementary, and are clear, concise, correct, and complete, they will be easy to understand (for all parties) and easy to enforce.

I’ve said this before, on my informational website, www.specificationsdenver.com :

“Unless the design team intends for something to be included by the contractor in the project, it shouldn’t be in the specs (or drawings). There shouldn’t be a bunch of things in the specs ‘in case we need them’ if we don’t actually intend for them to be in the project, because by doing that, we’ve taken the first step to our documents’ not being taken seriously by the contractor. If there is extra information in the specifications, the contractor will assume that the specifications are boilerplate specifications that are reused on all projects, and are not specific to the project, and will ignore all the specifications.

“Also, the architect should enforce the provisions of the specs and the agreement and the conditions of the contract, or else these documents won’t be taken seriously. We have to say what we mean, and prove that we mean what we say.”

If the contractor starts ignoring the specifications, the architect or engineer who’s doing construction contract administration will have a much harder time trying to enforce the specs. When the specs include a lot of inapplicable things, the contractor will start ignoring the specs, because guessing at the intention of the specs, or constantly asking about the intention of the specs, will be a waste of the contractor’s essential time. (Of course, the contractor is usually contractually obligated to ask for clarification in the case of conflicts in the documents, but it’s not fair for design professionals to knowingly issue documents with conflicts.)

So, architects and engineers, remember that the drawings and specifications are complementary and what is called for by one is as binding as if called for by both. Enforce this during construction!

And, architects and engineers, don’t put extra stuff in the specs! It wastes your time and the contractor’s time during construction, and it may waste the owner’s money.

__________________________________________________________________________________