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!

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.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Notes:

AIA A201, The General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, indicates that the Contract Documents consist of “the Agreement, Conditions of the Contract, Drawings, Specifications, Addenda” et cetera. AIA A201 goes on to say “The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all…” (AIA A201 is used on most of the projects I work on.)

Now, Where Are Those Sitework Spec Sections?

June 17, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

One story, two lessons! Recently, I was the specifications consultant on an all-new school building, which was built on a piece of previously-undeveloped land.

The general contractor and owner had a negotiated Construction Manager as Constructor¹ Agreement, including preconstruction services, and the general contractor had been involved with the project for months by the time the documents went out to bid.

A few days after the documents went out to bid, I received an email from the contractor (via the project architect) that said something like, “There are no Division 2 specifications in the spec book. When will those be issued?”

Division 2, in MasterFormat 2004, is “Existing Conditions,” and usually mainly covers demolition of existing structures. (We had no demo on this project.) In MasterFormat 1995, Division 2 was “Site Construction.” Sitework spec sections are what the contractor was looking for.

Sure, some people are still unfamiliar with MasterFormat 2004. However…

For this project, we’d had site construction specification sections in Divisions 31, 32, and 33 for months, since the Design Development issue. The Table of Contents at Design Development, and of course, the Table of Contents in the documents that were being bid on, clearly indicated that sitework was in Divisions 31, 32, and 33.

Since the general contractor had an agreement with the owner for preconstruction services, and had been providing preliminary budget pricing, these Construction Documents weren’t the first time the contractor had seen the Project Manual. I’d expect even people unfamiliar with MasterFormat 2004 to have noticed where sitework sections were, since they had been working on the project for months.

But, even if they hadn’t been paying attention for all those months, all they needed to do was to look at the Project Manual Table of Contents.

If the sitework subs, or the general contractor, or the project architect had just looked at the Table of Contents in the Project Manual, this embarrassing question would have never made its way to the specifications consultant.

Two lessons:

First, sitework spec sections are now in Divisions 31, 32, and 33. They are no longer in Division 2, unless you’re using the now-outdated CSI MasterFormat 1995.

Second, if everyone would just read the info they have already been given, before asking questions, we’d have fewer regrettable questions.

____________________________________________________________________________

Construction Manager as Constructor is called CMGC (Construction Manager / General Contractor) around here (Denver), GCCM (General Contractor / Construction Manager) some other places, and CMAR (Construction Manager at Risk) in other places.

Gypsum Board Finish Levels

June 8, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I recently wrote a technical article for the CSI Denver Chapter website, called “Why Specify a Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish?”

It’s written for an audience who already knows a little about gypsum board finish levels. But not all design and construction professionals know much about gypsum board finish levels. (Even though I worked as an architect before I started writing specs, I am not sure I knew there were different levels of gypsum board finish until I became a specifier.) So, this post includes both some of the basics on gypsum board finish levels, and a sort of a counterpoint to the point made by my article. (The point of that article, which can be found at http://www.denvercsi.org/journal/2011/6/3/why-specify-a-level-5-gypsum-board-finish.html , is that a Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish is the industry standard when higher sheen paints are to be used.)

After all the gypsum board panels are installed (typically, by being screwed to the framing), they get “finished” with tape, joint compound, and accessories such as corner beads. The gypsum board spec section indicates the level of finish that is required to be achieved. Descriptions of the finish levels and their recommended locations are at the end of this article. The levels go from 0 to 5, with each level getting progressively smoother.

Level 5 is a Level 4 plus a skim coat of joint compound (drywall mud) applied over the entire surface of the gypsum board. Even if you haven’t heard of a Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish, you’ve probably heard of architects requiring a skim coat over the gypsum board. Level 5 involves more material and more labor, and therefore Level 5 costs more than Level 4.

Sometimes the costs rule, and Owners don’t want to pay for a Level 5 finish. But a discussion among project team members about gypsum board finish levels shouldn’t end there. Things to make sure that everyone understands are the following:

The more sheen, or gloss, that a paint has, the more starkly the irregularities in the substrate will show. (A gloss paint has a lot of sheen. A flat paint has very little sheen.) If the Owner insists on a semi-gloss paint on gypsum board substrates, as many Owners on school projects do (for cleanability), irregularities in the substrate will show, especially in severe lighting conditions. The thing to do is to reduce the irregularities. The industry has come to an agreement about the best treatment for substrates to receive higher sheen paints, and that is a Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish. If Level 5 is cost prohibitive, architects should not just agree to spec a Level 4 and hope that it looks acceptable; other measures can be taken with the goal of achieving the same uniformity of substrate provided by a Level 5 finish. If other measures are also cost prohibitive, the architect should suggest switching to a flat paint, or should make sure that the Owner understands, before the gypsum board is painted with a higher sheen paint, that it may not look as great as they’re hoping it will, and that they’ll just have to accept that, having rejected the industry standards as being cost prohibitive.

Some individual paint and gypsum board manufacturers have other requirements beyond the standard published by the Gypsum Association – some are more restrictive and some are less restrictive.

For example, on the less restrictive side, some paint manufacturers produce high-build primers that are intended to replicate a Level 5 gypsum board finish when applied over Level 4 finishes. High-build primers have the ability to fill in a substrate to a limited extent, and can provide a more uniform surface than a regular primer can. The Level 4 finish has to be properly executed for this to work. Some paint manufacturers accept this approach in lieu of a Level 5 finish for higher sheen paints.

On the more restrictive side, one paint manufacturer’s rep has told me that since a true Level 5 is so hard to achieve, many painters prefer to use a high-build primer in every case when higher sheen paints will be used, even when a Level 5 has been provided.

On the less restrictive side, another paint manufacturer’s rep has told me that although Level 5 is best for semi-gloss paint, an acceptable appearance can be achieved, even with semi-gloss paint, if a Level 4 gypsum board finish is properly done, and an appropriate primer is used. (This is the situation that you’d want to make sure that a cost-cutting Owner understands going in. It’ll be acceptable, but probably not up to the industry standard.)

A well respected spec writer in the Denver area, Jon Willis of ASCS, Inc., has told me that a Level 5 finish shouldn’t be necessary, even for higher sheen paints, if all the following conditions are met: layouts are chalked (and then strictly followed), plumbness and levelness of installed framing is verified with a laser, 5/8-inch gypsum board is used on the walls (not 1/2-inch), quality gypsum board installers are used, a Level 4 finish is done properly, the joint treatment extends at least 6 inches beyond the joint on each side, a high quality setting-type of joint compound is used for the first 2 coats, and a vinyl formulation topping joint compound is used for the final coat, each coat of compound is allowed to dry thoroughly and then gets sanded before the next coat is applied, all surface imperfections such as screws and tool marks are given the same 3 coats of compound that the joints receive, the finish coat gets a rough sanding first, followed by a fine sanding, a quality painter is used, high quality high-solids primer and finish coats are used (and aren’t thinned), primer plus a minimum of 2 coats of finish paint are used, and if the paint is spray-applied, the final coat of wet paint should be backrolled with a roller to achieve a light orange peel surface.

The emphasis in the above approach is on the quality of the work and the quality of the materials. With this approach, since the installers won’t be using more material to cover up imperfections in the substrate, the installation and finishing of the substrate are required to be more skillfully executed, and higher quality materials are required to be used.

In construction, things are literally built on the things that go before them. When the layouts are snapped accurately and then followed during framing, it’s easier to get plumb framing. When framing is plumb and gypsum board installation is well executed, different panels of gypsum board will be plumb. When different panels of gypsum board are plumb, the joints between them will be visually minimized. When joints are minimal to begin with, joint treatment ends up being less extensive. When joint treatment is less extensive, less joint compound is used, and therefore less sanding is required… you see where I’m going with this. The quality of the work that precedes affects the quality of the work that follows.

So, my advice to architects is to talk to the Owner about expectations for painted surfaces, and the tradeoffs between costs and appearances. The contract documents must clearly convey the intent for the expectations for the appearances of painted surfaces. Talk to your paint and gypsum board manufacturers’ reps about their recommendations for your specific project. Consider whether the project is to be bid or negotiated. If negotiated, talk to the general contractor and his drywaller and his painter. If it’s to be a hard bid project, consider the skill level of the framers, drywallers, and painters you might get on your project. There are many factors to consider.

I encourage your comments!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

The following are descriptions of gypsum board finish levels from “Recommended Levels of Gypsum Board Finish” published by the Gypsum Association.

Level 0: No taping, finishing, or accessories required. (Accessories include items such as cornerbeads.)

Level 1: All joints and interior angles shall have tape set in joint compound. Surface shall be free of excess joint compound. Tool marks and ridges are acceptable.

Level 2: All joints and interior angles shall have tape embedded in joint compound and wiped with a joint knife leaving a thin coating of joint compound over all joints and interior angles. Fastener heads and accessories shall be covered with a coat of joint compound. Surface shall be free of excess joint compound. Tool marks and ridges are acceptable. Joint compound applied over the body of the tape at the time of tape embedment shall be considered a separate coat of joint compound and shall satisfy the conditions of this level.

Level 3: All joints and interior angles shall have tape embedded in joint compound and shall be immediately wiped with a joint knife leaving a thin coating of joint compound over all joints and interior angles. One additional coat of joint compound shall be applied over all joints and interior angles. Fastener heads and accessories shall be covered with two separate coats of joint compound. All joint compound shall be smooth and free of tool marks and ridges. Note: It is recommended that the prepared surface be coated with a drywall primer prior to the application of final finishes.

Level 4: All joints and interior angles shall have tape embedded in joint compound and shall be immediately wiped with a joint knife leaving a thin coating of joint compound over all joints and interior angles. Two separate coats of joint compound shall be applied over all flat joints and one separate coat of joint compound shall be applied over interior angles. Fastener heads and accessories shall be covered with three separate coats of joint compound. All joint compound shall be smooth and free of tool marks and ridges. Note: It is recommended that the prepared surface be coated with a drywall primer prior to the application of final finishes.

Level 5: All joints and interior angles shall have tape embedded in joint compound and shall be immediately wiped with a joint knife leaving a thin coating of joint compound over all joints and interior angles. Two separate coats of joint compound shall be applied over all flat joints and one separate coat of joint compound shall be applied over interior angles. Fastener heads and accessories shall be covered with three separate coats of joint compound. A thin skim coat of joint compound trowel applied, or a material manufactured especially for this purpose and applied in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations, applied to the entire surface. The surface shall be smooth and free of tool marks and ridges. Note: It is recommended that the prepared surface be coated with a drywall primer prior to the application of finish paint.

The following are recommended locations for different gypsum board finish levels from “Recommended Levels of Gypsum Board Finish” published by the Gypsum Association.

Level 0 Locations: This level of finish may be useful in temporary construction or whenever the final decoration has not been determined.

Level 1 Locations: Frequently specified in plenum areas above ceilings, in attics, in areas where the assembly would generally be concealed or in building service corridors, and other areas not normally open to public view. Accessories are optional in corridors and other areas with pedestrian traffic. Some degree of sound and smoke control is provided; in some geographic areas this level is referred to as “fire-taping.” Where a fire-resistance rating is required for the gypsum board assembly, details of construction shall be in accordance with reports of fire tests of assemblies that have met the fire-rating requirement. Tape and fastener heads need not be covered with joint compound.

Level 2 Locations: Specified where gypsum board is used as a substrate for tile; may be specified in garages, warehouse storage or other similar areas where surface appearance is not of primary concern.

Level 3 Locations: Typically specified in appearance areas which are to receive heavy- or medium-texture (spray or hand applied) finishes before final painting, or where heavy-grade wallcoverings are to be applied as the final decoration. This level of finish is not recommended where smooth painted surfaces or light to medium wallcoverings are specified.

Level 4 Locations: This level should be specified where flat paints, light textures, or wallcoverings are to be applied. In critical lighting areas, flat paints applied over light textures tend to reduce joint photographing. Paints with sheen levels other than flat and enamel paints are not recommended over this level of finish. The weight, texture, and sheen level of wallcoverings applied over this level of finish should be carefully evaluated. Joints and fasteners must be adequately concealed if the wallcovering material is lightweight, contains limited pattern, has a gloss finish, or any combination of these finishes is present. Unbacked vinyl wallcoverings are not recommended over this level of finish.

Level 5 Locations: This level of finish is highly recommended where paint is specified or where severe lighting conditions occur. This highest quality finish is the most effective method to provide a uniform surface and minimize the possibility of joint photographing and of fasteners showing through the final decoration.

The entire publication “Recommended Levels of Gypsum Board Finish” GA-214 is available free online, at http://gypsum.org/pdf/GA-214-10e-webversion.pdf .

Work As If You Have the Job You Want

May 24, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

You’ve probably heard people suggest to job seekers, “Dress for the job you want.” It’s good advice, but I’m not that into fashion, so I modify that advice to say: “Work as if you have the job you want.”

I am lucky to actually have the job I want! But I don’t always get the projects I want. My clients are great – it’s their clients (the Owners on construction projects) that I sometimes wish were, well, a little more this… a little less that…

But I keep working as if all the Owners actually were appreciative of my efforts to do my best, and were aware of the ways my work can benefit them.

One of my goals for my future is to work only on projects with Owners who are aware enough to appreciate my conscientiousness and thoroughness. For now though, on a lot of my projects, I’m just practicing. I’m doing my best on all my projects, whether it’s appreciated by the Owners or not.

As we’ve all heard “…perfect practice makes perfect.” (This is how I remember that great Vince Lombardi quote, because this important fragment is all that I ever heard from Mr. Roberson, my guitar teacher when I was 8.) The full quote is: “Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.”

I believe that you cannot be prepared for the work you want to be doing unless you always work as hard as your dream job will require you to work.

Specs – “Letters” to Subcontractors?

May 13, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

My work, writing architectural specifications for construction projects, feels a bit like writing letters to subcontractors. The architect and the general contractor sometimes seem like the couriers who pass these letters along.

I’m oversimplifying things here; there’s so much other work that goes into the project management of a construction project on the part of the architect and the general contractor. They are so much more than messengers, and even with specs, they need to be so much more than messengers. But the specs are something that are best understood by the sub or vendor on the contractor side, and by the spec writer on the design team side. We’re specialists in our fields. (Something that highlights this fact is that a bad spec section can look just fine to almost everyone on the project team [owner, architect, general contractor], but a sub and a spec writer know an incomplete or incorrect spec when they look carefully.)

Because the writer of the specs naturally knows the specs better than the architect and general contractor do, sometimes part of my job is to act as translator between architect and general contractor. That’s fine – I expect to do that. But once in a while, I act as translator between general contractor and subcontractor. And that’s a little weird.

I wouldn’t be writing about this if it had only happened once, or if it had only happened with one contractor. It’s happened to me with several general contractors.

The architect and the spec writer shouldn’t have to put their heads together to figure out what the general contractor is trying to communicate to the architect. We shouldn’t have to trace back through an email chain to find out the source of the GC’s question. We shouldn’t have to go back to the source (the sub’s email to the GC) to be able to figure out that the GC isn’t understanding something about his sub’s question, but he’s passing on the question to the architect, anyway.

General contractors shouldn’t just pass along questions from their subs to the architect – they should try to answer them first. And architects shouldn’t just pass along questions from their consultants to the owner, they should try to answer them first. And architects shouldn’t just pass on info from one source to their consultants without verifying it first.

And the main point of all of this is that architects and general contractors need to read the specs, and not just act like the couriers who deliver the specs to the subs. The specs are not just for the subcontractors!

Construction Documentation Reminders from Children’s Literature

May 9, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

“What I mean and what I say is two different things,” the BFG announced rather grandly.

“Meanings is not important,” said the BFG. “I cannot be right all the time. Quite often I is left instead of right.”

I’m reading The BFG with my 7-year-old. It’s a 1982 children’s book by Roald Dahl. (To give you a frame of reference, in case Dahl wasn’t one of your favorite authors when you were a kid, Roald Dahl also wrote the 1964 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.)

The BFG (the Big Friendly Giant) is a nice vegetarian giant, who tries to communicate clearly, but frequently mixes up his words. He knows that language is not his strong point, but he thinks that’s just fine.

The book is charming and funny, especially when you read it with a child who has nearly perfect grammer, understands that the BFG’s way of speaking isn’t grammatically correct, and finds it hilarious. We laugh a lot when we read this book.

But some of the BFG’s pronouncements have uncomfortably reminded me of some people whose paths I’ve crossed in my professional life.

There was the electrical engineering consultant I worked with a long time ago, when I was practicing as an architect. His drawings were a mess. I told him his AutoCAD grid snap settings were turned off, so none of the 2 by 4 light fixtures in his ceiling plans were actually on the ceiling grids. He proudly told me, about the snaps, “I don’t use ‘em.” Aaarrrgghh!

There was the owner’s project manager who, when I commented that a provision in the owner-generated general conditions didn’t match the rest of the documents, said “This is illegal verbiage; I would not worry about it.” (The owner had no intention of clarifying this provision in our documents, and had no intention of correcting this “illegal verbiage” for future projects.)

There are owners and architects both, on CM/GC projects, who have had an awfully relaxed attitude towards documentation before and during construction, who have dismissively said things such as, “Oh, we talked about that with the contractor. He knows what we want there.” They didn’t intend to clarify our documents, and were therefore relying on the contractor to provide something based only on a discussion.

In all three of these examples above, the professionals knew that communications were not clear, and they were quite sure that that was just fine. IT’S NOT OK!

Now, since this is the first time I’ve re-read The BFG since I was little, and we’re only halfway through, I don’t remember if the BFG’s communication shortcomings cause any mishaps. I am sure the giant’s miscommunications do not cause any change orders, lawsuits, or unhappy clients.

On the other hand, unclear and incomplete construction documents can cause misery for owners, architects, and contractors. They often lead to change orders, and they can lead to lawsuits, and unhappy clients.

CSI (The Construction Specifications Institute) always reminds us that our contract documents must be clear, concise, complete, and correct. If you can’t accomplish that yourself, the right thing to do is to hire someone who can accomplish it for you. Owners, you should have qualified people prepare (and regularly update) your procurement and contracting requirements. If you are a public entity, you absolutely owe that to the taxpayers. Design professionals, if you haven’t mastered new must-have technologies, you should hire, or outsource to, people who have. Owners and design professionals, you should properly staff projects so that the required documentation gets done in a timely manner to prevent misunderstandings. (Design professionals – this needs to be a factor when you negotiate your fees.)

Contracts are based on what’s written and drawn. They are not based on what we meant to write or draw.

“I know exactly what words I am wanting to say, but somehow or other they is always getting squiff-squiddled around.” (The BFG)

We can do better.

Comments From a Spec Writer

Liz O'Sullivan's Blog

Category Archives: Practicing Architecture