Keynotes

Common Specifying Problems

Construction documents, as defined by CSI, are "the written and graphic documents prepared for communicating the project design for construction and administering the construction contract." They consist of the drawings, specifications, contracting requirements, procurement requirements, modifications and addenda, and resource drawings. Some of these documents are used for procurement of a construction contract (i.e. bidding and negotiation) and some are used for the construction contract (i.e. contract documents). Of these documents, the drawings and specifications provide essential information for the building design. Therefore, the drawings and specifications usually receive a lot of attention when problems arise during construction.

Architects and engineers (A/Es) spend a considerable amount of time developing the drawings; mainly because, as the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words," or a drawing in this case. Attempting to describe what the drawings convey would probably take more than a thousand words—especially when considered within the context of a contractual environment. For example, try to describe in words the elevations of Frank Gehry's Walt Disney Concert Hall (See Figure 1) that would be concise enough to ensure proper execution with minimal confusion. It's impossible. Even though the drawings convey the design intent very well, they cannot provide all the information needed to build a project.

Figure 1 - Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles, California. The curvilinear forms would be impossible to describe in writ-ing so that it could be constructed. (Photo Credit: John Sulli-van, pdphoto.org)

The drawings provide the graphical information needed to construct the building. They include plans, sections, elevations, and details that show how the various materials, systems, and components go together. Notations are used to identify elements on the drawings, but the notations do not provide detailed information—that is the purpose of the specifications. Specifications provide the qualitative requirements for the materials, components, and systems selected for a given building. Thus, a building could not be built without both drawings and specifications.

This interdependency between drawings and specifications is written into many general conditions of the construction contract. For example, the American Institute of Architects' (AIA) Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, states in Section 1.2.1, "The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all[.]" This provision means both documents—the drawings and specifications—must be considered when performing the work of a construction contract.

It is not news that many sets of construction documents contain errors, whether they are found in the drawings or specifications. Construction documents are products of humans and are not warranted to be perfect. Architects and engineers are held to a standard of care that is consistent with other professions, such as attorneys and doctors, which means that they have to perform similarly to other architects or engineers who are located in the same region, at the same time, under comparable conditions. Although architects and engineers are not required to provide perfect documents, they should provide documents that are as clear, concise, complete, and correct as possible.

Drawings errors vary, but can consist of something as simple as an incorrect dimension to something as complex as detailing an assembly that could not possibly be fabricated as shown. Many of these errors are unique to drawings, but some can be shared with specifications. Specifications, like drawings, have their unique common errors—but what may be considered an error by some may actually be just a violation of best practice. Therefore, the remainder of this article will address, in no particular order, errors and best practice violations (i.e. problems) commonly found in construction specifications.

Problem No. 1 – Not following CSI's standards for specifications, such as MasterFormat™, SectionFormat™, and PageFormat™.

This is probably the most common problem encountered—it is not considered an error, but more of a violation of best practices. Not using CSI's standards when preparing specifications could lead to confusion, since specification information may not be located where it would normally be found. This confusion may increase the number of requests for information (RFIs) and claims. Nonconformance with industry standards, which CSI's standards are considered, may be viewed as not performing to the professional standard of care. This exposes the A/E to potential liability if the nonconformance to standards is considered a major contributing factor to a claim.

MasterFormat™ establishes the organizational format of the project manual, which includes the specifications, as well as the procurement and contracting requirements. It outlines where the documents and specification sections are located in a logical, numerical order.

SectionFormat™ establishes the structure of information contained within a specification section. It provides the recognized three-part format of PART 1 GENERAL, PART 2 PRODUCTS, and PART 3 EXECUTION, and organizes the articles within each of the three parts.

PageFormat™establishes recommendations for the printed format of specification information, such as margins, headers, footers, spacing, fonts, and paragraph structure and numbering.

Master guide specifications that are available through subscription generally follow these standards; however, they do not provide master sections for all possible construction materials, products, and systems. Therefore, A/Es may rely upon guide specifications available from manufacturers of the products they propose to use. These manufacturer guide specifications may be available for A/Es to edit directly or the manufacturers' representatives may edit the sections for use by A/Es. Unfortunately, many manufacturer guide specifications, whether edited by representatives or not, do not follow CSI standards; thus requiring the A/E to modify the specifications to conform to the standards.

Problem No. 2 – Not using proper specification language.

Specifications communicate construction requirements using a writing style that differs from common prose—it even differs from typical legal jargon, or legalese. There are two writing styles used in specification writing: the indicative mood and the imperative mood.

The indicative mood is the historical and obsolete method of specifying, which consistently begins each paragraph (and most sentences) with the phrase "The Contractor shall…" as illustrated in the example below:

Contractor shall fill bollards solidly with concrete, mounding top surface to shed water.

The writing style for specifications has evolved to utilize the imperative mood, which reads like a set of instructions by placing the verb at the beginning of the sentence, as follows:

Fill bollards solidly with concrete, mounding top surface to shed water.

The example sentence above effectively describes the requirement in fewer words. There is no need to say who needs to "set" the frames, because all of the specifications are essentially instructions directed to the contractor—the contractor then assigns portions of the work to subcontractors.

Although the imperative mood greatly improves the readability of specifications, some specification provisions can be even further simplified using streamlining. Streamlining places the subject of the provision first followed by a colon (:). The colon is interpreted to imply the words "shall," "shall be," or "shall conform to." Streamlining works best when specifying products and characteristics as shown in the example below:

Concrete Building Brick: ASTM C 55.

This sentence can legally be interpreted to read as follows:

Concrete Building Brick shall conform to ASTM C 55.

Problem No. 3 – Reusing specifications from a past project on a current project.

Reusing specifications prepared for a previous project could lead to potential problems because the content of the master section that was deleted (or retained) for the former project may not be suitable for the present project.

For example, let us assume that a specification section for an aluminum storefront section was edited by one specifier for a previous project. Another specifier decides to use the same section for a project currently in design in order to save some time. However, the storefront for the previous project was used only for an interior application, whereas the current project uses storefront systems in an exterior application, as well. Unbeknownst to the second specifier, all of the requirements regarding wind loading, air infiltration, and water penetration were deleted by the first specifier, since they were irrelevant for an interior application.

This is not to say that a previously edited section from another project could never be used. If the specifier for the present project wrote the section for the past project, then that specifier may be well aware of what needs modification to make the section suitable for the present project. Therefore, caution is needed when reusing specification sections and sections should be compared to unedited master section to identify differences.

Problem No. 4 – Not thoroughly editing a master guide specification for the specific project at hand.

A master guide specification section provides all of the requirements and options that could be applicable to the work result of that section. "Could be" needs to be emphasized, since not everything within a master guide specification section is necessary for every installation. For example, there is no need to retain performance, product, and installation requirements for fire-rated door assemblies when no fire-rated doors are required on the project, or for listing door hardware products in the hardware schedule and not specifying any minimum requirements in PART 2 of the specification section. Specifications such as these create ambiguous requirements that will likely lead to confusion and RFIs.

Problem No. 5 – Using old master guide specifications.

Similar to reusing specifications from past projects, using old master guide specifications could also create problems. Commercial master guide specifications are reviewed and updated on a regular basis to add new standards, to delete old standards, to incorporate new materials and methods, and to revise to conform to the latest CSI standards.

For example, guide specifications that are over ten years old may state that fire-rated doors be tested in accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard 7-2 (an obsolete standard) instead of UL (Underwriters Laboratories) 10C, which is the referenced standard in the International Building Code.

Problem No. 6 – Writing a proprietary specification when a nonproprietary specification is required.

Many public projects do not allow proprietary specifications when public funding is involved. In order to promote competition to keep costs down, many public agencies require the listing of three products or manufacturers that are acceptable. However, an A/E may select one product and add the names of two other products without confirming whether or not the other products are comparable to the selected product.

Another method commonly used to avoid a proprietary specification is to not name any products at all, but only describe the desired characteristics of the product desired. Nonetheless, when specifying the characteristics, the A/E will insert the characteristics of the product desired, probably from a manufacturer's product data sheet or guide specification. The problem with using that method is that it is very likely that the product on which the specification was based is the only product that will comply with the specified characteristics. When specifying characteristics, there should be minimums or maximums, as appropriate, and not absolutes, thus allowing some flexibility for compliance.

Problem No. 7 – Assigning work to subcontractors.

As mentioned in Problem No. 2, the specifications (as well as all contract documents) should be prepared with only the contractor in mind. The construction contract is between the owner and the contractor and the contract documents are the owner's instructions to the contractor on how to construct the building. The means and methods used to accomplish the construction of the building are left to the contractor. This assignment is expressly provided in AIA Document A201.

Specifications that assign the responsibility for execution of the work specified to a particular subcontractor or trade circumvents the contractor's responsibility for means and methods. For example, specifying that the electrical subcontractor is required to make power connections to an automatic door operator might be acceptable, but it may invalidate the warranty, be contrary to union requirements, or the electrical subcontractor may just not want to do the work. This situation would be similar to a client telling its architect that the structural engineer must make the interior finish selections.

Another confusing assignment of work is the use of "by others." In the specifications, the use of "by others" should not be used and instead indicate if the work is provided or furnished by the owner (either by the owner directly or by another contractor hired by the owner) or under another specification section. For example, in lieu of stating in the door hardware section that a keypad is "by others," the specification should state that the keypad is either furnished by the owner (i.e. supplied by owner for the contractor to install), provided by the owner (i.e. supplied and installed by the owner or owner's other contractor), or specified in the applicable Division 28 section for access control.

Problem No. 8 – Specifying unachievable requirements.

This is usually a problem when specifying products using both performance and descriptive requirements. The problem occurs when the contractor provides exactly what is described, but the product does not perform as specified. For example, concrete for a project is specified to have a minimum compressive strength. Additionally, the concrete mix is specified by describing the exact proportions for each material (i.e. cementitious material, aggregate, fine aggregate, and water). The contractor has concrete delivered to the site in the proportions specified; however, when the test cylinders are crushed, the compressive strength falls short of the specified value. Without realizing it, the specifier established a minimum compressive strength that could not be achieved using the specified mix proportions.

By specifying the concrete mix, there is no assurance that the concrete will meet the desired performance. But if the specification states the minimum required compressive strength with minimal requirements for materials, such as conformance to material standards, then the contractor must provide an assembly that meets or exceeds the minimum performance requirement.

Another variation of this problem is to specify a number of characteristics of which many products can meet the majority, but no product exists that will comply with all of the specified characteristics.

Avoiding the Problems

The most effective way to reduce problems when preparing specifications is education. CSI provides numerous sources of specification education, such as seminars, webinars, forums, and books. One book that should be on every specifier's desk is CSI's Construction Specifications Practice Guide (CSPG). This essential resource provides a variety of specification-related topics, such as methods of specifying, specification language, formats, general requirements, and coordination with drawings. The CSPG is also the primary source document for CSI's Certified Construction Specifier (CCS) credential. Candidates who prepare specifications on a regular basis and have earned CSI's Construction Documents Technologist (CDT) credential may apply to take the CCS examination.

Since the drawings and specifications are complementary, the specifications should be given the same amount of care in their preparation as that given to the drawings. Specifications are legal documents and should be treated as such, for if a problem should occur on a project, the written word, such as the specifications, will likely carry more weight than the drawings.

Sheet Specifications

Some projects are of such a small size that for a separate project manual containing the project specifications is considered unnecessary. However, relying solely on the graphical and notational information on drawings is not sufficient to ensure a quality project—there is still a need to provide some qualitative requirements within the contract documents.

As a compromise, many design professionals place the project specifications on one or more drawing sheets commonly referred to as "sheet specifications" or "sheet specs." This practice is very common with noncommercial residential construction and has slowly migrated into the small commercial project arena, such as tenant improvements and small alteration projects. Unfortunately, unlike the standard method of specifying, this method of specifying lacks a nationally recognized format standard.

Since the 1960s, CSI and CSC¹ have jointly published standards that help organize and format a project manual. MasterFormat™ provides the organizational structure for the placement of information in the project manual, while SectionFormat™ and PageFormat™ provide the structure of a specification section and the layout of the page (e.g. headers, footers, margins, paragraph structure, etc.), respectively. In the absence of an organizing and formatting standard for sheet specifications, this article will establish some guidelines that design professionals can refer to when preparing sheet specifications for their projects.

Why Sheet Specifications?

For small projects, sheet specifications are a great alternative to the standard bound project manual. Those in the single-family residential design business have used drawing-based specifications for their projects for many years, albeit in a much different format than what is presented in this article.

Typically, smaller projects involve fewer people; thus, collaboration and communication between the contract parties are easier to manage. Additionally, smaller projects utilize fewer materials and systems. The simplified nature of a smaller project eliminates the need for overly detailed specifications—only the most pertinent requirements are needed to ensure a quality outcome. However, when specifications for a small project are distilled down to their essential elements, the remaining content is not enough to warrant the preparation of a separate bound set of documents—hence, sheet specifications.

Location in the Drawing Set

The location of sheet specifications within a set of drawings needs to be considered carefully in order to prevent the potential loss of information that comes with the splitting of a drawing set among the various subcontractors on a project; however, this is less of a concern when electronic documents are used.

There are two options that are available to design professionals when it comes to locating the sheet specifications in a drawing set:

Option 1: Locating all specification information in a single location within a drawing set.

Option 2: Locating specification information within the portion of a drawing set applicable to a particular design discipline.

For both options, the Uniform Drawing System (UDS)² developed by CSI can be used as a starting point for locating specification information in a drawing set. The UDS organizes a drawing set into subsets using a letter (Level 1 designator) and title that consist of the following:

G     –     General

H     –     Hazardous Materials

V     –     Survey/Mapping

B     –     Geotechnical

C     –     Civil

L     –     Landscape

S     –     Structural

A     –     Architectural

I     –     Interiors

Q     –     Equipment

F     –     Fire Protection

P     –     Plumbing

D    –     Process

M     –     Mechanical

E     –     Electrical

W     –     Distributed Energy

T     –     Telecommunications

R     –     Resource

X     –     Other Disciplines

Z     –     Contractor/Shop Drawings

O     –     Operations

Option 1 – Single Location in Drawings

For Option 1, the most logical place for locating the sheet specifications would be in the "G – General" subset. According to the UDS, a Level 2 designator can be used to group related drawings within a Level 1 subset. Since "S" is generally reserved in each of the other subsets for site-related drawings, it should not be used for sheet specifications in the "General" subset. Per the UDS guidelines, Level 2 designators "J" and "K" are available for user-defined content. Therefore, the "K" designator (selected for the hard "K" sound associated with the informal "spec" term) will be used in the Level 2 position when numbering drawing sheets (i.e. "GK"). If the project is so small that sheets solely for the specifications are not necessary, then the specifications can be located on drawing sheets that include other content and need not use the Level 2 designator.

The three-digit sheet sequence number that follows the double- or single-letter designator should begin with a zero to indicate it is a "General" sheet per the UDS guidelines. The remaining two digits are sequential numbers starting with "01" up to "99"; however, it is unlikely that 99 sheets of specifications will be used in a drawing set. Thus, the first sheet of the specifications with a double-letter designator would be numbered "GK001." The sheet number for a single-letter designator would depend on the sheet where the specifications are located (e.g. "G-003").

The organization of the specifications on the sheet should follow MasterFormat™ using sections from the 50 divisions as applicable to the project. However, the use of numbers and titles from MasterFormat™ should be carefully considered. It is this author's suggestion that numbers and titles for sheet specifications be limited to those for Level 2 if various materials of the same type are used (e.g. "04 20 00 Unit Masonry" for brick and CMU)—use of multiple Level 3 and Level 4 numbers and titles within one division could provide too much granularity for what should be a simple set of specifications.

Option 2 – Multiple Locations in Drawings

Option 2 would be organized similarly to Option 1, except that the specifications applicable to each drawing subset per the UDS would be located within that subset. For example, following the guidance for Option 1, the first sheet of specifications for the "A – Architectural" subset would be identified as "AK001," or "A-001." Division 01 General Requirements specifications and, if applicable, Division 00 Procurement and Contracting Requirements should still be located in the "GK" or "G" sheets as described for Option 1.

Layout Format for Specification Content

The presentation of specification content on a drawing sheet could prove challenging depending on the size of the sheet, margins, and title block. The UDS recommends margins of ¾-inch at the top, bottom, and right edges, and a 1½-inch margin at the left edge (i.e. binding edge). Title block size will vary based on office practice. Thus, the remaining area ("drawing area" per UDS terminology) is the space available after the margins and title block are applied to a drawing sheet regardless of size.

The sheet sizes most commonly used in the U.S. are the "D" (24 by 36 inches), "E" (36 by 48 inches), and "F" (30 by 42 inches). Applying the recommended margins and a 3-inch title block, the respective drawing area for each of the sheet sizes indicated above consist of the following dimensions:

"D" – 22½ by 30¾ inches.

"E" – 34½ by 42¾ inches.

"F" – 28½ by 36¾ inches.

The UDS recommends that the drawing area be divided into modules that create a grid. Although the UDS mentions square modules, this is nearly an impossible task unless margin and title block sizes are manipulated to ensure a square module layout. Therefore, this author recommends dividing the drawing area into equal modules vertically and horizontally, even if the resulting module size is a rectangle (See Figure 1).

Figure 1 - A possible layout for a 24- by 36-inch D-size sheet. The grid size shown is approximately 4.5 by 6.15 inches. The grid lines are indicated here to shown how the pattern would lay out; however, one only needs to mark the grid along the borders or use a nonplotting grid layer.

The module size should be consistent throughout all sheets of a drawing set. Therefore, the sheet specifications should work within the established grid and not create its own. Additionally, the sheet specifications should not dictate the grid for a drawing set—the grid should be a size that works well for drawings and notes, as well as specifications. Something to keep in mind is that all drawings, notes, and specifications need not fit within a specific module column (i.e. width) or row (i.e. height)—multiple columns and rows can be used for a single drawing block, note block, or specification block, if a module is too small. For example, if the column width creates unusually narrow paragraphs when indenting, then two columns could be used.

Once the grid is established, the work of placing specification content can begin. For written content on the drawings, the best approach is to lay out the specifications from left to right on the sheet; in other words, the beginning of the specification content should start at the upper left corner and end towards the lower right corner if a full sheet is used (See Figure 2). However, if only a partial sheet is needed, then justify the specification block to the upper right corner (See Figure 3).

Figure 2 - Locate specification content that covers all columns of the sheet starting in the first column upper left corner. Content will be read from top of the column down, and from the left column to the right.

Figure 3 - If specification content does not use all columns, justify the specification block to the far right column.

There should be sufficient margins between the specification text and sheet borders, and between adjacent columns of specification text. Generally, a ¼- to ⅜-inch margin should be provided between the text and the sheet border. A ½- to ¾-inch space between columns of text should be sufficient separation. A line centered between the two columns (i.e. grid column line) can be added to improve readability.

General Organizational Format of Sheet Specification Content

The organizational format of specification content on a drawing sheet will be significantly different from a specification section in a project manual, which is formatted in accordance with SectionFormat™ and PageFormat™.

The most significant recommended change is the elimination of the three-part structure: Part 1 - General, Part 2 - Products, and Part 3 - Execution. Due to the simplified nature of sheet specifications, there is no need for this level of information categorization, but the order of the content in a sheet specification section should generally follow the order in SectionFormat™. Other notable departures from typical specification writing include the following:

• "SECTION" is eliminated before each section number. This permits the reader to quickly scan the left side of each column for a particular section and paragraph, since all numbers—division, section, and paragraph—are located on the left side.
• "END OF SECTION" is eliminated at the end of each section. In a project manual, this practice is necessary to verify that all pages of a section are provided. However, with sheet specifications, this is unnecessary.
• Paragraph structure is modified. This allows the text to be slightly more condensed than what is used in a typical project manual.
• Content is significantly abbreviated. For small or simple projects, verbosity is not needed. Sheet specifications are somewhere between outline specifications and full specifications, and are probably closer to the former. Content should be succinct and relevant to the specific project.

Recommended Format Guidelines

Division Titles: Identify each division with the number and title in capital letters (e.g. "01 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS"). Provide two extra lines between the division title and previous text, and left-justify the text.

Section Titles: Identify each section with the number and title (conforming to the MasterFormat™ Applications Guide) in capital letters (e.g. "01 40 00 - QUALITY REQUIREMENTS"). Provide one extra line between the section title and previous text, and left-justify the text.

Article Titles: Identify each article with a number and title in capital letters. Article numbers should be a sequential number followed by a decimal and a zero (e.g. "1.0    SUMMARY OF WORK"). If only one paragraph is required for the article, follow the article title with a colon and add the paragraph content in standard sentence case. Left-justify the text.

Paragraphs: If more than one paragraph is required for an article, place the first paragraph below the article title with no extra line. Paragraphs should be numbered sequentially using the first number from the article title and replacing the zero with the sequential number. The paragraph number should be followed by a tab. Multiple lines of text in a paragraph should be indented and left-justified to align with the beginning of the text in the first line (See Figure 4)

Figure 4 - Indenting structure.

Subparagraphs: Multiple levels of subparagraphs should be avoided with the maximum number of levels set at three. Ideally, only one subparagraph level should be used, which may be for situations when acceptable manufacturers or products are listed, or when product characteristics or options are listed.

Level 1 subparagraphs are addressed using sequential lower case letters followed by a period then a tab.

Level 2 subparagraphs are addressed using sequential single digit numbers followed by a parentheses then a tab.

Level 3 subparagraphs are addressed using sequential lower case letters followed by a parentheses then a tab.

Subparagraphs should be indented so that the letters or numbers are aligned with the paragraph or subparagraph text above. Multiple lines of text in a subparagraph should be indented and left-justified to align with the beginning of the text in the first line (See Figure 4).

Font: The UDS recommends that lettering for drawing notations be 3/32-inch high, which is roughly equivalent to a 7-point font. However, for specifications in a project manual, the recommended minimum font is 10-point. Since sheet specifications are entirely text—no drawings—searching through and reading a large block of 7-point text would be difficult, so the use of a 10-point sans serif font would be considered acceptable.

Also contrary to the UDS, bold font could be used for division and section titles for ease of visually searching the specifications. Bold font can also be used for end of specifications line.

End of Specifications: In lieu of the "END OF SECTION" line used for specification sections, place an "END OF SPECIFICATIONS" line centered after the last line of specification content with an extra line between. If Option 2 is used for location of specification content, use "END OF [SUBSET] SPECIFICATIONS" and replace [SUBSET] with the specific drawing subset title. For example, if the specifications are for the architectural subset, use "END OF ARCHITECTURAL SPECIFICATIONS."

Table of Contents: A table of contents should be prepared so that the reader can quickly ascertain what specifications are provided. The recommendations of the MasterFormat™ Applications Guide should be considered when developing the table of contents. However, since small projects may not use many of the divisions, a range of divisions can be identified as not being used (e.g. "DIVISIONS 03 – 06 (NOT USED)").

For either Option 1 or Option 2 location formats, the table of contents should always be located in the "G – General" subset. If Option 2 is used, then the table of contents should list the sheet numbers where the section is specified. If an entire division is located within a single drawing subset, then a sheet number is provided for the division. If two or more sections within a division are located in different drawing subsets, then a sheet location should be provided for each section (See Figure 5).

Figure 5 - An example of a table of contents for a project with specifications located in different drawing subsets per Option 2. Sheet numbers are not required for Option 1.

Figure 6 provides a partial example of how a sheet specification would appear using the recommendations described in the previous paragraphs.

Figure 6 - An example of a partial specification using the recommendations provided in this article.

Preparing Sheet Specifications

The method of editing and adding specification content onto the drawings can be a little more labor-intensive that preparing specifications bound in a project manual. The ease of preparing specifications for drawing sheets depends on the software program or programs used.

The use of word processing software, such as MS Word or WordPerfect, is probably the most efficient way of editing specifications for the drawings. Currently, there are no master guide specifications for sheet specifications from the major publishers of master guide specifications.³ If you subscribe to one of the major publishers, you could create an in-house master from their content.

For those using Revit, as of the date of this article, there is no method available to import a word processor document directly into Revit. The document has to be either inserted into an AutoCAD drawing and then linking back to that file while in Revit, or the entire document is copied and pasted into a Revit text field; however, with the latter, you will lose nearly the entire document formatting.

If the drawings will eventually be converted into portable document format (PDF), then a blank drawing sheet can be converted to PDF and the specification content can be added using a PDF editor with formatting capabilities, such as Adobe Acrobat. This method allows the content to be easily revised without having to use CAD software.

The Future of Sheet Specifications

Sheet specifications will likely be used for projects until the time when all specification information is integrated into the building information model. Since drawing-based specifications will remain in the design professional's toolbox for many years, it may be time to standardize the way the content is presented. Until an organization like CSI develops a nationally recognized standard, this article can be the grassroots of such an effort.

¹  CSI is the Construction Specifications Institute and CSC is the Construction Specifications Canada.

²  The UDS is a component of the United States National CAD Standard (NCS) published by the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS).

³  Master guide specifications for sheet specifications are available from Kalin Associates (www.kalinassociates.com); however, the format does not follow the one recommended in this article and the content is organized using an older version of MasterFormat™.

General Notes vs. Other Contract Documents

In a previous Keynotes article¹, general notes were briefly discussed including the observation that general notes frequently include content that is more appropriately, and probably is, indicated elsewhere. However, design professionals seem to embrace the mantra that mentioning it once is good, but mentioning it twice (or more) is even better.

The problem with mentioning a requirement more than once is the potential conflict between the various requirement locations. The CSI principle of "say it once and in the right place" arose out of frequent conflicts between drawings, specifications, and other contract documents, and many of these conflicts are generated through the improper use of notes on drawings.

As mentioned in the earlier article, there are three types of general notes that can be used in a set of construction drawings. Listed below is each type along with the description found in the Uniform Drawing System (UDS), which is a part of the National CAD Standard (NCS):

• General Notes: "Notes that apply to the entire work. As such, general notes apply equally to all disciplines and to all sheets within the drawing set."
• General [Discipline] Notes: "Notes that apply only to a particular design discipline. Users should provide a heading for these notes by replacing the [discipline] place holder with the name of the particular design discipline."
• General Sheet Notes: "Notes that apply only to the particular sheet on which they appear."

General Notes

As described in the UDS, basic general notes provide information that is applicable to all sheets for all disciplines. Therefore, architects (who are, in most cases, the prime design professional) need to make sure that the basic general notes included in the construction documents are applicable to all disciplines. If they apply only to the architectural sheets, then they should be identified as such per the second type of general notes.

Take a look at most 'General Notes' on a set of construction drawings and you will notice that in many cases the notes are many and sometimes lengthy. If architects were to spend a little time to actually read the 'general' notes they always place on the drawings, they will likely find that one of the three following characteristics will apply to most of them:

1. The intent of the note is already addressed in the general conditions of the contract;
2. The intent of the note is already addressed in Division 01 of the specifications; or,
3. The note is only applicable to the architectural sheets.

For example, consider the following note, which, in some variation, is commonly found in many 'General Notes':

Discrepancies between actual condition and drawings shall be brought to the attention of the Architect. Contractor shall submit specific discrepancies for Architect review.

Characteristic #1 would apply to this example since the general conditions will usually address this situation. For projects using the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, Section 3.2.2 covers the same requirement (see portion with added underline) as in the general note above, but includes more specific direction for the contractor:

Because the Contract Documents are complementary, the Contractor shall, before starting each portion of the Work, carefully study and compare the various Contract Documents relative to that portion of the Work, as well as the information furnished by the Owner pursuant to Section 2.2.3, shall take field measurements of any existing conditions related to that portion of the Work, and shall observe any conditions at the site affecting it. These obligations are for the purpose of facilitating coordination and construction by the Contractor and are not for the purpose of discovering errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in the Contract Documents; however, the Contractor shall promptly report to the Architect any errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered by or made known to the Contractor as a request for information in such form as the Architect may require. It is recognized that the Contractor's review is made in the Contractor's capacity as a contractor and not as a licensed design professional, unless otherwise specifically provided in the Contract Documents.

If the project does not use AIA Document A201, the architect should review the general conditions that will be used for similar language. If no similar requirement is in the general conditions, then a general note on the drawings, like the example, or a requirement in specification Section 01 73 00 "Execution," would suffice. However, the requirement should be revised to include the method in which the contractor should inform the architect, such as AIA Document G716 Request for Information form, CSI Form 13.2A Request for Interpretation, or some other approved form or electronic method.

General notes that paraphrase requirements provided elsewhere (e.g. the general conditions or specifications) may generate various interpretations. Altered wording used in a general note to simplify it may be interpreted differently than the more specific wording used in another contract document. Even though the intent may have been to replicate a requirement, the paraphrased format of the general note itself could create a conflict.

Another common general note is one similar to the following:

All work shall be performed with the highest level of workmanship standards of the building trades working under this contract.

The first question that should come to anyone's mind after reading the note above should be, "How will it be enforced?" This overarching requirement is akin to requiring design professionals to perform to the highest level of care—something professional liability insurers will refuse to insure. Characteristic #2 would apply to this note, so leave it out and let the specifications establish the minimum level of workmanship through the use of tolerances and reference standards.²

Finally, as an example of characteristic #3, take a look at this 'general' note:

All studs and any other framing are at 24" o.c. minimum unless noted otherwise.

With the possible exception of the structural drawings, the above note is only applicable to the architectural drawings. General notes that are specific to a discipline, should be separated from the basic general notes and located with the discipline sheets to which they apply. Thus, the example note should be placed with the 'General Architectural Notes.'

General [Discipline] Notes

General [Discipline] Notes, as the format implies, is to identify general notes that are specific to a particular discipline—with the bracketed 'Discipline' being replaced with the applicable discipline, such as Architectural, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, etc. Although the UDS provides a format for titling the general notes for disciplines, very few disciplines actually follow it. Most disciplines will use the title 'General Notes" and place them on the first sheet of their drawings, assuming that readers of the drawings will make the connection. The rare exception is the structural engineering profession, which seems to have universally adopted the format (more on this later).

These notes suffer some of the same afflictions that basic general notes do—primarily Characteristics #1 and #2. General discipline notes also display another affliction that is specific to this type of note: they frequently address the subcontractor/tradesperson.

An example of this problem is illustrated in the following actual note used on the first sheet of mechanical drawings in a set of construction drawings:

The mechanical contractor shall be familiar with all contract documents for all trades and shall coordinate with other contractors.

The problem with the above note is that it specifically addresses the "mechanical contractor." For single-prime contracts, and depending on the project delivery method, the drawings are part of the contract between the owner and general contractor—not the mechanical contractor (who is actually a subcontractor). There is no contract between the owner and a subcontractor. As a matter of fact, AIA Document A201 specifically addresses this in Section 1.1.2 (underline added):

…The Contract Documents shall not be construed to create a contractual relationship of any kind (1) between the Contractor and the Architect or the Architect's consultants, (2) between the Owner and a Subcontractor or a Sub-subcontractor, (3) between the Owner and the Architect or the Architect's consultants or (4) between any persons or entities other than the Owner and the Contractor…

Therefore, all requirements, whether placed on the drawings, in the specifications, or elsewhere, should be directed to the contractor on the project.

Another issue with the example discipline note is the direction given to the mechanical contractor to "coordinate with other contractors." Under a single-prime contract, the general contractor is given the responsibility for coordination—typically in Section 01 31 00 "Project Management and Coordination" of the specifications. Thus, that portion of the note can be stricken based on Characteristic #2. But wait, there is more…

The example discipline note can also fall under Characteristic #1 based on the statement that the mechanical contractor "be familiar with all contract documents." This is basic requirement that is already expressly stated in AIA Document A201 in Section 3.2.2 quoted earlier.

One area where general discipline notes have been taken to the extreme is in the structural engineering field. General Structural Notes, or GSN's as they are commonly referred to, are included with such great detail that they border on the edge of specifications (actually, they have probably crossed that line). Structural engineers have defended the practice by stating that the information is required by the building code. That is partially true.

Section 1603.1 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) requires that the construction documents indicate "design loads and other information pertinent to the structural design required by Sections 1603.1.1 through 1603.1.9." However, the sections identified by the IBC only require that live loads (floor and roof), snow loads, wind loads, seismic data, geotechnical information, flood data, special loads, and items requiring special inspection be shown on the construction documents. Nowhere does it mention that material and installation requirements be shown. The specifications are a more appropriate location for these requirements.

General Sheet Notes

General sheet notes are not to be confused with the keynotes used on the sheet—they are simply a general note that applies to the sheet on which it is placed. General sheet notes typically do not apply to a single item on the sheet, but provide written explanatory information for interpreting the graphic information shown on the sheet.

The same general sheet note may appear on multiple sheets of the same type. For example, the following general sheet note may be repeated on all applicable floor plan sheets:

All dimensions are to face of stud unless noted otherwise.

Or the following note may appear on all reflected ceiling plans:

Ceiling heights shown are 9'-0" unless noted otherwise.

However, if a note is used on every architectural sheet because it is applicable to every sheet (Characteristic #3) , then the note should be mentioned only once at the beginning of the architectural sheets as a general discipline note. The general sheet notes, like the other notes discussed, can also find themselves replicating other requirements per Characteristics #1 and #2, so they should be reviewed to prevent duplicating or conflicting information.

Conclusion

General notes are important for proper interpretation of the construction drawings, but like many things, more does not always mean better. General notes used on drawings should be carefully selected and written so as not to duplicate, paraphrase, or contradict other contract documents.

¹ Keynotes No. 3, "Drawing Notations," Spring 2010. 

² Read more about this type of note in the 07/18/11 post of specsandcodes - the blog.

Specifying for Design-Build Projects

Many articles have been written about the design-build delivery method and the ways in which design requirements are conveyed from the owner to the design-build entity (DBE).  Typically, the contract documents for design-build projects include a project description in the form of performance-based requirements.  Performance requirements describe the results desired and the means that will be used to verify compliance.  Thus, an owner needs to be very clear about what is required of the DBE, and those requirements need to be incorporated into the documents that will become the contract between the owner and the design-builder. 

As mentioned, many sources provide guidance about the preparation of owner/design-builder contract documents, but very little attention has been given to the preparation of specifications within the DBE—between the design professional and the constructor¹, who essentially are on the same team.

Design-Build Entity Organization

Figure 1 - Tripartite Relationship.

Unlike the traditional tripartite relationship of owner, design professional, and contractor in a standard construction contract (See Figure 1), a design-build contract is a single contract between the owner and the design-builder, which may consist of a single company or multiple companies that form the DBE.  The organizational structure of a DBE can take many forms:

 

 

 

• Pure Design-Build:  This is a single company specifically structured to provide design-build services, which include design and construction activities (See Figure 2).
  

  Figure 2 - Pure Design-Build.
• Constructor-Based:  Also called contractor-led, this is when a constructor is the prime and hires a design professional to provide the design services (See Figure 3).
  

  Figure 3 - Constructor-Based.
• Designer-Based:  Also called designer-led, this is when a design professional is the prime and hires a constructor to provide construction services (See Figure 4).
  

  Figure 4 - Designer-Based.
• Developer-Based:  Also called developer-led, this is when a developer is the prime in the owner-DBE contract and hires separately a design professional and a constructor to provide design and construction services, respectively (See Figure 5).
  

  Figure 5 - Developer-Based.
• Joint Venture (JV):  This is when a design professional and a constructor enter into a joint venture agreement to provide design-build services.  The joint venture then enters into a design-build agreement with the owner (See Figure 6).
  

  Figure 6 - Joint Venture (JV).
• Single-Purpose Entity (SPE):  This is when a design professional and a constructor create a corporation or limited liability company (LLC) that enters into a design-build agreement with the owner (See Figure 7).
  

  Figure 7 - Single-Purpose Entity (SPE).

Within each of these organizational structures, the design professional has a slightly different relationship to the other members of the design-build team.  It is these slight differences that affect the specifying responsibility of the design professional.

The Design Professional’s Specifying Responsibilities

In the design-build delivery method, the contract documents do not include drawings and specifications in the traditional sense.  The drawings and specifications used for a design-build project are simply construction documents prepared by the DBE that provide essential information necessary to secure required approvals (e.g. building permits) and to construct the project.  Additionally, the owner may require specifications be submitted as a means of verifying compliance with certain performance requirements in the contract documents.

Some design-build contracts are based on the bridging method, which is a hybrid between the design-bid-build and design-build delivery methods.  The bridging method involves providing the DBE with a set of contract documents (commonly referred to as bridging documents) that include drawings and a project description completed to a level comparable to those prepared during the design development phase under a standard design contract.  Some materials are specified and the remaining requirements are provided as performance requirements.  This gives the owner more control over the design of the project, but also transfers some of the risk back to the owner. 

Under the bridging method, the DBE then provides drawings and specifications based on the bridging documents, and the DBE’s design professional becomes the architect- or engineer-of-record for those construction documents.  Although the bridging documents may limit the DBE’s flexibility in designing the project and selecting materials, the DBE-prepared documents are used in the same capacity as traditional design-build projects.

Even if the owner does not require specifications as a condition in the owner/design-builder agreement, the design professional should prepare specifications as a risk management tool.  Specifications document the design professional’s decisions in regard to material selection and quality.  Any deviation from the specifications that is not approved by the design professional transfers the risk for that aspect of the work from the design professional to the entity that performed or authorized the deviation.  Without specifications, the design professional would have no documentation to provide as evidence that a deviation was made.

The Role of Specifications

For a design professional working as part of a DBE, the role that specifications play will vary depending on the type of DBE organization in which they are used.   

• Pure, JV, and SPE:  Since the design professional and the constructor are essentially equal partners within these DBE organization types, the specifications are considered internal construction documents—not contract documents—used to convey the design intent, obtain required approvals, and to manage the design
  professional’s risk.  The constructor is not contractually bound to the requirements in the specifications.
• Designer-Based:  This DBE organization type places the design professional in a superior position to the constructor.  Thus, the specifications fulfill a role as contract documents similar to those used in the traditional tripartite relationship.  Much of the content in Divisions 02 through 49 can remain as normally prepared; however, since the owner is not a part of the agreement between the design professional and the constructor, Division 01 sections will need extensive modifications.  For example, Section 01 26 00 “Contract Modification Procedures” will need to delete content addressing the owner’s approval of change orders.
• Constructor-Based:  Although the constructor is in a superior position, specifications used within this DBE organization type serve a purpose similar to that for Pure, JV, and SPE organization types—they convey design intent, obtain required approvals, and manage the design professional’s risk.
• Developer-Based:  This DBE organization type is virtually identical to the tripartite contractual arrangement, except that the developer assumes the owner’s traditional role and responsibilities.  In this arrangement, the construction documents prepared by the design professional will likely form the basis of contract documents between the developer and the constructor.  Therefore, the specifications will assume their familiar role as part of the contract documents.  However, references to “Owner” in the specifications (primarily in Division 01) will need to be replaced with either “Developer” or “Design-Builder.”  Whichever one is used should be used consistently throughout the specifications.

Editing Specifications

Beside the design-build organizational effects, the noncompetitive nature of a design-build project will also have an effect on the preparation of specifications.  Unlike most bid projects that require nonproprietary or semi-proprietary specifications to increase competition, a design-build project is procured (i.e. cost of the work is established) prior to the final selection of products and materials.  This allows the DBE to select the specific products and materials they want, provided they satisfy the owner’s performance requirements in the project description.

With this in mind, the design professional should place foremost in their specifying priorities the protection of the public’s health, safety, and welfare.  Additionally, if aesthetics is a significant concern for the design professional, the physical characteristics should be specified.  When specifying products and materials, any of the four specifying methods may be used: descriptive, performance, reference standard, or proprietary. 

Within each specification section, the content can be tailored to suit the various DBE organization types as follows:

• PART 1 GENERAL:  With the exception of Designer-Based and Developer-Based organization types, the specification content in PART 1 could be minimized—it is unnecessary to dictate requirements to your partners or to those who hired you.  Since the design professional is not obligated to look out for the owner’s interests, only those requirements that affect the design professional’s responsibility for the health, safety, and welfare of the owner and the public should remain.  For the Designer-Based and Developer-Based types, requirements may be more specific, since the design professional will be in a position of ensuring constructor performance.
• PART 2 PRODUCTS:  For all DBE organization types, PART 2 would be edited in much the same way that specifications are edited for other project delivery methods, such as Design-Bid-Build.  Designer-Based and Developer-Based organization types would include detailed requirements for tighter control of product and material selection; whereas the other organization types could be less restrictive, allowing the design-builder some flexibility in selecting materials or options.
• PART 3 EXECUTION:  As with PART 1, PART 3 sections could include minimal content for all DBE organization types except for Designer-Based and Developer-Based types.  The design professional will likely want more detail in the latter two types to provide greater assurance of a quality installation.

For all DBE organization types, if the specifications become a contract document between the constructor and subcontractors, then detailed PART 1 and PART 3 requirements may be desired. If this will be a fundamental purpose of the specifications, then Division 01 (e.g. Section 01 42 00 “References”) should ensure that terms such as “Contractor” are defined to mean the subcontractor that is assigned to perform the work within the section.

Conclusion

Although the previous points provide a good foundation for preparing specifications for different types of DBE organization types, a design firm should analyze its specific role in the design-build arrangement (i.e. review its agreement).  Once the design firm understands its role and responsibilities within the DBE, it can make the necessary modifications to the specifications.

---

¹   This article uses “constructor” to represent construction firms that are either contractors or construction managers.

Specifying for Code Compliance

As design professionals, we should all understand the importance of drawings and specifications in a set of construction documents—the differences between them, as well as their complementary nature.  We know that drawings show the size and location of building elements, and usually the quantity.  We also know that specifications establish the quality of the products, materials, and systems indicated on the drawings.  In RLGA’s The Code Corner¹, the subject of code-specific drawings was covered.  This companion article addresses those code-related requirements that are typically provided in the specifications.

The building code establishes requirements which, by their nature, can be addressed in the construction documents in the drawings, in the specifications, or more likely, both.  Drawings are best suited for showing the following:

•     Dimensional requirements (e.g. corridor widths, parapet heights, foundation depths, stair risers and treads)

•     Location requirements (e.g. exits, fire-resistive construction, safety glazing)

•     Quantity requirements (e.g. number of exits, floor area, plumbing fixtures, ventilation area)

Specifications, on the other hand, are best suited for establishing the following qualitative requirements:

•     Material/product characteristics (e.g. conformance to third-party standards, minimum thickness)

•     Performance requirements (e.g. opening force for doors, flame spread, minimum activation temperature for smoke vents)

•     Installation requirements (e.g. fastener spacing and number, conformance to third-party standards, special inspection coordination)

There are some requirements that may either be indicated on the drawings or in the specifications—a situation that demands close coordination so duplicate or, even worse, conflicting information is not provided.  

Standards

The closest tie between the building code and specifications are the many standards that are referenced in the building code.  But many specification sections, even those provided by master guide specification publishers, do not state a specific revision date of a referenced standard.  On the other hand, the building code is very specific about which revision of a standard is referenced.

For example, the masonry section may specify that facing brick conform to ASTM C 216.  According to ASTM International, the most current revision of ASTM C 216 was published in 2012 (ASTM C 216-12).  However, when you look up ASTM C 216 in Chapter 25 of the 2012 edition of the International Building Code (IBC), you will find that the standard referenced is the 2007 revision—not the first revision of 2007, but the second revision, as identified by the lower case “a” (ASTM C 216-07a).  Therefore, when complying with the code, the specific standards referenced in specifications need to be verified with the adopted building code.  To ensure that correct editions of referenced standards are specified, there are a few methods that the specifier can employ.

The first is to review all specification sections and to insert the specific revision date used by the building code for each occurrence of a standard’s designation (See Figure 1).  This can be very tedious and time consuming for the specifier—especially if he or she prepares specifications for projects in jurisdictions that have adopted various editions of a building code.

Figure 1 - One option is adding a date (highlighted) for a standard at each instance the standard is used in the specification text.

Another method is a slight modification of the first.  The specifier could insert a “References” Article in PART 1 of each section that lists all the reference standards used within the section.  In this Article, the revision dates can be added, thereby eliminating the need to add the revision dates to each occurrence within the section.  Again, it is a little time consuming and requires modifications if different building codes are used.  To simplify this process further, a statement can be used in lieu of a list of references and their applicable revision dates that point to the adopted codes as indicated in Division 01 or the drawings, as applicable (See Figure 2).

Figure 2 - Two alternatives to providing dates at each standard reference. The top example provides a "References" Article that lists all references used in the specification. Dates (highlighted) are only provided once. Note that the last standard does not have a date; this is because it is a standard not required by the building code and can be covered by a general statement in Division 01. The bottom example provides a blanket statement in a “References” Article that directs the reader to Division 01 or the drawings for a list of applicable codes; however, the drawings are the preferred location.

Finally, the best solution is to leave the specification sections as they are written (without dates), and address the revision dates in Division 01--specifically in Section 01 42 00 “References.”  The “References” Section in many guide specifications usually states that publication dates for standards used are those in effect as of date of the Contract Documents.  However, this may allow the use of revised standards not recognized by the adopted codes.  To ensure complete compliance with applicable codes, a paragraph can be provided that clarifies how dates will be determined (See Figure 3).

Figure 3 - An example of paragraphs that can be added to Section 01 42 00 "References" that addresses dates for reference standards used throughout all sections within the specifications. The list of codes can be provided in this section or on the drawings; however, the drawings are the preferred location.

Products and Materials

Closely tied to reference standards are the many products and materials regulated by the building code.  Building codes incorporate requirements for building materials for purposes relating to load capacity, durability, energy efficiency, and combustibility, as well as a few others.   But how you specify materials to comply with the building code really depends on the method used to specify.

For proprietary specifications, products and materials are selected by the design professional and are identified by product name, model number, trade name, or all of these.  This is the easiest approach, and the design professional can almost guarantee that the product specified is the one that will be submitted and installed.  But, proprietary specifying requires thorough research to ensure the product or material, if regulated by the code, is in compliance with it.

Since the building code uses reference standards, using the reference standard method of specifying provides a better chance of getting a product that complies with the code.  Considering standards establish minimal thresholds for conformance, this opens the door to many products that may be unsuitable or not desired by the design team.  However, the Construction Specifications Institute’s (CSI) Project Delivery Practice Guide states, “more than one [specifying] method may be necessary in the same specification.”  Therefore, a semi-proprietary specification using reference standards, and possibly including some descriptive and performance requirements, as well as a list of acceptable manufacturers, might be the most likely method of complying with the code, which could still be able to limit the products or materials to those that are appropriate.

Research Reports

Research reports (sometimes called “evaluation reports”) are generally prepared by evaluation services associated with publishers of model building codes, or other approved agencies, and are available to help select products that the building official will approve as being in compliance with the building code.  Code officials like these reports because they know that the products, which have evaluation reports and are used on a project, comply with the building code. 

When the International Code Council (ICC) was formed and created its Evaluation Service (ICC-ES), the evaluation reports from all three former model codes were incorporated into and maintained by ICC-ES.  Therefore, many of the reports found on the website are for the “legacy codes” and not specifically for the International Codes.  On ICC-ES’s website, it states that all reports are considered valid, even if reexamination dates have passed.  The ICC-ES will reexamine those reports as time permits and in accordance with their Rules of Procedure.  Because of this, code officials may accept a report on a code other than the one adopted by the jurisdiction.

However, over-reliance on evaluation reports can hinder the product selection process—not all products regulated by the building code have an evaluation report prepared by ICC-ES.  As an example, MasterSpec’s Section 09 29 00 “Gypsum Board” lists eight manufacturers of gypsum board in each of the three types (interior, exterior, and tile backing).  But looking at ICC-ES’s website, you will find reports for only six manufacturers, and most of these are for specialty gypsum products.  There is no requirement in the building code that states products must have evaluation reports.  Using gypsum board as an example, the 2012 IBC only requires that the various types of gypsum board comply with the ASTM International standards listed in Table 2506.2.  Therefore, the manufacturer should have test reports, from approved testing agencies, available for submission to the building official for approval in accordance with Section 1703.4.

Where to Place Information

There are times when the design professional is directed by code officials to place notations on drawings that logically should be located in the specifications.  Whether right or wrong, the frequently provided reason is that plans examiners and building inspectors do not have the time to search for information in both the drawings and specifications.  This is more of an excuse for not understanding the complementary nature of drawings and specifications—plus the available standards used to organize them—rather than a time issue.

However, burying code-related information in the documents does not help the situation.  Coordinating the drawings and specifications through the use of reference keynotes, as described in Module 7 of the National CAD Standard and Uniform Drawing System (NCS-UDS), will help tie information shown on the drawings to a specification section².  Therefore, instead of indicating in some general note on the drawings that the roofing requires a Class B rating, you should use a reference keynote, such as “07 54 19.A01 - Roof Membrane”; this directs the user to Section 07 54 19 “Polyvinyl-Chloride Roofing,” where, in the “Quality Assurance” Article, you provide the requirements for exterior fire-test exposure.

Coordination

Code compliance is not just a designer responsibility, nor is it just a specifier responsibility—it is both.  As in any other aspect of preparing construction documents, compliance with the building code is something that needs to be coordinated between drawings and specifications.  For the specifier, this requires an understanding of what building code is applicable to the project, what code compliance strategy the design team is taking (e.g. construction type, separated vs. nonseparated uses, etc.), and what products and materials will be used to comply with the code.  Once these issues are understood, then the methods used to convey code compliance information through the specifications will require ongoing communication between designer and specifier.

---

¹   See The Code Corner No. 40 “Construction Documents Revisited,” Summer 2012.

²   See Keynotes No. 3 “Drawing Notations,” Spring 2010.

Project Closeout

 

You can see the light at the end of the tunnel.  The project is nearing completion and you are looking forward to moving on to the next big project or taking a long, well-deserved vacation.  However, do not start packing your suitcase just yet—there is much to be accomplished between now and the issuance of the final pay application.  Whether you are the owner, architect, design consultant, contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, many tasks must be completed before the project can be officially closed out.

Project closeout is the period of construction that provides the systematic transition of the project to the owner until the cessation of all construction activity on the project site (except for any work associated with the correction period, discussed later).  Project closeout can be as short as a week for very small projects to as long as three months or more for large, complex projects. 

The closeout transition can be explained as a two-phase process: the pre-substantial completion phase and the post-substantial completion phase (See Figure 1).¹  As the phase names imply, the pivotal point between the two phases is the date of substantial completion.  Therefore, depending on the project, the project closeout process should be scheduled based on the scheduled date of substantial completion.

Substantial Completion

The date of substantial completion is very critical in regard to project closeout.  Substantial completion is defined in AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, as the

stage in the progress of the Work when the Work or designated portion thereof is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Contract Documents so that the Owner can occupy or utilize the Work for its intended use.

As the above provision alludes, substantial completion is not limited to a single date—multiple dates of substantial completion may be issued for various portions of the work.  However, it is the final substantial completion date that is of significance to project closeout.

Contractually, the date of substantial completion establishes the point when the contract time ends.  If the date of substantial completion is beyond the contract time, then the contractor may be subject to liquidated damages or penalties if provisions for those are in the contract.  Conversely, if the contractor achieves substantial completion before the end of the contract time, the contractor may receive a bonus if a penalty/bonus clause exists in the contract.

According to AIA Document A201, the architect is the person who certifies the date of substantial completion.  The contractor is required to notify the architect when the contractor believes that substantial completion has been, or will be, achieved.  The architect will then conduct an inspection to verify that the work has, in fact, reached substantial completion.  If the architect concurs with the contractor’s assessment, then the architect will prepare and distribute a Certificate of Substantial Completion that establishes the specific date, as well as other items, such as insurance and maintenance responsibilities, and a list of incomplete items.

At this point, the owner assumes responsibility for the work (unless otherwise stated in the Certificate of Substantial Completion) and is permitted to occupy the building.

PRE-SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION PHASE

The pre-substantial completion phase is the period of buildup to the eventual transition of the project from the contractor to the owner.  During this phase the contractor retains full control of activities on the project site.  Division 01 should specify the individual tasks that must be accomplished and the items that must be submitted by the contractor prior to establishing the date of substantial completion.

The initiation of this phase should be started on a date appropriate to the project that ensures sufficient time to complete required tasks.

Figure 1 - Diagram of the Project Closeout process.  The closeout process starts on the date of the closeout meeting, which is based on the contractor’s scheduled substantial completion date.  Majority of the closeout tasks occur within the Pre-Substantial Completion Phase.  Owner assumes responsibility for the project after substantial completion, but contractor is required to complete punchlist items within the Post-Substantial Completion Phase.  The scheduled substantial completion and the actual substantial completion may or may not be the same date.

Project Closeout Meeting

The event that signals the beginning of the closeout process is the project closeout meeting.  This meeting may be conducted by either the architect or contractor, but the timing of the meeting should be determined in the contract documents.  In Division 01 “General Requirements” of the specifications, the meeting date should be determined by specifying the minimum number of days prior to the scheduled date for substantial completion the meeting should be held.

The closeout meeting agenda should cover all requirements in the contract documents associated with the full completion of the project.  Topics on the agenda typically include the following:

• Procedures that must be accomplished prior to substantial completion, such as contractor’s preparation of list of incomplete items, or punchlist.
• Starting, testing, and adjusting systems.
• Procedures for commissioning, if applicable.
• Preparation, submission, and review of record documents.
• Preparation, submission, and review of operations and maintenance data.
• Training of owner’s personnel on operation and maintenance of the facility.
• Inspections by building and fire code officials and other authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs).
• Procedures that must be accomplished prior to final completion.
• Procedures for final change order, release of retainage, and final pay application certificate.

In essence, the closeout meeting is to make sure that everyone involved with the project—owner, architect, consultants, contractor, and subcontractors—knows the details and timing of closeout activities to assure a smooth transition.

Starting, Testing, and Adjusting

During this phase of the closeout process, the contractor and its subcontractors need to startup all building systems and make any adjustments necessary to ensure proper operation.  This may be part of a commissioning process if specified in the contract documents.  The contractor should notify the architect when tests and system startups are scheduled so the appropriate design consultants can be present.

Any tests required by the contract documents and not performed during the regular course of construction should be accomplished at this time.  If a test is associated with system startup, then the test should be accomplished following the startup in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.  Tests should be conducted in sufficient time to allow performance of the test, analysis of results, preparation of reports, and distribution of reports prior to the date of substantial completion.

Demonstration and Training

The owner must be capable of operating and maintaining the building once the owner occupies it; therefore, the owner should be properly trained.  Demonstration and training can include anything from operating motor-operated roller shades to the complete heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system.

The demonstration and training should be provided for owner’s personnel who will have direct responsibility for the management of the facility and should be conducted by qualified trainers.  Division 01 of specifications should establish requirements for demonstration and training.

Operation and Maintenance Data

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) data are a compilation of documents that usually consist of manufacturers’ printed manuals and instructions that explain how to operate and maintain the systems, equipment, and finishes installed on a project, and typically include manufacturers’ warranties.  O&M data should be submitted by the contractor and approved by the architect before demonstration and training is conducted so the data can be used as training materials.

Format of the O&M data should be specified in Division 01 of the specifications.  The format commonly submitted is a bound hardcopy, but electronic documents saved on CD-ROM or other media are rapidly becoming the norm.

The Punchlist

The contractor is required, prior to substantial completion, to prepare a list of incomplete items per AIA Document A201, Section 9.8.2, commonly referred to as the “punchlist”:

…the Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Architect a comprehensive list of items to be completed or corrected prior to final payment. Failure to include an item on such list does not alter the responsibility of the Contractor to complete all Work in accordance with the Contract Documents.

Although contractors are assigned the task of preparing the punchlist, architects frequently assume responsibility for the preparation.  Reasons why architects prepare punchlists vary from lack of detail in contractor-prepared punchlists to architects desire for greater control in the process.   Regardless of the reason, the punchlist is the contractor’s “to-do list” that must be fully accomplished before final completion.

The General Conditions require the contractor to notify the architect when the project is ready for substantial completion.  The architect and its consultants conduct an inspection that adds to the contractor’s punchlist.  If the architect determines that substantial completion has been achieved, the punchlist becomes an attachment to the Certificate of Substantial Completion.

Record Documents

Sometimes called “as-built” documents, record documents are those documents submitted and turned over to the owner as a record of the construction during the closeout process.  The term “as-built” is not appropriate for these documents as it gives the connotation that the documents indicate work as it was actually installed.  The reality is that the documents convey the installed work to best of the contractor’s knowledge, since much of the information is provided by subcontractors.

Record documents may consist of marked up copies of the drawings and specifications, a complete set of submittals, all addenda and contract modifications, reports, and any other documents required by the contract documents.  Division 01 of the specifications should identify the required record documents and the format.  Like O&M data, record documents are increasingly being submitted in electronic form for ease of storage and retrieval.

Commissioning

If commissioning is required, whether it be systems and equipment commissioning or total project commissioning, then the activities for the commissioning process should begin during this phase of the project closeout.  Commissioning is typically conducted by a third party (i.e. commissioning authority) hired by the owner.

The purpose for conducting commissioning during this phase is to determine if the building is ready for occupancy and identify deficiencies that may be added to the project’s punchlist.  Commissioning activities may be integrated with starting, testing, and adjusting, as well as demonstration and training.  Commissioning may also assist in verifying accuracy and completeness of O&M data.

AHJ Approval

One of the key elements in determining substantial completion is the approval of the project by authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ).  The approval usually comes in the form of a certificate of occupancy for occupied buildings or a certificate of completion or equivalent for unoccupied structures or shell buildings.  Without approval by the AHJ, the owner may not “occupy or utilize the Work for its intended use,” thus, the definition of substantial completion has not been met.

Other Activities

Other tasks that may be required prior to substantial completion may include the transfer of utilities to the owner, delivery of keys and cores to the owner, removal of temporary facilities, and general cleaning of the work.  The contract documents may specify other tasks that must be accomplished in order for the architect to certify substantial completion. 

Additionally, the contractor may request payment for work completed and release of retainage; however, a sufficient amount of money (either retainage, money for uncompleted work, or a combination of both) should be held by the owner to cover the cost of completing and correcting the remaining work if the contractor fails to do so.

POST-SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION PHASE

Once the date of substantial completion has been certified by the architect, the project enters the next phase of closeout, which will take the project to final completion.  At this point, most of the closeout activities have been accomplished.  The owner has occupied, or is permitted to occupy, the building and typically assumes responsibility for its operation, maintenance, security, and insurance unless stated otherwise in the certificate of substantial completion.

The date of substantial completion also signifies the beginning of the correction period, which is typically one year per AIA Document A201.  During the correction period the contractor is required to correct any deficiencies discovered.  Also, the time periods indicated in project warranties also begin at this time.

Final Acceptance

The contractor’s main task during this phase of the project is to complete or correct the items identified on the punchlist.  Since the owner typically assumes responsibility for the security of the project at substantial completion, the contractor may have to schedule access with the owner.

Since the period for correction and completion of items on the punchlist overlaps the correction period stated in the General Conditions, there may be a need to specify how deficiencies discovered between substantial completion and final completion are handled—they may be added to the punchlist to be corrected prior to final completion, or added as corrective work associated with the correction period.

Once all the items on the punchlist are completed, the contractor must notify the architect that the project is ready for the final inspection.  This notification is required to be in written form and should be accompanied with a copy of the contractor’s final application for payment per Section 9.10.1 of AIA Document A201:

Upon receipt of the Contractor’s written notice that the Work is ready for final inspection and acceptance and upon receipt of a final Application for Payment, the Architect will promptly make such inspection…

The architect, after receiving the written notification from the contractor, will inspect the project to verify that all punchlist items have been addressed.  Additionally, the architect should ensure that any remaining closeout submittals (e.g. extra materials, O&M manuals, record documents, etc.) have been submitted. 

Final Payment

Upon completion of the final inspection and verification that the project is complete, the architect certifies the contractor’s application for payment.  However, before the application for payment can be prepared and submitted by the contractor, final costs need to be determined.

Outstanding proposal requests and change order requests need to be incorporated into a final change order. Any claims in which a disagreement exists can remain open to be handled later through mediation, through arbitration, or in court. 

Also included in the final change order are any final adjustments to allowances.  Outstanding authorizations for allowances are determined and any unused funds are added to the change order as a credit to the owner.

Finally, the final change order may also adjust the contract time through requests for extension.  If time extensions are approved, they must be included prior to any application of a penalty/bonus or liquidated damages clause.  If penalties or liquidated damages are to be assessed, they need to be deducted from the final application for payment before certification by the architect.  Likewise, any applicable bonuses need to be added to the application before certification.

After certifying the final application for payment, the architect will forward the certified application to the owner, who, in turn, makes payment within the time period required by the contract documents.  When the contractor accepts the payment, then final completion is deemed achieved.

***

As the end of a project rapidly approaches, everyone on the project team is eager to wrap things up and move on to the next task at hand.  The contractor may have reassigned the superintendent to another project that is starting up and replaced him or her with another individual with little knowledge of the project, or the contractor may have brought in a team that specializes in project closeouts.  Regardless of who is on the jobsite, project closeout is not the time to relax enforcement of the contract documents.  The provisions in the contract regarding project closeout should be closely followed to ensure a smooth and complete transition is accomplished.

Since this is the time when the owner assumes responsibility for the project, the architect should ensure that the owner is aware of its responsibilities and is regularly informed on the closeout progress.  In addition to the demonstration and training activities, the owner or its representatives (e.g. facilities manager, maintenance team, etc.) can be invited to participate in other closeout activities such as the substantial completion inspection, final inspection, and commissioning.

This article provides an overview of the project closeout process, which is only a part of the architect’s role during construction contract administration.  For more in-depth information on the project closeout process, refer to the Construction Specifications Institute’s Construction Contract Administration Practice Guide.

---

¹ The two phases described in this article are not defined or utilized by standardized contract documents (e.g. AIA, EJCDC, ConsensuDOCS, etc.).  The phases are used in this article solely for the purpose of categorizing closeout activities in relation to the date of substantial completion.

Communication During Construction

Everything we do throughout the day could not be accomplished without some form of communication, whether it is one way (e.g. radio and television) or two-way (e.g. email and conversations).  Communication is a key element of daily living, and the construction process is no exception.

Basic Construction Communication

George Bernard Shaw once said, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”  The essence of communication is that a message is transmitted, received, and understood.  However, in some cases, a message is not understood by the recipient, but the transmitter assumes it was; thus the “breakdown in communication” begins. 

An example of hearing what was said, but not understanding what was said, can be found in the classic baseball skit of Abbott and Costello, Who’s On First.  In the skit, dialogue occurs between the two comedians, but neither one truly understands what the other is trying to say.  In business, and specifically construction, miscommunication can lead to problems that can be costly for some or all parties.

Before getting too deep into the subject of communication, it should be clearly stated that there is a difference between communication and documentation.  Communication may involve documentation, but documentation is not required to have good communication.  However, the construction business relies heavily on documentation, because the construction business is a contractual arrangement.  As in any agreement, the more you have in writing, the better you can defend your position should it fall into question.

Whether during design or during construction, communication is most effective when the four Cs are covered: clear, concise, complete, and correct.  Each one should be considered if you are writing a letter, preparing an email, talking on the phone, or preparing a set of construction documents.  Failure to do so can result in the message being misunderstood, either partially or completely.  How well you communicate has an impact on how you are perceived by others.  Thus, a poor communicator will either have their messages questioned or ignored completely.

The process of constructing a structure involves teamwork.  Like teamwork on the sports playing field, communication is essential to integrate all players to achieve a win.  The motivation of team players to have a successful outcome improves communication and further enhances teamwork.  Thus, a good attitude is important to successful communication.

According to the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI), teamwork communication relies on timeliness of communication.  Delay in transmitting essential information can lead to misunderstandings and eventual escalation of problems.  To avoid these problems, identifying the lines of communication before a project begins is a good practice.  This can be best accomplished at the preconstruction meeting and re-emphasized, if necessary, at the periodic progress meetings.¹

Construction communication channels are dependent somewhat on the delivery method used for the project.  Those delivery methods that have similar communication channels are:

• Design-Bid-Build
• Construction Management as Constructor
• Design-Negotiate-Build

Although the above delivery methods incorporate different means of selecting the contractor, each utilizes the traditional tripartite relationship² of owner, architect, and contractor, which will be the basis of this article and discussed in detail later.

On the other hand, delivery methods that do not utilize the tripartite relationship have very different channels of communication.  These delivery methods include the following:

• Design-Build
• Construction Management as Advisor
• Owner-Build

Regardless of which delivery method is employed on a project, the content that is communicated and the method by which it is communicated between all parties involved remains the same—only the channels through which content is transmitted differ.

At the center of construction communication are the contract documents—the drawings, specifications, contracting requirements, and other documents defined in the agreement.  The contract documents set the foundation for all construction communication.  The contractual network within the traditional tripartite relationship is not the same as the communication network.

The contractual network is between the owner and contractor under an owner-contractor agreement and between the owner and architect under an owner-architect agreement.  In the contractual network, the owner is the focal point.  However, within the tripartite relationship, there are “third party obligations” between the architect and contractor.  Although there is no agreement between the contractor and architect, the contract documents do establish some responsibilities that both must follow.³

In the American Institute of Architects’ (AIA) Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, Section 4.2.4 sets the basic communication network for the construction of the project:

…the Owner and Contractor shall endeavor to communicate with each other through the Architect about matters arising out of or relating to the Contract.

The above requirement thus places the architect as the focal point as it relates to the communication network of a construction contract.

AIA Document A201 further defines the communication channels with the architect’s consultants, with the contractor’s subcontractors and material suppliers, and with the owner’s other contractors:

Communications by and with the Architect’s consultants shall be through the Architect. Communications by and with Subcontractors and material suppliers shall be through the Contractor. Communications by and with separate contractors shall be through the Owner.

Regardless of the above, AIA Document A201 does allow other channels of communication when the contract documents allow it or when it has been given approval:

Except as otherwise provided in the Contract Documents or when direct communications have been specially authorized…

In regard to the latter condition, permitted direct communication should be relegated to situations where direct communication will expedite the process and minimize the potential for misunderstanding.  For example, allowing the mechanical engineer to speak directly with the mechanical subcontractor will likely benefit the project by putting together the two people who can carry on a dialogue on a technical subject matter without transmission through an intermediary.  If decisions are made as a result of the direct communication, those decisions should be documented and copied to the necessary individuals.

When communicating with the contractor, any information passed on to the contractor’s superintendent is deemed to have been transmitted to the contractor per AIA Document A201, Section 3.9.1:

The superintendent shall represent the Contractor, and communications given to the superintendent shall be as binding as if given to the Contractor.

In several locations throughout AIA Document A201, there are provisions that require one party to give written notice to another party.  To clarify this requirement, Section 13.3 defines what constitutes “written notice”:

Written notice shall be deemed to have been duly served if delivered in person to the individual, to a member of the firm or entity, or to an officer of the corporation for which it was intended; or if delivered at, or sent by registered or certified mail or by courier service providing proof of delivery to, the last business address known to the party giving notice.

So far, the discussion has addressed how important good communication is for teamwork and who can talk to whom according to the contract requirements.  The next step is to identify the varieties of communication that can be used during the course of construction.

Types of Communication

In very basic terms, there are two types of communication: verbal and nonverbal.  Verbal communication involves the use of words, both written and spoken, to relay a message.  On the other hand, nonverbal communication utilizes methods that do not involve words, such as signals, drawings, and symbols.  Contract drawings utilize both methods: specifications and notes (verbal) and drawings (nonverbal).  Even when we talk with others we use both types of communication:  speech (verbal) and body language (nonverbal).  Since this is not an article on drawings, it will focus only on the types of verbal communication.  As previously mentioned, verbal communication includes written and spoken (i.e. oral) methods. 

Oral communications include telephone conversations or other transmitted conversations that do not require participants to be in the same location.  The face-to-face conversation, such as at a meeting or site visit, is another form of oral communication where the participants are in the same location.  Advantages of oral communication include the following:

• Can use inflection and nonverbal cues.  Feeling can be easily expressed through speech by how it is spoken.  Body language can further enhance the oral message.
• Saves time and provides immediate feedback.  Unlike written communication, which requires a somewhat rigid back-and-forth process, oral communication allows a more fluid dialogue.
• Is typically less formal.  With the exception of prepared speeches and scripted dialogue, oral communication is relatively informal and is not restricted by rigid formats other than common civil courtesy.
• Can be confidential.  Unless the conversation is being recorded, oral communication is limited to those present.

Conversely, oral communication has its disadvantages:

• Can be misunderstood or misinterpreted.  Oral communication is contingent upon the speaking skill of the speaker and the listening skill of the recipient.
• Generally, there is no permanent record and messages are not easily retained. Unless the conversation is recorded, there is no exact account of what was said, and people tend to forget conversation details over time.
• Not the best method for lengthy communications.  Except for speeches or other presentations, most oral communications are dialogues consisting of short messages.

Written communication utilizes a multitude of media to present messages.  In general applications, not specific to construction, written communication includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Correspondence
• Emails
• Transmittals
• Faxes
• Meeting minutes
• Text messages
• Social media

More specific to the construction process, written communication includes specific documents or media, such as:

• Requests for information/interpretation (RFIs)
• Proposal requests
• Change order requests
• Change orders
• Field observation and daily reports
• Submittals
• Web-based project management systems

Like oral communication, written communication has its advantages and disadvantages.  The advantages consist of the following:

• Provides a permanent record and can be used as evidence.  The message written one day is the same message available weeks, months, and even years later.
• Is less likely to be misunderstood or misinterpreted.  Unlike oral communication, written communication can be reread until the message is understood.
• Can be disseminated quickly and widely.  In this technology-based society, the written communication can be sent to all parties in a timely manner.

In a contractual environment, the disadvantages are few, but important.  They are:

• Provides a permanent record and can be used as evidence.  The advantage can be a disadvantage, too.  In preparing documents, be judicious about what you place in the permanent record.
• Requires some level of skill.  Not everyone is a good writer.

Required Construction Communication

AIA Document A201 establishes the roles and responsibilities of the tripartite relationship: owner, architect, and contractor.  These roles and responsibilities involve a certain minimum level of communication—some are conditional, others are not.  Conditional communication means that a certain condition must exist in order to require the communication, such as the contractor’s notice to the owner that the contractor will stop work for nonpayment.  In that example, the notice is only required when the condition of nonpayment by the owner exists.  The following is a general list of communications established in AIA Document A201, broken down by the entity responsible for the communication’s preparation:

Owner

§2.1.2 – 15 days after written request, furnish information for lien rights.

§2.2.1 – After written request and prior to commencement of construction, provide evidence of financial arrangements.

§2.2.4 – Furnish information with reasonable promptness.

§2.3 – Written order to Contractor to stop the Work.

§2.4 – Written notice to Contractor for failure to carry out the work.

§9.8.5 – Written acceptance of responsibilities in Certificate of Substantial Completion.

§10.2.8 – Written notification to Contractor of injury or damage.

§13.5.2 – Written notice to Architect to authorize additional testing and inspections.

§14.2.2 – Written notice to Contractor that the contract will be terminated for cause.

§14.3.1 – Written notice to Contractor that the contract will be suspended.

§14.4.2 – Written notice to Contractor that the contract will be terminated for convenience.

§15.1.2 – Written notice to Contractor of claim.

Contractor

§3.2.2 – Report errors, inconsistencies, or omissions to Architect as an RFI.

§3.2.3 – Report nonconformities to laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules, and regulations in the Contract Documents.

§3.3.1 – Written notification to Owner and Architect that means, methods, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures in the Contract Documents are not safe.

§3.7.4 – Provide notice to Owner and Architect for differing site conditions.

§3.7.5 – Notification to Owner and Architect of burial, archaeological, or wetlands encountered.

§3.9.2 – Written notification to Owner of proposed superintendent.

§3.10 – Submittal of schedule.

§3.12 – Submittal of Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples, and other submittals.

§5.2.1 – Furnish to Owner names of subcontractors and major material suppliers.

§6.1.3 – Cooperation with Owner’s other contractors.

§6.2.2 – Report to Architect of defects in work of Owner’s other contractors if impacting Contractor.

§9.2 – Submittal of schedule of values.

§9.3.1 – Submittal of Applications for Payment.

§9.7 – Stop Work notification to Owner for nonpayment.

§9.8.2 – List of items to be completed or corrected.

§9.8.5 – Written acceptance of responsibilities in Certificate of Substantial Completion.

§9.10.1 – Written notification for final inspection.

§10.2.8 – Written notification to Owner of injury or damage.

§10.3.1 – Written notification to Owner and Architect of hazardous materials encountered.

§13.5.1 – Timely notice to Architect of tests and inspections.

§14.1.3 – Written notification to Owner and Architect that Contractor will terminate the contract for cause.

§15.1.2 – Written notice to Owner of claim.

Architect

§3.7.4 – Written notification of negative finding to Owner and Contractor on differing site conditions.

§4.2.3 – Keep Owner reasonably informed about the progress and quality of the Work.

§4.2.7 – Take action on submittals.

§4.2.8 – Prepare Change Orders, Construction Change Directives, and minor changes.

§4.2.11 – Written interpretations on matters concerning performance and requirements from Owner and Contractor.

§4.2.14 – Respond to RFIs.

§9.4.1 – Written notification to Owner and Contractor with reasons for withholding payment.

§9.8.4 – Prepare Certificate of Substantial Completion.

§12.1.1 – Written request to Contractor to uncover work required to be inspected by the Contract Documents.

§12.1.2 – Request to Contractor to uncover work not required to be inspected by the Contract Documents.

Communication may be further defined in the specifications by the architect.  Within each section, submittals and other forms of documentation are usually required of the contractor.  However, the majority of the communication requirements can be found in Division 01, General Requirements.  The Division 01 sections that could specify significant communication requirements include the following:

01 10 00 – Summary:  If the work is in an existing building, coordinating with occupants and notifying occupants about utility interruptions; and if multiple prime contractors are involved, coordinating with other contractors.

01 25 00 – Substitution Procedures:  Preparing and reviewing substitution request packages.

01 26 00 – Contract Modification Procedures:  Preparing contractor proposal requests.

01 29 00 – Payment Procedures:  Preparing the schedule of values and applications for payment.

01 31 00 – Project Management and Coordination:  Coordinating procedures, preparing RFIs, setting up and operating a project website, and conducting project meetings.

01 32 00 – Construction Progress Documentation:  Preparing construction schedules, reports, and construction photographs and videos.

01 33 00 – Submittal Procedures:  Preparing submittals.

01 77 00 – Closeout Procedures:  Preparing list of incomplete items (punch list).

01 79 00 – Demonstration and Training:  Training owner’s personnel on how to operate the building’s systems and equipment.

Communication Tools and Methods

Although the contract documents establish minimal communication requirements, communication takes place at all times and under a variety of conditions.  Communication tools and methods utilized during construction should be appropriate to those times and conditions.   For example, you do not want to use a telephone conversation to issue a change order—the provisions of the contract must be enforced.  Although there are many ways to communicate, construction communication is generally limited to basic tools and methods; however, as technology changes, the tools and methods will likely change, as well.

The first method is the formal meeting.  This is a prescribed meeting, usually with an agenda and a list of required attendees.  The meeting may be routine or a singular event scheduled at a specific time during the construction process.  Minutes of formal meetings should be taken and distributed to attendees and other identified individuals shortly after the conclusion of the meeting, generally within a few days.  This allows attendees to comment on the accuracy of the minutes while the meeting is fresh in everyone’s mind.  The person identified to conduct the meeting should not be the person taking the minutes.  Typical formal meetings during construction include:

• Preconstruction meetings
• Progress meetings
• Contractor/subcontractor meetings
• Preinstallation meetings
• Closeout meetings

The next method is the informal meeting.  These meetings are typically unscheduled and may be called to address a specific issue and probably occur more frequently than formal meetings.  Attendees may consist of a group of individuals down to as small as two individuals.  Informal meetings may not be scheduled at all, but occur out of happenstance, such as a conversation during a site visit.  Informal meetings can be very beneficial for a project—they allow for immediate discussion that can result in a quick solution to an issue.  However, decisions that are made or directions that are given during these informal meetings should always be followed up with some form of written communication.  This is to make sure that there are no misunderstandings or misinterpretations of what was discussed.

Another common and traditional construction communication tool is the telephone.  Telephone communications can fill the gap between written media and face-to-face dialogue—it is quick and can be used to accomplish a variety of tasks without having to travel to another location.  The telephone conversation, like the informal meeting, can be used to discuss issues with possible immediate results, but it should also be documented if important decisions were made or instructions where given.

Reports are another tool that provides beneficial information for all members of the project team.  Reports are used to record and convey information about the status or condition of the project or a portion of it.  Reports may be generated by all members of the project team, such as field observation reports by architects, daily reports by contractors, or installation quality control reports by manufacturer representatives. The most important thing to remember about a report is that it be factual—conjecture, hearsay, and judgmental language have no purpose in a report.  In cases where a picture explains the situation better than words, a photograph can be inserted into a report with a brief explanation and markups that highlight specific items (e.g. keynotes, clouds, etc.). 

Reports, which document details that are typically lost over time, could be used as evidence.  However, poorly prepared reports may be considered inadmissible as evidence.  Once the quality of some reports are determined to be questionable, then the entire set of reports by the same individual are also called into question and may be considered unreliable, even if the remaining reports are actually good and accurate.

Growing at a rapid rate is the use of electronic communications during construction.  Starting with faxes, the use of electronic communications has expanded to include email, text messaging, and, now, social media, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter.  Electronic communications can also include web-based software programs that provide full project management capabilities.  Electronic communications are typically used in addition to other communication tools and methods.  The main benefit of electronic communications is the ability to store and quickly retrieve documents.  As with database systems, information can be searched in a fraction of the time it would take to search file folders and storage boxes.  Like printed documents, electronic communications are subject to discovery⁴ and can be used as evidence.

Another method of construction communication does not happen within the team, but with the public.  Used frequently on large public projects and sometimes on private projects, public communication allows people not associated with a project to be informed of the progress of the work.  Since public projects involve public funding, citizens like to know how their tax dollars are being spent.  Some projects, public or private, have a significant impact on the communities in which they are built.  Keeping neighboring residents informed helps to soften the impact the dramatic changes may bring.

Communication tools that are used to keep the public informed can span the entire list presented in this article.  Written communications, such as news articles and mailed flyers provide updates.  Oral communications may include periodic meetings with residents and recorded updates that people can obtain through a phone call.  A common tool used is the project website, where information and updates are posted on a regular basis.  Some websites employ webcams that operate during the entire construction period to allow people to visually see the progress of the work.

The bottom line is that the construction process could not happen without communication.  From the contract documents through all the phone calls, emails, and meetings, to the final application for payment, every member of the project team communicates at some time with another project team member.  As a project team member, it is important to remember that other team members are relying on the information you provide.  If you have information to provide, make sure it is timely and that it is communicated through the proper channels using the proper method or tool.

---

¹  Introduction to Chapter 6, Construction Contract Administration Practice Guide, The Construction Specifications Institute.

² The tripartite relationship is discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide.

³ Although not pertinent to this article, it is important that the architect’s responsibilities in the contract documents be coordinated with the owner-architect agreement.

⁴ Discovery is a legal process where the parties on each side of a lawsuit seek information from the other side to uncover the facts about the case.  Discovery is governed by state and court rules of evidence.

QA and QC: Are They Different?

Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) are often used interchangeably to mean the same thing or together as if one could not occur without the other (QA/QC).  The fact is that these two terms represent separate processes that may or may not coincide.  Either way, they both have a direct impact on the final outcome of a work item, such as a manufactured product, a software program, a business procedure, or, in the case presented in this article, the design and construction of a structure.

Before delving into the details of quality assurance and quality control, it is best to start the discussion on the idea of what constitutes “quality” and the system to achieve it, otherwise known as quality management.

What is Quality?

 Depending on whom you talk to or what you read, quality can be defined in many ways.  Some will attach quality to those things that are the best available, while others will consider a very expensive item as being of high “quality.”  Although these may be true to some extent, the determination of quality is rather simplistic. 

According to Joseph M. Juran, a well-known author and expert on the subject of quality since the early 20^th Century, the definition of quality can be distilled to “fitness for use,” where the customer determines what fitness is.  In a variation of that definition, Philip B. Crosby, another expert in the field of quality, defined it as “conformance to requirements.”  The latter definition is seems to suit the construction industry since conforming to the requirements may not meet all of the owner’s expectations.  Achieving quality in the construction industry is a two-step process that involves both the design of the project and then its eventual construction into a built structure. 

During the design process, the architect/engineer’s (A/E’s) ability to achieve a quality design is based on the A/E’s solution to the owner’s program.  However, achieving a quality design is not quite that objective.  If the A/E satisfactorily addresses every requirement in the owner’s program, the design may still fall short of the owner’s expectations because the owner failed to document those expectations in the form of specific design requirements.  This is one reason why A/Es are an important part of the design process—they have the ability to interpret an owner’s expectations and convert them into requirements.  Upon establishing the owner’s requirements, the A/E converts those requirements into a set of construction documents¹ from which a contractor can build the structure.

Even if the A/E delivers a quality solution to the owner’s program, a quality project is still not achieved until the project is built.  For the contractor, achieving a quality project is complying with the requirements indicated in the contract documents.  Therefore, any deviation from the contract documents would be considered “nonconformance with requirements,” and thus would not meet the definition of a quality project.

Quality Management

Achieving quality is not serendipitous—there has to be some level of effort applied in order to attain quality.  This intentional effort comes in the form of quality management, and can be anything from a simple program to a full quality management system such as Six Sigma or one that implements ISO 9000 standards.

The American Society for Quality (ASQ) defines quality management as

[t]he application of a quality management system in managing a process to achieve maximum customer satisfaction at the lowest overall cost to the organization while continuing to improve the process.

This quality management system usually consists of four processes: quality planning, quality assurance, quality control, and quality improvement.

1.  Quality Planning

Quality planning involves establishing a culture of “doing it right the first time,” as quoted by Philip Crosby.  This means that the organization needs to understand what quality standards are applicable and the processes that are needed to comply with those standards.

For A/Es, they have to take into consideration those quality processes that help them internally to achieve a quality design and those quality processes that help them ensure that a quality project is constructed.  This requires the A/E to look at how they design projects and prepare construction documents in order to establish quality in their work.

For contractors, quality planning may differ depending on the delivery method used for a project.  If a contractor is part of a delivery method that allows the contractor to participate in the design process, such as construction manager as constructor (also called “construction management at risk,” or CMAR) or design-negotiate-build, the contractor will have some influence on how quality is achieved by reviewing construction documents prior to submitting a proposal or guaranteed maximum price (GMP).  For a common design-bid-build project, the contractor’s approach to quality is essentially restricted to the contract documents; however, the contractor should have internal processes to ensure compliance with the contract documents is achieved.

2.  Quality Assurance

Quality assurance (QA) is a relatively new concept in quality management rising in popularity in the 1970s.  Like other aspects of quality, quality assurance has a variety of definitions.  ASQ defines quality assurance as

all the planned and systematic activities implemented within the quality system that can be demonstrated to provide confidence that a product or service will fulfill requirements for quality.

Quality assurance, as its name implies, assures that the outcome of a process will be a quality one.  This involves taking measures that will reduce errors and omissions before and while performing the work.  Some quality assurance processes may be verified using a quality control method.

3.  Quality Control

In contrast, quality control (QC) has been the staple for determining quality since the earliest part of the 20^th Century.  The concept of quality control is to look at work after the work is completed.  The definition by ASQ is “the operational techniques and activities used to fulfill requirements for quality.”  In essence, it is the process of testing and inspecting work to determine if it complies with the adopted quality standard.

In a quality management system, quality control should never be the primary process.  However, it can be used to confirm that quality assurance processes are working properly.  If a failure is detected during a quality control inspection or test, then it is evident that quality assurance is missing or, if not missing, the quality assurance process did not function properly and should be evaluated.

It is important to understand that a quality control process for previously completed work can be considered a quality assurance process for subsequent work.  For example, Worker A has a quality plan that involves quality assurance processes that will ensure a quality work output.  At the completion of the work output, Worker B inspects Worker A’s work to verify compliance with the quality standard before accepting Worker A’s work.  Thus, Worker B’s inspection (a QC process) gives him confidence that his work output will be a quality one (a QA process), provided other aspects of Worker B’s performance meets the quality standard.

4.  Quality Improvement

Any type of quality management system must include quality improvement; otherwise, the same mistakes will continue to be made and opportunities to reduce cost and waste will never see the light of day.  Regardless of how thorough a quality plan is the plan is almost never perfect—there is always room for improvement.  Every quality management system should have a process that allows improvement of the system, either through feedback from lessons learned or immediate actionable items from participants that improves the overall design and construction process or a portion thereof.

In Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s “Fourteen Points,” Point No. 5 is: “Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service.”  Continuous improvement reduces waste in both materiel and cost.  In the world of “green” design and construction, reduction of materiel could be considered a sustainable improvement.  Likewise, reduction of costs will have a positive impact on a project at all levels starting from material and equipment suppliers through the contractors, subcontractors, and designers, up to the owner.

QA and QC during Design

A quality construction project does not begin with the contractor building a structure in conformance with the contract documents—it begins with a quality design.  The goal of every A/E should be to prepare “clear, concise, correct, and complete” documents as recommended by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI).  In addition to these four C’s, a quality set of construction documents also need to be coordinated.  However, before a set of construction documents can begin, the process of designing a quality project starts at the initial stages of design.

CSI defines quality assurance during design as “the procedures for guarding against defects before and during the execution of the work.”  Additionally, CSI defines quality control during design as “the procedures for evaluating completed activities and elements of the design for conformance with requirements.”

In general, QA for the design firm starts with hiring qualified staff and continually training them to be current with the latest design and construction technologies.  For project-specific QA, the first step is to review and understand the owner’s program and seek clarification on any ambiguities.  Other QA processes include reviewing codes, regulations, ordinances, and standards that are applicable to the design of the project; establishing regular progress and coordination meetings with the design team including consultants; and reviewing geotechnical and site survey information provided by the owner.²

There are several quality processes that the A/E can implement that fall within the area of QC.  These may include cost estimates, peer reviews, internal reviews, constructability reviews, and code plan reviews.  Each of these may be conducted at each phase of the project and, therefore, become a QA process for the following phase.

Cost estimates should be prepared at each phase of the design to ensure the project remains within the owner’s stated budget.  The design should not progress to the next phase until all budget issues are resolved.

The various types of reviews may also be conducted at the various phases of the project.  Peer reviews involve the evaluation of the design documents by a third-party reviewer—typically by another local architect or engineer in the same field.  This type of review can be very beneficial since it is conducted by someone completely unfamiliar with the project.  There are firms that specialize in peer reviews and the services could include a full review of all drawings and specifications prepared by the architect and its consultants.

Internal reviews are similar to peer reviews, but are conducted within the design firm.  However, best results are achieved when the review is conducted by a firm staff member not associated with the project.  One option is to have the person who will be responsible for the project’s construction contract administration conduct the review.  This type of review can be conducted using a checklist and, if done in conjunction with a peer review, may need only focus on elements of the documents relating to standard firm practice.

Constructability reviews may overlap the previous two review types in scope, but are generally focused on the mechanics of physically constructing the structure.  Thus, this type of review is best conducted by a contractor or construction manager.  A constructability review looks at the design and determines if the work can be constructed as shown, or if special procedures or equipment may be necessary (thus adding cost) to achieve the indicated construction.  The results of this review may offer alternate ways of achieving the same design goal but at a lower cost, which could be considered a form of value analysis (VA) (also called value engineering, or VE).

Code plan reviews are specific to the building design elements regulated by adopted codes.  Each design discipline should ensure that their work complies with applicable codes, which should begin as a QA process as mentioned earlier.  The code plan review should just be verification that compliance has been achieved with only correction of minor discrepancies.

QA and QC in the Contract Documents

QA and QC during design is not the only quality aspect of the project in which the A/E is involved.  QA and QC during construction comes in two forms:  those processes that the contractor implements to ensure they build a quality project and those processes that the A/E requires in the contract documents.  To monitor the quality of construction, A/Es need to incorporate requirements in the contract documents that establish certain procedures that contractors must follow.

For the A/E, monitoring quality during construction is limited to enforcing the contract documents—primarily the requirements in the specifications.  The contract drawings show what is to be constructed, but the specifications establish the qualitative requirements of the construction contract.

Basic quality requirements are specified in Division 01 of the specifications—typically in Section 01 40 00 “Quality Requirements.”  Individual sections in Divisions 02 through 49 will include quality requirements specific to the work results covered in each section.  Some quality requirements that may be specified include submittals, mockups, tests and inspections, minimum qualifications, and manufacturer involvement.

Submittals,³ although not specifically identified in the specifications as quality assurance or quality control items, they definitely have a part in the quality process.  Some submittals may be considered part of the QA process by allowing the A/E to review the products, materials, and equipment before the contractor is allowed to procure and install the items on the project. Quality control submittals include reports for tests and inspections performed on completed work.

Mockups, which are considered a QA process, are typically full-scale constructed assemblies that represent a portion of the work.  Mockups, like submittals, are completed and reviewed prior to the actual installation on the project.  However, some mockups may be integrated into the work and remain a part of the completed work if approved by the A/E.  A mockup can also be an integrated assembly that incorporates several different components to see how each interfaces with the other and to establish the level of workmanship.  A mockup can also be a completed room, such as a hospital patient room or hotel sleeping unit, to see if all elements (finishes, fixture and furniture locations, colors, etc.) are acceptable before proceeding with the work on all the other rooms.  Some mockups may be required for laboratory testing to evaluate the performance of an assembly before installation in a building.

Tests and inspections are part of the quality control process since they are conducted on completed work.  Tests and inspections may be conducted at the fabrication shop (referred to as “source quality control” in PART 2 of a specification section) to evaluate completed work before delivery to the project site.  Tests and inspections conducted at the project site (referred to as “field quality control” in PART 3 of a specification section) evaluate work installed on the project.  Reports should be specified to summarize the findings of tests and inspections and forwarded to the A/E as an informational submittal.

Establishing minimum qualification requirements in the specifications is a QA process that ensures the work will be provided by experienced or trained installers.  To verify that qualified installers are used, qualification statements, certifications, or other forms of verification may be required by the A/E as informational submittals.

For some work installations, the specifications may require the contractor to have representatives of manufacturers observe the installation. 

Other requirements may be specified to assure a quality installation is provided, such as requiring installers to examine previously installed work for acceptability before beginning their work, setting specific conditions in which the work may or may not be installed, and requiring regular coordination meetings to resolve issues before portions of work commence.

QA and QC during Construction

The contractor, like the A/E, plays a key role in the quality success of a construction project.  As previously mentioned, a quality construction project is based on the contractor’s conformance to the contract documents, which includes complying with the QA and QC requirements that the A/E has specified.  However, that does not preclude the contractor from establishing internal QA and QC processes that help the contractor ensure compliance with the contract documents.

For the construction phase of a project, CSI defines quality assurance as “the procedures for discovering defects and deficiencies to the contract documents before and during the execution of the work.”  For quality control, CSI defines it as “the procedures for evaluating completed activities and elements of the work for conformance with contract requirements.”

At first glance, it may appear that the CSI definition for QA could be one for QC since it states “discovering defects and deficiencies,” which is commonly associated with QC.  But the fact that this discovery is done “before and during the execution of the work” makes it a QA process.  It must be understood that the contractor cannot change the contract documents, except where “defects and deficiencies” are found.  Thus, if the contractor reviews the contract documents prior to beginning portions of the work and “errors, omissions, or inconsistencies” are found, then they must be reported to the A/E for correction prior to beginning the work.⁴

Complying with QA and QC requirements in the contract documents is essential for the contractor, but the contractor may implement its own QA and QC processes that can supplement the contract documents.  These supplemental processes may include asking manufacturer representatives to examine the work and provide installation oversight, or conducting inspections and tests in addition to those in the specifications.

Similar to the A/E’s design process, some construction QC processes may be the QA processes for following work.  For example, checking flatness and levelness of a slab (a QC process) may be conducted to ensure it is within specified tolerance for the subsequent installation of a floor finish (a QA process).

QA and QC and Perfection

Owners would like perfection in the projects they construct and some even try to get perfection by working such requirements into their agreements.  For the most part, A/Es and contractors would like to provide the best possible projects they can deliver for the owners, but perfection in the business of constructing structures is virtually impossible.  Unlike manufacturing, constructing a building is basically the construction of a prototype—there is no research and development process preceding the construction.  Therefore, errors, omissions, inconsistencies, defects, and deficiencies will always be present to some degree.

For architects and engineers, the professional “standard of care” is typically applied to the services they provide.  Black’s Law Dictionary (9^th Edition, Abridged) defines standard of care as

that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person should exercise in same or similar circumstances. If a person's conduct falls below such standard, he or she may be liable in damages for injuries or damages resulting from his or her conduct.

Thus, perfection for architects and engineers is not ordained, but providing the same level of service that your peers provide is.

Instituting a quality management system should not be an indication that the A/E is raising the bar on performance.  How the A/E implements and promotes the system may give the perception to prospective clients that the A/E has artificially elevated the standard of care.  Any quality management system proposed should be flexible and not a “one size fits all” type of program—you do not want to apply the same level of effort on a strip mall tenant improvement project as you would for a full hospital.

For contractors, the performance standard was set in 1918 with the creation of the Spearin Doctrine.  This doctrine is based on a court decision for the case of United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, which sets forth that there is an implied warranty by the owner to the contractor that, if constructed in accordance with the contract documents, the project would perform as intended.  Therefore, the contractor is not liable to an owner for loss or damage resulting from defects or deficiencies in the contract documents.

 ***

Quality assurance and quality control are processes that should go hand-in-hand, but, by definition, they are different.  Both the A/E and the contractor have responsibilities for providing quality in a construction project, so a system to maintain that quality should be a part of any company’s business plan. 

---

¹   Both “construction documents” and “contract documents” are used in this article.  The term “contract documents” is used when referring to the documents identified in an agreement between an owner and contractor, and “construction documents” is used when referring to the documents prepared by an A/E prior to the execution of an owner-contractor agreement.

²   The geotechnical report and site survey could be generated by the design professional, but for risk management purposes, they should be owner-provided documents.

³   You can read more about submittals in Keynotes No. 5 “Understanding Submittals.”

⁴   As required by Section 3.2.2 of AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction.

Substitutions: Flexibility within Limitations

All manufacturers wish that their product or products are used on construction projects; otherwise, they would not be in the business.  But, on the design side, not every product is suitable for a given project, nor is there sufficient fee to research every product that could potentially be used on a project.  Therefore, with few exceptions, most design professionals focus on one or two potential products for design purposes, which leave other possible products waiting in the wings.

How these other possible products make it into the project depends on what the construction documents provide in the form of substitution procedures.  Substitution of specified or indicated products has probably been around as long as building construction has been in existence.  However, throughout the history of construction, there was no formalized substitution process developed for construction professionals to implement until the 1960’s.

At the beginning of the 1960’s, an innovative Arizona architect by the name of Fred M. Guirey, FAIA, developed the “prior approval” system, which allows specifications to be concise by using brand names, but allows bidders to submit “equal” products.  Guirey’s goal was to achieve the lowest price for the owner at minimal risk for the contractor, while at the same time conforming to governmental requirements for competitive bidding.  In 1962, Guirey hired Maynard Blumer, FAIA, FCSI, and tasked him to further define the prior approval process.  As a result, Blumer developed a process that consisted of eleven rules.  Twelve years later, Blumer’s prior approval process was integrated into standard AIA documents.  Thus, the formalized substitution procedure was born.¹

The substitution process is beneficial for all parties: owners, contractors and subcontractors, design professionals, and construction product manufacturers; however, the process needs to be regulated with clear and concise provisions in the procurement and contract documents.

Specifications

Before a discussion of how substitutions should be handled in the procurement and contract documents, a discussion on the more basic topic of how products should be specified is necessary.  In order for the manufacturer to prepare a meaningful substitution request and for the design professional to make a fair comparison, the specifications should state the essential characteristics of an acceptable product.

Specifications for privately funded construction projects can be proprietary, but if the owner wants to keep its options open to maximize performance, minimize cost, or both, then substitutions are a means to achieve that.  For publicly funded projects, procurement regulations at all levels of government (federal, state, county, and local) require some form of open competition.  For example, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.101, which references the United States Code (U.S.C.), states that Government contracts shall “promote and provide full and open competition.” 

However, this does not preclude the use of proprietary specifications as long as the specifications are “open,” which means the submission of proposed substitutions is available to bidders.  For example, the FAR states the following in Section 6.302-1 (c):

Brand-name or equal descriptions, and other purchase descriptions that permit prospective contractors to offer products other than those specifically referenced by brand name, provide for full and open competition and do not require justifications and approvals to support their use.

Many government agencies take the quote above literally and require that the specifications, when listing a brand name, must follow it with “or equal.”  When listing specific manufacturers and products, some agencies have established policies that require at least three products or manufacturers be listed—some going as far as requiring the minimum three plus the “or equal.”  The problem with using “or equal” in a specification is the conundrum of what is considered “equal”?  There are many products out on the market, but very few would be considered “equal” to other like products.

A specification that lists just a brand-name product (sometimes referred to as a “basis-of-design” product) and “or equal” or its equivalent, does not provide the essential information to make a comparison for proposed substitutions.  Many manufacturers provide product sheets with a long list of characteristics and performance data.  For specified brand-name products, using these lengthy lists of information is a poor basis for reviewing substitutions, since no two products are exactly alike (i.e. equal); leaving reviewers to ask the question: Which features are most important?  Therefore, when using a brand-name product, the specifications should additionally identify the minimum characteristics and performance data that are required for the project. 

Limiting product requirements to essential characteristics and performance data can simplify the substitution review process and allow broader competition.  Manufacturers seeking substitution approval need only to meet or exceed the minimum specified requirements.  Thus, if “or equal” is required, then it would be advisable that Division 01 define the term as a comparable product that meets or exceeds specified requirements.

Procurement Documents

If substitutions are permitted during the procurement of a construction project, the procurement documents² should establish the requirements in the “instructions to bidders” or similar document.  AIA Document A701-1997, Instructions to Bidders, provides basic requirements for submitting substitutions in Section 3.3.

AIA Document A701 essentially allows substitution requests to be submitted up to ten days before the date established for the receipt of bids.  Any approved substitutions are to be issued in an addendum.  Since the latest an addendum can be issued is four days prior to date of receipt of bids (AIA Document A701, Section 3.4.3), the length of time that the architect and its consultants have to review substitution requests is six days—this does not allow much time for review. 

Therefore, some ground rules should be established in the procurement documents to make sure the architect and its consultants have the data and time to make intelligent decisions when reviewing substitution requests.  For design professionals, making an intelligent decision is vital, since the approval of a substitution carries the same liability as if the design professional directly specified the substituted product in the original documents.

If AIA Document A701 is not used, then the document used to instruct bidders on the bidding process needs to include the provisions in the following paragraphs plus the provisions similarly covered in the AIA document.  If AIA Document A701 is used, then the following provisions need to be included as supplementary instructions (or annotated revisions to electronic documents).  

One provision that should be in the procurement documents is the format in which substitution requests must be submitted.  It should not be the design professional’s responsibility to research a proposed substitution to determine its acceptability; the burden of proof lies with the submitter.  To standardize the submission format, a form, such as the Construction Specifications Institute’s (CSI) Form 1.5C, Substitution Request (During the Bidding/Negotiation Stage), may be used.  The submitter should also provide sufficient documentation, such as product data, drawings, test results, or performance data, to substantiate the substitution’s compliance with specified requirements. 

Other provisions should include the specific date, time, and location for submitting substitution requests, and possibly who is authorized to submit a substitution request.  Regarding the latter, some jurisdictions and A/E firms will only allow substitutions to be submitted by a prime bidder—not from a subbidder or a manufacturer.  The benefit of this requirement is that it helps to filter out those products that a prime bidder has no interest in using, thereby eliminating unnecessary review time.

Contract Documents

To comply with competition requirements in public procurement regulations, allowance of substitution submissions is only necessary during the procurement phase.  Once a contract is executed, substitutions may or may not be allowed according to the contract documents.  AIA Document A701 states in Section 3.3.4 that “No substitutions will be considered after the Contract award unless specifically provided for in the Contract Documents.”  Therefore, if substitutions will be permitted after contract award, the specifications need to establish substitution procedures, since the procurement requirements are not a part of the contract documents.

Requirements for substitutions may be specified in Section 01 25 00 “Substitution Procedures.”  Included in those requirements should be the conditions upon which a substitution request may be permitted.  These conditions can be divided into two main categories:  substitutions for cause and substitutions for convenience. 

“Cause” refers to conditions that are beyond the contractor’s control.  These may include situations where the specified product is no longer manufactured, is unsuitable for the intended use, or is unavailable due to circumstances unforeseen by the contractor, such as a labor strike or a natural disaster or event that delays production, thereby affecting the project schedule.  The contractor’s failure to obtain in a timely manner the specified product (e.g. a contractor-caused submittal delay, contractor did not take into consideration for long-lead time, etc.) is not considered a justifiable substitution request for cause.

“Convenience” refers to conditions that benefit the contractor, the owner, or both.  If permitted, the contractor may submit a substitution request if there is a significant advantage, such as lower cost in labor, material, or both; quicker delivery time; or other benefit to the owner.  Unless shared savings is a part of the contract, any cost savings should go to the owner.

Owners may also initiate a substitution for a number of reasons.  When requested by the owner, the design professional should prepare a request for proposal and issue it to the contractor for determination of cost and schedule impacts.  Design professionals should also review proposed owner-initiated substitutions for possible impacts on the performance of the building, such as compatibility with other specified products and systems.  If the design professional determines there is a cause for concern, then it should be brought to the owner’s attention. 

If whether for cause, convenience, or initiated by the owner, a substitution request is a change to the contract documents and should be treated as such.  AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, requires that substitutions be made through a change order or construction change directive, unless the substitution qualifies as a minor change.  A minor change applies when there is no change in contract cost or time and the substitution is consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents.  As to the latter, if the substitution is a completely different type of material or product, it may be considered inconsistent with the intent of the contract documents, thereby requiring the use of a change order, even if there is no change in contract cost or time. If the substitution qualifies as a minor change and was not initiated by the owner, it is recommended that the owner be informed of any proposed substitutions.

As with procurement documents, the requirements for submitting substitution requests should also address time and format for submission.  Substitutions for cause should be allowed at any time during the construction period.  However, substitutions for convenience should be limited to the initial weeks of the project.  Whether this period begins following the award of the contract, after the notice to proceed, or after the start of construction, is up to the owner and design team.  The format should be similar to that for substitutions during the procurement stage.  For the construction phase, CSI has Form 13.1A, Substitution Request (After the Bidding/Negotiation Phase), which is available for use.

The Design Professional’s Review

As previously mentioned, when the design professional approves a substitution, it carries the same liability as if it was specified in the construction documents.  Therefore, design professionals need to treat substitutions with the same care and attention they gave the products they specified in the construction documents.

CSI’s Construction Contract Administration Practice Guide identifies six areas in which the substitution request should be reviewed.  These areas, and some of the questions that should be asked, are as follows:

• Product:  Does the substitution’s characteristics meet or exceed the minimum specified requirements?
• Manufacturer:  How long have they been in business?  How do they respond to problems?  What is their delivery track record?
• Product Representative:  Is the person knowledgeable about the product and does she or he respond quickly to questions and problems?
• Installation/Installer:  Are there unique installation requirements?  Are installers available in the area?  Does the substitution require a certified installer?
• Operation and Maintenance Costs:  Will the product cost more to maintain than the specified product?
• Warranty:  Does the warranty for the substitution provide protection similar to that of the specified product?

During bidding, if AIA Document A701 is used on a project, the last sentence of Section 3.3.2 states “The Architect's decision of approval or disapproval of a proposed substitution shall be final.”  Thus, if a substitution request is not approved, then bidders must base their bids on the specified product or products. 

During construction, approval is based on the issuance of a change order, change directive, or minor change, as previously mentioned.  If a substitution is not approved by the architect using one of these methods, then the contractor must use the specified product or products.

***

Substitutions need not have the negative image that they typically carry.  If all parties understand and comply with the requirements, the substitution process will go smoothly.  Contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and manufacturers should not submit substitutions solely on the hope of increasing a profit margin, but to provide equal or better performance than the specified product.  Design professionals should review substitutions with impartiality, but with their liability in mind, and should use the same impartiality when informing and advising the owner of any substitution requests.  Finally, owners should not be swayed by a quick sales job and a promise of reduced cost to approve a substitution request—careful analysis should always be applied.

---

¹ “Prior Approval, A Specification System,” H. Maynard Blumer, The Construction Specifier, pp 80-84, April 1986.

² Although commonly referred to as “bidding documents,” this article uses the CSI term “procurement documents,” since not all construction documents are bid due to the variety of available project delivery methods.  However, this article uses the terms “bid” and “bidder” regardless if the entity is submitting a bid or proposal.

 

Contract Modifications

 

Unlike most products, which undergo research, development, testing, and evaluation of prototypes to work out problems, most buildings are one-of-a-kind construction.  Therefore, construction does not have the luxury of working out the kinks before it is fabricated for the buyer—changes are typically necessary to adjust the design as the work progresses.  These changes are usually handled through what is commonly referred to as a contract modification.

Contract modifications are just that: modifications or changes to the requirements of a contract; in this case, construction contracts.  Contract modifications typically carry a negative connotation, especially to owners, as evidence of poorly prepared construction documents.  Although changes are more common than not, a large number of changes or a few changes with significant associated costs are definitely not desirable, and do have some relevance to the quality of the A/E-prepared documents.  But it should be made clear that not all changes are the result of errors in the drawings and specifications.

The American Institute of Architects (AIA) establishes provisions for contract modifications in its Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, in Article 7, “Changes in the Work.”  This article states that changes to the contract may be issued through three basic instruments:  the minor change in the work, the change order, and the construction change directive.  Let us review these individually in detail.

The Change Order

The change order is the more well-known and infamous change instrument provided for in contracts.  According to AIA Document A201, the change order is a written document that is prepared by the architect and signed by all three entities:  architect, owner, and contractor.  When signed, all three entities agree that there is a change in the work and that there is a change in the contract sum, contract time, or both.  The process begins typically in one of two ways. 

The first involves architects issuing a proposal request to the contractor, either on their own volition or at the request of the owner.  The proposal request is not an authorization for the contractor to perform the work, but a means of getting information from the contractor (usually price and time) so that the owner can make a determination of whether or not to proceed with the proposed change. 

The other involves the contractor issuing a request for a change to the owner, through the architect, after discovering a condition that needs additional work, such as an unforeseen condition, a constructability issue, or additional work not addressed by the contract documents.  This is commonly referred to as a “claim” submitted by the contractor.  A “claim” is defined by AIA Document A201 as a

demand or assertion by one of the parties seeking, as a matter of right, payment of money, or other relief with respect to the terms of the Contract.

Not all claims result in change orders, nor are all change orders the result of claims.

The document that the contractor submits to the architect, whether in response to an owner- or architect-issued proposal request or contractor claim, is commonly referred to as a change order request, or COR.  However, some contractors may use other names to identify documents that serve the same purpose.

The Minor Change

The minor change in the work, or minor change for short, is described in AIA Document A201 as a contract change “not involving adjustment in the Contract Sum or extension of the Contract Time.”  Unlike the change order, the minor change does not require the signatures of the owner and contractor—just the architect’s.  Once the minor change is issued, the change is binding on both the owner and the contractor.

Although called a “minor” change, the scope of the change is really irrelevant as long as there is no alteration in cost or time.  For example, a significant portion of the work can technically be modified by a minor change, provided the contractor agrees that there will be no increase or decrease in cost, extension or reduction in contract time, or combination of both.  While possible, the likelihood of a large modification being accepted without a change in cost or time is relatively small.

The A/E should attempt to issue minor changes when, in their best professional judgment, they foresee no expected cost or time change.  However, that is not always the case, and the A/E should not be completely surprised if the contractor responds to the minor change with a COR. Sometimes there are costs or time elements associated with the minor change of which the A/E may not be aware.  If there is any possibility that a minor change might have a cost or time change associated with it, the A/E would be well-advised to discuss the proposed minor change with the contractor before issuing.

The Change Directive

The change directive is an instrument of change that is not as common as the other two.  In AIA Document A201, the change directive is referred to as the construction change directive, commonly referred to as a CCD.  Its purpose is to issue a change to the contractor that affects the contract sum, the contract time, or both; however, the difference between the change directive and the change order is that the change directive is used when there is no agreement on either cost or time.  Thus, the change directive is used when at least one of the two following conditions exists:

1. When delaying the work in the change directive until an agreement is reached would affect the overall project.
2. When there is insufficient information available to the contractor to accurately price the additional work or determine the extent of the additional time required.

Examples of the former condition would be an unidentified utility discovered during site excavation which requires relocation before any foundation work can begin, or the owner requires a necessary change but an agreement cannot be reached, potentially delaying the project.  For the latter condition, an example would be rock excavation, where the extent of removal is unknown.  This example could be determined based on unit prices submitted during the procurement or bid process.

The change directive is also unlike the other two contract modifications in that the change directive is only signed by the owner and the A/E.  Once issued, the contractor must proceed with the work indicated in the change directive.  If the contractor signs the change directive, then the contractor agrees to the change in the contract sum and time or the method used to determine them, and a change order should be prepared to record that agreement.

Methods of adjustment indicated in AIA Document A201 include a mutually accepted lump sum amount, unit prices as previously mentioned, a cost determined in an agreed upon manner with a fixed or percentage fee, or, if the contractor does not agree with the other methods, a determination by the A/E based on cost of labor and materials plus overhead and profit.

Once the contractor completes the work required by the change directive, the issues of cost and time would need to be addressed.  If agreement is reached, then a change order is required to record the modification to the contract.  Otherwise, the claim becomes a dispute, and the method for handling the disagreement follows the dispute resolution procedures of the contract.

Contractors subject to the provisions of AIA Document A201 may view the change directive negatively, since it effectively requires the contractor to finance the work required by the change directive if there is a dispute.

Contract Modification Forms

Although AIA Document A201 describes the three methods of modifying a construction contract, it does not indicate the actual forms that will be used for each—a situation where a Division 01 section should be used.  Section 01 26 00 “Contract Modification Procedures” should be included in a project manual to specify exactly which forms will be used to record official changes to the contract.

For change orders, AIA Document G701, Change Order, can be used to record the modification.  Change directives can utilize AIA Document G714, Construction Change Directive, and minor changes typically are issued using AIA Document G710, Architect’s Supplemental Instructions, or ASI.

For each of these documents, owners and A/E firms may utilize custom forms suited to their specific procedures and requirements.  These alternate forms may also come with a different name; for example, some A/E firms use the “bulletin” or “field order” in lieu of the ASI.  If forms other than the standardized ones mentioned earlier are to be used, the specifications should clearly indicate that.  Additionally, sample forms should be included in the project manual so all members of the project team are familiar with the documents.  These sample forms can either be included as an attachment to Section 01 26 00 mentioned earlier or included in Division 00 under 00 63 00 “Clarification and Modification Forms.”

When requesting the cost and time impact for a proposed change, AIA Document G709, Work Changes Proposal Request, may be issued to the contractor.  Use of a single format for proposal requests will help reduce confusion by eliminating other sources of requests, which make it difficult to track the request and for the contractor to determine what is and is not an official request.

In every case, the change document or proposal request should clearly describe the scope of the change or proposed change so there are no misunderstandings.  There is no limit on the number of attachments to these documents, so additional pages for description, specifications, and drawings can be added.  A word of caution, though, additional drawings and specifications may require a professional seal; consult your state licensing board rules and laws to verify.

Contract Modifications and ConsensusDOCS

Less common than the AIA documents are the ConsensusDOCS, where DOCS stands for Designers, Owners, Contractors, and Surety—an acronym that has virtually disappeared from ConsensusDOCS publications.  The ConsensusDOCS’ equivalent to the AIA Document A201 is the ConsensusDOCS 200, Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor¹.  In the ConsensusDOCS 200, there are three methods to modify a contract:  the change order, the interim directed change, and the incidental change.

The change order, as defined in ConsensusDOCS 200, is a “written order…indicating changes in the scope of Work, the Contract Price, or Contract Time.”  Like AIA Document A201, the change order in ConsensusDOCS 200 is used for changes that affect contract time and cost.  Additionally, the change order under the ConsensusDOCS 200 only requires the signatures of the owner and constructor—the A/E is not a part of the change order process—which could increase the risk for the owner and constructor.

The interim directed change is the ConsensusDOCS’ version of the change directive.  The primary difference between the interim directed change and a change directive is that if an agreement cannot be reached on the directed change the owner is required to pay the constructor 50% of the estimated cost.  This seems to be reasonable; however, the imprecise grammar used does not indicate upon whose estimate the 50% is based—the owner’s or the contractor’s—which could potentially compound the already disputed change.

It is interesting that, although more construction changes involve a cost increase than not, the ConsensusDOCS 200 does not direct the constructor to pay the owner 50% if there is an estimated decrease in cost.  Furthermore, as with the change order, the interim directed change also does not involve the A/E in the change process; only the owner is required to sign the interim directed change document.

The incidental change is the ConsensusDOCS’ equivalent of the AIA’s minor change in the work, since it does not involve a change that adjusts the contract time and cost.  According to ConsensusDOCS 200, the “Owner will initiate an incidental change” with a written order to the constructor—again, the A/E is not a part of the change process. 

Follow the Rules

Construction documents are not meant to be perfect and owners and contractors need to understand that.  Whether the result of imperfect documents, unforeseen conditions, or owner-directed revisions, changes on a project are almost always inevitable.  The key to a successful project is to comply with the requirements of the contract.  The general conditions, whether based on AIA, ConsensusDOCS, or some other format, need to be read and understood by each member of the project team in order to abide by the processes and timeframes established within.

It is understandable that owners, A/E firms, and contractors have a desire to streamline procedures or overlook certain steps in order to expedite an issue and to keep the project moving along.  The occasional deviation from contract procedures may be necessary, especially if it benefits the project.  But repetitive deviations or total disregard for contract procedures would likely have negative results.

There are cases where verbal orders for changes or extra work were issued by the owner and the contractor performed the work as requested.  However, when the contractor requested payment for that work, the owner rejected the claim stating that the work was performed without written authorization, such as a change order.  Contractors are not without options in these cases.  Such claims have been upheld in court on the basis that the parties’ conduct waived the change order provisions of the contract.  Contractors should be well aware of who is authorized to order changes and extra work.

***

There is no substitution for clear, concise, complete, and correct documents, but mistakes do happen.  The introduction of building information modeling (BIM) has helped to some degree to limit the number of errors, but improper application of technology could create more problems than it solves.

In a recent survey of owners², over 25% indicated that the quality of construction documents is somewhat worse than before with 5% stating it is much worse.  It is hard to speculate the reason of such high percentages:  Are construction documents actually getting worse, or has the recent influx of technology raised owners’ expectations?

Until that question can be answered objectively, the contract modification will likely remain the barometer for measuring construction document quality.  

---

¹   ConsensusDOCS documents have generally replaced “contractor” with “constructor.”

²   FMI/CMAA Eleventh Annual Survey of Owners; http://www.cmaanet.org/files/shared/11thAnnualOS-PhoenixRising.pdf.