specsandcodes

A Specifier's Rant: The "UN"standardized Carpet Industry

I just completed my umpteenth-hundredth carpet specification section and I’ve had it—especially when it comes to specifying for public projects.  As many of you may know, public projects typically require open competition for projects, including the selection of products that are specified.  So, as a response, specifiers are typically tasked to include a minimum of three products in the specifications to ensure competition.   So what is the problem?  Actually, there are a couple of problems—however, if one is resolved, the other goes away.  

The first problem is getting designers to select three acceptable carpets.  Since carpet is such a visual item, the specifier should not be left with the job of finding two other carpet selections in addition to the one selected by the designer.   Selecting carpet is a mix of color, pattern, and performance.  Carpet color and pattern are characteristics that belong to the designer, but “performance characteristics” is the area where the specifier lives—and is the source of the second problem.

The second problem is finding carpeting that has similar performance characteristics—it’s like asking someone to find three similar marbles in a barrel of marbles.  And to compound the problem, there is no standardization in the way carpeting information is presented—manufacturers' carpet data use inconsistent terminology and inconsistent units of measurement (if they even bother to provide the units of measurement). 

For example, I see “tufted weight,” “face weight,” and “total weight.”  All have different meanings, but not all are provided in manufacturers’ literature—mostly, they provide one or maybe two of those characteristics.  The Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI), which should be the leader in the industry, doesn’t mention any of those in their glossary—what they provide is “finished yarn weight”—is this a fourth weight characteristic, or is it an alternative for one of the previous three terms?  I don’t know, because the multitudes of online carpet glossaries vary widely in their definitions, which make it difficult to compare, and almost all don’t define more than two of the terms.  Surprisingly, ASTM D 5684, Standard Terminology Relating to Pile Floor Coverings, doesn’t provide a single definition in regard to weight! 

Adding to the confusion is the frequent use of proprietary names by manufacturers to describe components of their carpeting, such as fiber and backings.  So, how is a specifier (let alone a customer) supposed to compare the construction and performance of carpeting if the use of terminology by manufacturers is all over the map?  This specifier’s answer:  STANDARDIZE! 

Other building finishes use standards to either classify products or to provide a minimum product specification.  An example of a classification standard is ASTM E 1264, Standard Classification for Acoustical Ceiling Products.  An example of a specification standard is ASTM F 1303, Standard Specification for Sheet Vinyl Floor Covering with Backing.  Products complying with these standards are categorized based on physical and performance characteristics.  Therefore, two products with the same type and grade (vinyl flooring), or type, form, and pattern (acoustical ceilings), may not be equal, but they can be considered comparable; thus narrowing the field of acceptable products to ease the selection process for the designer or specifier, or simplifying the substitution review process.

If the carpet industry would just sit down and create a logical method to identify comparable carpet products, then all the specifier needs to do is provide something like the following:

Carpet:  Style B; Type III; Grade 3A.

Which could mean the following:

Style B:  Tufted, multi-level loop

Type III:  Woven primary with foam secondary backings

Grade 3A:  3 = Total density is greater than 1800 and less than or equal to 2000 oz./cu. yd.

                             A = Critical radiant flux not less than 0.45 W/sq. cm

If other characteristics are important, such as fiber material and pile thickness, then those could be added to the specification, along with a basis-of-design product to establish a color and pattern to achieve.

Of course, to make such a standard worthwhile and beneficial to design professionals, manufacturers would need to use the system in their product literature.  Also, measuring density would need to be standardized through a standard test method. 

This may be a specifier’s a pipe dream, but if the paint industry can pull it off, so can the carpet industry.  It took years, but a system was developed to help categorize an ever-changing paint industry; the system isn’t perfect, but it’s a start.  The carpet industry needs to take a lesson from their fellow manufacturers of architectural finishes who have standardized their respective industries and follow suit.

CSI Certification: Set Yourself Apart

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) back in 2008, the architecture profession was one of the hardest hit professions when it came to layoffs.  However, a year later in 2009, the BLS stated that between then and 2018, the architecture profession will grow “faster than the average” with a total increase of 16 percent.  Other construction professionals, according to the BLS, will also see a similar increase with the exception of mechanical and electrical engineers, which expect a much smaller increase of around 2 to 6 percent.  The construction trades will also see a moderately aggressive increase over this time period.

Why is this outlook important?  When the work begins to increase, so will the demand for employees, and with the large field of eligible prospects (i.e. those without jobs and looking), the competition for the jobs that become available will be aggressive.  The key to securing one of those jobs is to stand out above your competition—and the CSI Certification program can help give you that extra competitive edge.

Time and experience in practice are good measurements for evaluating employee candidates; but time and experience does not objectively show that you understand the construction process and the documents used in getting a project built.  Through CSI’s Certification Program, there is something for everyone in the construction industry that will help you prove to others that you do understand the construction industry and, specifically, your profession.

The Construction Documents Technologist (CDT) Certificate:  This is the ideal starting point for anyone in the construction industry.  By passing the CDT, you have demonstrated your understanding of the design and construction process; the purpose and importance of clear, correct, complete, and concise construction documents; knowledge of General Conditions and their relationship to the specifications; the various types of delivery methods available to construct a project, and the contractual relationship between the parties of each.  The CDT is the prerequisite for the following CSI certifications.

The Certified Construction Contract Administrator (CCCA):  If you are an individual who is regularly engaged in the administration of a construction contract during the construction, or have responsibilities that extend into the construction phase, the CCCA is the next step.  This certification focuses on the details of the construction process from contract execution to final completion; including subjects on site observation, pay applications, contract modifications, submittals, substitutions, and project closeout.

The Certified Construction Specifier (CCS):  The CCS is the oldest of CSI credentials, which was first offered in 1978.  With this certification, you have shown that you have mastered the ability to properly prepare a set of construction specifications to convey the qualitative requirements of a construction contract.  This certification covers subjects such as page layout per PageFormat, section organization per SectionFormat, specification language, Division 01 General Requirements, and master guide specifications.

The Certified Construction Product Representative (CCPR):  Every product representative wants to sell more of their product, and one of the best ways of doing this is by learning how to do it better.  The CCPR credential shows specifiers and other construction professionals that you understand their business as well as your own—it establishes that credibility that is so important for a product representative to become that “golden rep”:  the “go to” person who knows their specific industry.

That is CSI’s Certification Program in a nutshell.  If you were an employer and you had several candidates of equal strengths and experiences, but there was one with a CSI credential, which one would you choose?

I thought so.

CSI Offers Professional Membership Discount

Trick or treat!  Well, there’s no trick and you will get a great treat from CSI.

CSI is offering a discount on a Professional Membership until midnight on Monday, October 31^st.  You pay only $192 for national dues – a 20% savings.

How do you get the discount?  Easy:

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

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

Unlike other construction-related professional organizations, CSI includes everyone in the construction industry in its membership ranks—owners, architects, engineers, contractors, product manufacturers and representatives, and many more—there is no better organization for networking. 

Additionally, CSI is the premier source for continuing education in the areas of building technology,  specifications, construction contract administration, and many other topics related to improving building performance and construction documents and information.

Towards a More Irrelevant Architect

Just recently, I was doing some research on the change in the architectural profession from the time of ancient Egypt to today’s practice in the United States for an upcoming practice management course I teach at Taliesin West.  Even without this research, it is obvious to me (and probably others in the industry) that the modern day architect is nothing like the architect of ancient Egypt, Greece, or Rome, or like the master builder of the Middle Ages.  With little surprise, but some dismay, I note that the architect of the 19^th Century also varies quite significantly from that of today’s architect.  The interesting thing about these changes is that they do not reflect positively on the profession—the architect of the 21^st Century is but a shadow of its past self and appears to be on course to a position of irrelevancy, as other players in the construction industry assume the charges that have historically been the architect’s.

The observation is not a new one.  Following the recession of the early 1990’s, John Seiler, an Adjunct Professor of Architecture and Urban Design at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, stated in an article:

As worldwide economic ill health and dilatory recovery continue to preoccupy many architects as they consider the state of their profession, this hopefully temporary condition tends to overshadow a more fundamental concern:  Architects’ diminishing influence over design and construction decisions.  The struggle for power between architects and other construction industry role players is an increasingly menacing problem.¹

In an effort to protect its members, and the profession in general, from undue risk, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) inadvertently reduced the influence of the architect by minimizing the liability to which the architect may be subject.  This shirked risk was quickly snatched up by other members of the construction industry—namely by contractors and members of the growing construction management profession.

Now the AIA cannot be blamed entirely for the architect’s shrinking dominance in the construction industry.  I believe some of the downfall is due to the natural progression of building science—buildings are getting more and more complex.  In the beginning, the architect was in full control of the construction process:  design, engineering, and construction.  Material selection was limited to a small palette with which the architect was quite familiar, and building engineering was uncomplicated, to say the least.  Then, as buildings became more complex, there was a need to bring specialists onto the design team.  This is a reality that gradually became evident throughout the history of the architectural profession.    

Over the next couple of millennia, portions of the architect’s role were divvied out to a multitude of specialized professions, such as engineering (structural, civil, mechanical, electrical, fire protection), contracting, and a slew of other specialties like kitchen design, acoustics, accessibility, theater, etc.  However, just in the past century, building complexity has experienced exponential growth and the architectural profession adjusted to it by shedding more responsibility to others.

In response to the explosive growth in building science, the architectural profession could have retained its dominance by becoming the maestro of the construction industry—the conductor and coordinator of all things related to building.  However, the architectural profession seems ready and willing to let others take control of the construction process as long as the architect reigns supreme in the art of building design—technical matters are for others to be concerned with.  In place of technical proficiency, the architectural profession appears to have substituted on a grand scale social engineering—specifically, sustainability.

I support sustainable construction, but is reroofing a building because it leaked a sustainable solution?  How about ripping out walls because of mold growth, or taking up damaged flooring because water vapor transmission wasn’t addressed…are these sustainable design approaches?  To prove my point of misguided emphasis in the architectural profession, you need not look further than the course listing for continuing education at the 2011 AIA Convention.  Just by reading the titles, of the 157 offerings, 24 (15%) contained the words “sustainable” or “sustainability.”  Another eight courses (5%) used the word “green” and three (2%) had “LEED” in their titles.  This is a total of approximately 22%, nearly a quarter of the courses offered.  But wait, there’s more. 

Since some courses did not use catchy “green wash” terms in their titles, you need to analyze the number of “Sustainable Design” (SD) learning units offered (which is only one of the 28 acceptable topics within the health, safety, and welfare, or HSW, category^{2, 3}) to see the real impact that this new direction has made on the profession.  Out of the 302 total learning units available, 128.25 learning units (42.5%) had the SD designation.  Compare that to only 23.25 learning units (7.7%) available for all other HSW topics—many of which had little to no building technology indicated in the brief course description provided.

My friend and colleague, Walter Scarborough, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP, supports this theory in his blog:

Weak construction documents, the proliferation of consultants that are replacing the services of architects, the expanding role of the contractor, declining technical competency, and a profession that is focused elsewhere are converging to a point in which the architectural profession may not recover.⁴

If architects want to retain whatever edge they tenably hold in the area of building construction, they need to expand their knowledge of building technology and construction documents; architects must also take a leadership role in the design and construction process.  Otherwise, the architect will be relegated to just a design role and nothing more, which begs the question:  If an architect is one who does architecture—the art and science of building design and construction—what do we call a person who only does the art? 

 ____________________________________

¹ Seiler, John. “Debate about the Architect’s Role—Future and Present.” The President and Fellows of Harvard, 1993.

² The list of acceptable topics, according to the American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems’ (AIA/CES) 2011 Provider Manual, includes:  1) accessibility, 2) acoustics, 3) building design, 4) code of ethics, 5) construction administration, 6) construction contract laws, legal aspects, 7) construction documents, services, construction functions materials, methods, and systems, 8) energy efficiency, 9) environmental: asbestos, lead-based paint, toxic emissions, 10) environmental analysis and issues of building materials and systems, 11) fire: building fire codes—flame spread, smoke contribution, explosives, 12) fire safety systems: detection and alarm standards, 13) insurance to protect the owners of property and injured parties, 14) interior design, 15) laws and regulations governing the practice of architecture, 16) life safety codes, 17) materials and systems: roofing/waterproofing, wall systems, etc., 18) material use, function, and features, 19) mechanical, plumbing, electrical: system concepts, materials, and methods, 20) natural hazards (earthquake, hurricane, flood) related to building design, 21) preservation, renovation, restoration, and adaptive reuse, 22) security of buildings, design, 23) site and soil analysis, 24) site design, 25) specification writing, 26) structural issues, 27) evaluation methods, techniques, and 28) sustainable design.

³ Of the 18 required learning units (LUs) that an AIA member must earn during the membership year, 8 are required to be within the health, safety, and welfare (HSW) category.  At the beginning of 2009, the AIA required that 4 of the 8 required HSW LUs include topics relating to sustainable design.

⁴ Scarborough, Walter. "Specifying Mediocrity? Without a Technical Foundation, Design Is on Shaky Ground." Web log post. Durability and Design. The Journal of Architectural Coatings, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. <http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/blog/?fuseaction=view&blogID=57>.

A Rose (or Space) by any Other Name

In Romeo and Juliet, Juliet suggests that Romeo change his name so that he no longer belongs to the House of Montague—the sworn enemy of Juliet’s family, the House of Capulet.  Juliet calls out:

What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet.”

Shakespeare makes the point that a name does not matter, but what it is, does.

Thus, we add a little culture to building codes.  So, how does a tragic play about two lovers apply to building codes?

Specific to that Juliet quote, some architects and owners try to circumvent code requirements by calling something other than what it really is.

For example, an owner insists that a 1-hour fire-resistant separation is not required between a second-floor habitable space and the garage below for a detached structure adjacent to the owner’s residence.  His justification: the habitable space is an “entertainment area” for his pool.  So, what does this “entertainment area” include?  It has a kitchenette, a bathroom, a room with a closet, and a large living room-type space.  Sounds like the characteristics of a dwelling unit.

The International Residential Code's definition of a dwelling unit is “A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.”  If a certificate of occupancy were issued under the owner's premise of an "entertainment area," how long do you think it will take for the owner to install a bed in the room with a closet and lease the second floor “entertainment area” to some college student?

Another common example is a design professional assigning a space a name that implies a specific use different that the actual intended use.  This is done in order to reduce the occupant load or to avoid some other requirements applicable to the actual use, whether initiated by the architect or directed by the owner, this is not ethical and could create problems for the design professional.

Some of these attempts are obvious and some are not.  It is the ones that are not obvious that can create problems...especially if an event would occur that caused damage or personal injury or death and could have been avoided if properly designed for the actual use.  However, it is a dilemma that building officials face: can they force an owner or design professional to apply a use or occupancy that differs from what is indicated on the construction documents?  What if the building official's position was solely based on a “gut feeling” that the space will not be used as indicated or may be used for a different use or occupancy that could create a more hazardous condition?  It is a fine line to walk, but most will likely take the conservative route.

Building officials, too, are known to apply requirements for uses when the space clearly does not need to.  For example, a set of construction documents labels a two-story space in an office building as an “atrium.”  The “atrium” does not comply with the requirements for atriums, but it does comply with the exception in the code section on shaft enclosures that permits a floor opening between two stories without conforming the the requirements for an atrium.  Just because it is called an “atrium” on the drawings, does not make it one by the building code.

The bottom line:  don’t play the name game.  Apply the use or occupancy that is truly applicable—it is what it is.  If a space is used for more than one use, it must comply with the requirements for all intended uses.  Additionally, in order to avoid complications during plan review, design professionals should not label spaces that may infer requirements that are not applicable.

Specifiers - A Psychoanalysis

My initial motivation to become an architect is really a mystery, even unto myself.  The only things I can recall that could have led to this momentous decision are that I liked to observe buildings under construction and that I liked drafting (back when it was on a drafting board).  From that, I must have put two and two together: buildings + drafting = architect.  I’m sure engineers are saying “Hey, buildings plus drafting could mean engineering!”  Well, let me put it this way, it was the closest thing to engineering without having to endure all those advanced math classes.

With that decision made, I completed an important step to satisfy my deep down desire to fly airplanes – fighter airplanes, to be exact. You see, a technical degree (of which architecture is considered to be by the Air Force) was necessary at that time to become an Air Force pilot.  But, that all changed when, during my physical exam for ROTC, I was medically disqualified from a flying career due to less-than-perfect eyesight and a history of allergies.  So, by default, architecture became my primary focus with military service falling to a close secondary.

I survived architecture school with solid but unspectacular results.  I muddled through graphics and design studio, keeping my head above water; however, I did rather well in my technical courses (this should have given me some indication as to my future career path).  But, since the Air Force wasn’t looking for award-winning designers, my design abilities were of no significant concern to me.

Over the years, I moved between several different positions, like a steel ball making its way down a pachinko (Japanese pinball) machine to its final destination; in my case, that of a construction specifier.  Since assuming that role, I’ve often wondered what makes a specifier a specifier?  What personality traits are common amongst us masters of the written construction language? Well, I think I found the answer…

Using myself and other specifiers as prime samples of our unique subculture, I analyzed the personality of the typical “specifier” and developed the following list of traits:

• Organized – Specifiers use MasterFormat: the ultimate in construction document organization.  We arrange everything based on this system: specifications (obviously), computer files, catalogs, etc. We have huge discussions—some even heated—about where one item should be located within the system.  
• Meticulous – Specifiers are very particular about the how the English language is used, especially in the context of their specifications.  Short of being lawyers, we use English in a way to achieve our desires without deleterious loopholes (Do you like that?) that could affect us, our clients, or owners financially.  We’ve even developed a guide, the Construction Specifications Practice Guide, which establishes words that should and should not be used.  Our specification sections follow other standards such as PageFormat and SectionFormat; and, we decompensate when consultants of other disciplines don’t follow them.
• Attention Seeking – Specifiers have a deep yearning to be accepted as equals within the design team, and even within our respective firms, if not an independent consultant.  We’ve established ourselves as the technical experts within the profession; and without us problems would continually arise during design and construction.  There’s even a certification program, the Certified Construction Specifier (CCS), to further our longing for recognition.  We have pointed discussions on promotions and salaries, and, for the independent consultants, fees.  We make statements from a broad perspective such as “Educate architects of the value we bring to their practice,” to direct ones, borrowed from TV commercials, such as “Pay now or pay more later” (Fram Oil Filters).
• Obstinate – Specifiers, through our meticulousness, demand adherence by others to the same standards we hold sacred.  To do anything else is contrary to the holy four C’s of clear, concise, correct, and complete.  We preach “Say it once and in the right place” until we’re blue in the face, but raise our hands and walk away in frustration when a project proceeds contrary to our advice.  Then we repeat the sermon on our next project, hoping to “convert” the next group of sinners.

Well, that’s it; specifiers boiled down to four traits: organized, meticulous, attention seeking, and obstinate.  The next step: find the psychological term that best fits these traits.  What would the professionals call this?  Dr. Freud?…Dr. Phil?…Dr. Ruth?  (Well, maybe not her).

Plugging these traits into my internet search engine, I continually came up with “anal-retentive personality,” or more currently referred to as “obsessive-compulsive disorder,” or OCD.  I recalled back in the last half the 1980s, that the late Phil Hartman played multiple characters on Saturday Night Live of which one was called the “Anal-Retentive Carpenter,” who took wood scraps, double-bagged them, then stapled the bags closed before throwing them out. When I first saw this skit, I had no clue what being “anal-retentive” was.  My wife, the doctor, explained the Freudian term which stems from potty training of 1 to 2 year-olds.  How early use of the john leads to personality quirks is beyond me—maybe that’s why I’m a specifier.

I tried to find some popular examples of anal-retentive behavior.  Felix Unger of The Odd Couple is a classic example of extreme anal-retentive behavior, as well as Frasier Crane and his on-show brother, Niles, and popular sleuths Adrian Monk and Hercule Poirot.  But, specifiers, although not as extreme as those examples above, still exhibit some classic characteristics of anal retentive personalities.

In my research, I’ve found that anal-retentives have most, if not all, the following traits:

• They have a strong conscience and tend to follow traditional roles.
• They set high standards and perform well at work.
• They are dependable, responsible and are dutiful employees.
• They are meticulous, precise and tend to be obsessive and rigid about rules and regulations.
• They are almost always on time and their work is neat and orderly.
• They are conservative in their views and have a strong controlling sense of duty.
• They may be rather introspective and introverted if they are worried about what others will think or how they might be regarded.
• They may have lost some of their ability to assert their own wishes and views.
• They may have to “achieve” to gain the attention and affection of others to make them feel worthy.

If you’re a specifier, does this sound familiar?  So, as a specifier, if someone calls you “anal,” you won’t clobber them because you confused the term with the other derogatory name for the same bodily region.

To paraphrase a line from Peanuts’ Lucy Van Pelt, “The doctor is out…5 cents, please.”

Architects: What was lacking in your Practice Management class?

As a faculty member of Taliesin, Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architect, I’ve been given the opportunity to expand my course offerings at the Taliesin West site to include a course on “Practice Management.”  I remember my own practice management course (called “Ethics and Practice” at the time) while attending the College of Architecture at the University of Arizona.  The course was taught by Professor Ellery C. Green, who came across as gruff to some, but was actually a very likeable and knowledgeable man.

Surprisingly, I still have my notes from that course, which I took almost 28 years ago (it’s amazing how little my handwriting has changed over that time).  There are many things I remember specifically from this course, including my first introduction to what are specifications and how they are organized (i.e. CSI’s MasterFormat), preparing professional correspondence, preparing agreements for professional services based on AIA Documents, and the need to document, document, document.

Although I learned much in my class, after many years of experience there’re some areas that I wished were covered within the course.  In an attempt to avoid leaving out essential information for my students, I would like to know what you think architecture students should know about architectural practice management before entering the profession.

If you’re an architect, what was missing from your practice management course that may have left you ill-prepared to enter the architectural profession?

If you’re not an architect, but work with architects, what do you consider is lacking in the preparation of architecture graduates for the profession?

As-Built vs. Record Documents

I’ve heard people ask what the difference is between “As-Built” documents and “Record” documents.   The terms are frequently used interchangeably, but, from a liability point of view, the two can be quite different.

In AIA Document A201-2007, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, Section 3.11 states:

The Contractor shall maintain at the site for the Owner one copy of the Drawings, Specifications, Addenda, Change Orders and other Modifications, in good order and marked currently to indicate field changes and selections made during construction, and one copy of approved Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and similar required submittals.  These shall be available to the Architect and shall be delivered to the Architect for submittal to the Owner upon completion of the Work as a record of the Work as constructed.

You’ll notice that there is no mention of “as-built” documents, but it does state that the contractor provide documents as a “record of the Work as constructed.”  “As-built” documents have the connotation that the work as shown is exactly as constructed and that the preparer certifies the accuracy of the documents.  As everyone who has remotely worked with a construction project knows, there is no way that marked-up documents can be certified as to their accuracy—the information is supplied by many participants in the construction, and that all information cannot be verified.  As a result, many contractors are being advised by their insurance and legal consultants not to use the term “as-built,” but rather “record” documents.

Design professionals (DPs) should be equally advised to do the same, especially if they are retained to prepare postconstruction documents as a record of the construction.  As with the contractor, the DP is relying on information provided by other parties to prepare the documents—there is no way for the DP to go back into the building to verify specific locations of all building components. 

For architects, AIA Document B101-2007, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect, indicates that preparation of postconstruction documents are an additional service, and that these documents can be provided in two forms:  As-Designed Record Documents and As-Constructed Record Documents.  The former is a consolidation of all documents involving the architects design, including addenda and contract modifications; the latter is the preparation of record documents based on contractor-provided record information required by AIA Document A201.

Whether record documents are prepared by the contractor or by the design professional, contractors and design professionals should seek the advice of their legal and insurance advisors to determine if the inclusion of a disclaimer on the documents is appropriate, especially if an owner insists that the term “as-built” be used.  To verify which term is required, contractors should review Division 01 of the specifications and see what term is required; this is frequently specified in Section 01 78 39 “Project Record Documents.”

What are your experiences with record/as-built documents?

Highest Level of Workmanship?

I recently reviewed a client’s set of drawings and one of the “general notes” on the cover sheet stated, “The work shall be performed to the highest level of workmanship standards of the building trades working under this contract.”  What does that mean?

First, let’s start with a basic review of what a “general note” on the drawings should be.  Foremost, general notes, as CSI’s Uniform Drawing System (UDS) states, “do not repeat specification content on the drawings nor are they repeated within the specifications.”  General notes should be able to stand on their own to assist the user of the drawings in interpreting the entire set of drawings--not just one discipline’s drawings.  If it sounds like a specification requirement, it probably is.

At first blush, one would say that the general note in question might comply with that basic requirement, since the General Conditions (A201-2007) do not mention “workmanship” and neither do properly prepared Division 01 sections.  The fact that “workmanship,” or its cousin “workmanlike,” are missing in these documents is not by accident, but, rather, by design.  These words, although defined in almost every dictionary, are not terms to be used in construction documents because they alone cannot be quantified.  

There is no doubt that specifications should address workmanship, but the use of phrases such as “install in a workmanlike manner” or “provide the best workmanship” are too vague and are open to interpretation.  Workmanship requirements should be specific to that work result and establish a set of criteria that can be measured.

To flip the tables for a moment, let us assume that a design professional is awarded a project by an owner.  The owner hands the design professional a contract that states the design professional shall perform services at the “highest level of standard of care.”  The design professional then takes this contract to the design professional’s attorney and professional liability insurer for their review.  After recovering from the verbal tongue lashing and wrist slapping, the design professional approaches the owner with a revised contract that deletes “highest level.”  Design professionals who have even the slightest understanding of common professional standard of care laws would know not to sign a contract with such language.

Now, I understand that the legal system does not treat design services the same as construction services, but why would design professionals insert such language in a construction document if design professionals themselves have been indoctrinated not to sign contracts with similar verbiage?

“Highest level of workmanship” is an expectation that may vary significantly between owner, contractor, and design professional.  Additionally, it may be contrary to other requirements in the contract documents.  What if “custom” quality woodwork installation per Architectural Woodwork Standards (AWS) is specified for a project—does “highest level of workmanship” now require “premium” quality?

Quality of workmanship requirements needs to be objective.  The use of standards and tolerances are examples of establishing a level of workmanship desired and provides measurable criteria for enforcement by the owner and design professional.  The bottom line is: do not insert language in the contract documents—drawings, specifications, general conditions, supplementary conditions, etc.—that the owner or design professional cannot enforce. 

ConsensusDOCS and the Architect’s Role During Contract Administration

When doing some research for an article I was writing I read through some of the recently updated documents published by ConsensusDOCS.  Although I’ve heard rumors about how the ConsensusDOCS has changed the architect’s involvement in the construction process, I never really knew the details—until now. 

The two documents that I will focus on are the ConsensusDOCS 240, Standard Agreement Between Owner and Design Professional, and the ConsensusDOCS 200, Standard Agreement and General Conditions Between Owner and Constructor.  For brevity, I reference these documents  as “CD 240” and “CD 200,” respectively.

In the familiar AIA Document A201, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, it states in Section 4.2.4 that “the Owner and Contractor shall endeavor to communicate with each other through the Architect.”  This is so the architect, who is responsible for construction contract administration per Section 4.2.1, is kept informed as to the issues involving the project.  However, the ConsensusDOCS documents virtually remove the architect (or “design professional” as used by ConsensusDOCS) from this intermediary role.  As a matter of fact, unlike the AIA Document A201, the CD 200 does not have an article that describes the “design professional’s” role in the administration of the construction contract—with rare exception in CD 200, the design professional’s role during construction is largely defined in CD 240, which the constructor (the term used by ConsensusDOCS in lieu of “contractor”) does not have access to unless the owner or architect provides a copy.

I’m not advocating or criticizing the ConsensusDOCS, but I just want to point out some of the differences—differences that I think actually reduce the A/E’s involvement and increase the owner’s.  Many owners are familiar with the services that architects typically provide, usually under an AIA agreement and general conditions.  However, if owners, familiar with AIA documents, use the ConsensusDOCS, they will find themselves more involved than they intended.

So, if you’re an owner and you plan to use ConsensusDOCS documents, are you willing to do the following?

• Request the contractor to uncover work so you can inspect it per CD 200, Section 3.10.1?  AIA A201, Section 12.1.2, indicates the architect may do this, which could be at the request of the owner.
• Require the contractor to uncover work that was supposed to remain visible by contract requirement for the owner’s observation per CD 200, Section 3.10.2?  AIA A201, Section 12.1.1, indicates the architect can request uncovering of work if either the architect directed the contractor to leave it uncovered for inspection or by contract requirement.
• Notify the constructor when the owner deems that any part of the work or worksite is unsafe and direct the contractor to stop work or take corrective action per CD 200, Section 3.11.6?  AIA A201 allows the owner to stop work if the contractor doesn’t conform to the requirements of the contract documents (Section 2.3), but does not mention safety-related issues.  Although CD 200 takes precautions by stating the owner may do so “without assuming responsibility for the Constructor’s safety program,” it has not been tested in court and could still add risk on the part of the owner.
• Review and approve submittals per CD 200 3.14.2?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8.1, states the design professional will review and make approvals of or recommendations about submittals to the owner within 10 days after receipt of submittals from constructor, but there is no direct response to the constructor.  Thus, the owner must return the approved submittals to the constructor with reasonable promptness (but not less than 10 days, obviously).  AIA A201, Section 4.2.7, states that the architect will “review and approve, or take other appropriate action upon,” submittals—timeframes are usually included in the specifications in Division 01.  An interesting side note is that according to CD 200, submittals shall be reviewed and approved—what if a submittal fails to comply with requirements?  AIA A201 allows the architect to “take other appropriate action,” such as returning them as “revise and resubmit” if a submittal fails to comply with requirements.
• Order changes in the work formalized in a change order per CD 200, Section 8.1.1?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8.2, indicates the design professional will assist the owner in the evaluation and processing of requests for changes, but not in the preparation of change orders, themselves.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.8 and 7.2.1 indicates the architect will prepare the change order.  Some owners already do this, so this isn’t much of a change for those owners.
• Issue written Interim Directed Changes to the constructor per CD 200, Section 8.2.1?  There are no requirements in CD 240 for the design professional to assist the owner in preparing Interim Directed Changes, other than Section 3.2.8.2 mentioned above.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.8 and 7.3.1, indicates the architect will prepare Construction Change Directives.
• Issue written orders to the constructor for incidental changes per CD 200, Section 8.5?  There are no requirements in CD 240 for the design professional to assist the owner in preparing incidental changes, other than Section 3.2.8.2 previously mentioned.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.8 and 7.4, indicates the architect has the authority to order minor changes in the work.
• Adjust or reject a pay application, or nullify a previously approved pay application and notify the constructor of such per CD 200, Section 9.3?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8.5, indicates the design professional shall assist the owner in processing pay applications, to include certifying amounts due.  What is unclear is whether the owner can adjust or reject a pay application the design professional has already certified, or if the design professional certifies a pay application only after the owner makes adjustments, if any.  AIA A201, Section 9.5.1, allows the architect to adjust or withhold a pay application and to notify the contractor; there is no provision for the architect or owner to nullify a previously approved pay application.
• Conduct an inspection of the work, after being notified by the constructor, to determine if substantial completion is achieved per CD 200, Section 9.6.1?  CD 200 states that the design professional will assist the owner in the inspection, as well as in CD 240, Section 3.2.8.8.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.9 and 9.8.3, indicates that the architect will perform the inspection to determine substantial completion.
• Prepare a list of items that need to be completed or corrected before substantial completion is achieved per CD 200, Section 9.6.1?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8.8, states that the design professional’s assistance includes compiling the list.  AIA A201, Section 9.8.3, does not require a list from the architect, but that the architect shall notify the contractor of items that need to be completed or corrected before a certificate of substantial completion can be issued.  As another side note, CD 200, Section 9.6.2, requires the constructor to prepare the certificate of substantial completion and a list of items that still need to be completed or corrected (i.e. punchlist).  There is no provision for the owner or the design professional to review this list prior to the constructor’s preparation of the certificate of substantial completion.
• Conduct an inspection of the work to determine final completion per CD 200, Section 9.8.1?  CD 200 states that the design professional will assist the owner in the inspection, as well as in CD 240, Section 3.2.8.9.  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.9 and 9.10.1, indicates that the architect will perform the inspection to determine final completion.
• Provide clarifications regarding omissions and errors in the drawings and specifications per CD 200, Section 14.2.2?  CD 240, Section 3.2.8, states that the design professional will respond to the constructor requests for information, but on interpretations and clarifications of the drawings and specifications, the design professional responds to the owner, and to the constructor, if directed by the owner (What if the request for information requires an interpretation?).  AIA A201, Sections 4.2.11 and 4.2.12, states that the architect will respond to requests of interpretation by the owner or contractor and make interpretations and decisions consistent with the intent of the contract documents.  A final side note, CD 200, Section 14.2.2, also states if there is a conflict between drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern—no provision for interpretation by the design professional or the owner.  AIA A201 does not set precedence when there is a conflict between drawings and specifications.

Although the tripartite contractual arrangement described in CSI’s Project Delivery Practice Guide still exists with the ConsensusDOCS documents, the third-party obligations between the contractor/constructor and the architect/design professional is greatly diminished to the point where the architect/design professional is an appendage of the Owner rather than a lead in the administration of the construction contract.  As indicated above, the owner takes the lead and the architect/design professional becomes an assistant to the owner.

In my opinion, the ConsensusDOCS 200 has inconsistencies that will require correction.  AIA Document A201 has had a century of trial and error, which the ConsensusDOCS 200 lacks.  Over time I see the ConsensusDOCS 200 mutating to create a greater balance of responsibilities between all three parties, probably through its own trial and error process through the court system and personal experience.