A fellow CSI member brought to my attention the following on the AIA Discussions about clients in the Florida area asking that project manuals not be prepared for projects–primarily for multifamily residential projects.
I have a vague recollection that this was previously discussed here on 4specs, but I couldn’t find the thread. Jerome, this is in your neck of the woods, have you seen this happening?
Here’s the link to the AIA Discussion in question if you want to post there:
Ron and others,
It has been discussed in 4Specs in the recent past. My employer has replaced the Project Manual for a wide variety of projects. Output is in MSWord or AutoCAD, depending on the full-size dimensions of the drawing sheets. Follow the recommendations for shortform specifications by Herman Hoyer. Mr. Hoyer states “Short-form specifications are construction specifications reduced to the shortest length possible without reducing the effectiveness of the specifications and without sacrificing any essential ingredients. For smaller projects, short-form specifications can take the form of notes on the drawings.”
Wayne
Ron this is happening in epidemic proportions as I have preached on this forum in the past. BTW, not being a member of AIA, I am not able to post on their forum, ironically the architect who posted the query on 3/18 is a past client at a different firm, whom I have had discussion with…I will reach out to John thru linkedin.
IMHO, Contractors in Florida have succeeded in convincing Owners/Developers that omitting specifications from the Contract Documents will save them significant $$$. Of course this means leaving the quality of construction up to the Contractor who only cares about the amount of $$$ in their pocket. This is happening mostly on condominium work where in this cycle there are billions of dollars of construction moving forward without specifications, I have seen long time clients who always use specifications decline to use them.
Even on projects where specifications are included I have seen back room deals where Developers have deleted specifications from the Construction Contract without telling the Architect which places the Architect in a serious position since the drawings were prepared with specifications in place.
Even Architects are agreeing to this approach, if the Developer won’t pay for the specifications, the Architects are not willing to take the fees out of their contracts.
Phil, greed and fear of litigation also plays a part, One of the ways a Condo litigator can prove negligence by an Architect is to prove that the specifications are not coordinated with the drawings. A good specifier will ensure this is part of their service, but Architects must do their part by instructing their PM’s to read the specifications. This has not happened, Architects use many excuses for this, they assume the specifier has a crystal ball and can predict changes to the documents.
Phil appealing to the State licensing board is a total waste of time when it comes to this approach. I have a great deal of respect for DPBR, but they will not get involved in this, primarily because the Architects in Florida have given up the fight…for now.
I expect that 5-7 years from now when defects and shoddy construction starts surfacing the Architects will start realizing they have been duped. It will be too late than.
Fortunately I have a few clients who are not following the pack, these are the ones who have already experienced litigation and realize the important of specifications.
Wayne, I prepare short form specifications on some projects, mostly multi-family low to mid rise rental projects, but I refuse to do so on Condo work.
I know of at least one 70+ story condo tower under construction in SFL without specifications, I was asked to prepare specs for the project by both the Architect and Developer, however they insisted on Outline specs limited to a few paragraphs per section, I refused to do that, I gave the Architect a list of other specifiers in the state and nationally, but I guess no one took the offer, as there are no specs on file for the project.
Interesting discussion. I left a firm that had a history of issuing spec-free documents on certain types of hi-rise construction. They’ve been doing it for years and believe that the client will protect them. So far, so good for them. I hope for their sakes it never changes.
Considering the change in rules that’s coming for condo work as a result of the SOM debacle in California, architects can now be sued by condo owners. I have no idea how an architect will be able to defend themselves in a court case when a condo association comes after them with the argument that they left out a significant portion of their code-mandated documents.
Seeing how architectural specs typically account for 1 (maybe 1-1/2) percent of the Architect’s fee, I can’t believe that any architect believes that they can’t put together specs for a project. I can see where Contractors can argue that those meddlesome specs add to the cost of construction.
Some people just seem to have more money than brains.
At my previous firm, I put together a set of specs for interior products and a one-section Div-01 that could be put on the drawings, but we limited use to tenant improvement projects where a single contractor is employed by the bldg owner to do all TI work. Such a contractor is motivated by repeat work to do high-quality work with minimal change orders, and thus specs can be very brief without compromising protection for client or architect.
Larger, more complex projects require tight contract documents. It’s like the old proverb, ‘good fences make good neighbors.’ Good contract documents are ‘fences’ that make it clear what everyone is to do.
BTW, our firm has an office in Shanghai where we do work as consulting architects with local architects of record. The staff there tell me that in China the owner (or separate consultant) writes specifications, and that the A/E is not allowed to write them, although we provide a list of primary products on which the design is based.
On Condo work at one time Florida Statutes Chapter 718.301 was successfully used to illustrate the requirement for “plans and specifications” required to document construction, however I have not had an instance in the past 10 years where we were asked to follow the Statue. There was a time in 2000 & 2001 where we were asked to include the pertinent Statues as a part of the Appendix in regards to warranty requirements which are very confusing. Discussing this with attorneys they agree how confusing Chapter 718 is, however there answer to me was, that is why there are attorneys, to clarify insane documents like this.
Also at one time their was a requirement that Record Drawings and Specifications be turned over to the Association by the Developer at turnover and that these Drawings and Specifications depict the actual construction, but that requirement seems to have been dropped, even though it is still in the Statue.
Unfortunately as an independent specifier I seldom get involved in litigation, I’ve been told it is because the litigators can find nothing wrong with my specifications. On projects wher the specifications are read and utilized there are minimal problems as I have never received a complaint about the specs.
So the question is will the insanity of Florida Architects to disregard incorporation of specifications in the Contract Documents spread to other States? From what I have been told, it has already occurred.
Because these are mostly condominiums, I can divulge online where and who, I do suggest you all watch your backs, the next 5 - 10 years IMHO will be a litigation bonanza.
With any luck I’ll be retired or dead by than.
Ken, would you mind bringing me up to date about the SOM debacle in California, I’ve only recently pulled my head out of my ass to read about condo problems in other states.
The standard of care bar in Florida is on the ground and no one cares till the LEAKY CONDO CRISIS repeats itself. Solve the problem by building apartments. After the statute of limitations and repose has expired, convert apartments to condos. You may get paid twice for the same specification.
Wayne, I am totally confused by your post…stucco delamination is the current crisis as is noise control, mold and mildew is always a problem, leaky condos are the nature of the beast in Florida it has never gone away.
There is much more $$$ in building condos than apts and when possible apts built since the last condo crisis have been converted to condo. Still I have several clients who have been burned on condo litigation that shy away from condo work and concentrate on apartments. BTW these are also the clients that prefer 16 division format specs…these clients have been burned, they know what works for their practices, they insist on including specifications, but on their terms. I find it hard to disagree.
You can actually read the court’s decision and understand better where you are open to litigation by the SOM/HKS lawsuit. I cannot remember where the link was. I think I remember the original article in CA ENR email and it had a link to the actual court documents. In my humble opinion, the litigation opens the architect to lawsuits by the individual owners of the condos for decisions made by the owner. An example: the owner instructs the architect to change the window type to a cheaper type. If the architect changes his documents and just informs the client that they do not agree, then they can be further sued by the individual property owners instead of them suing the owner. It is an interesting document to read. Again, IMHO, I think it actually allows a firm to say no to the client substitutions due to the court’s ruling. The court’s opinion read that the client hired the architect for his professional expertise.
I am not a lawyer, but I do think it has interesting ramifications. Will it spread? I think so.
Alan, hopefully someone on this board has a link to that document, I’ve searched for it, but the amount of hits are overwhelming, I really need more info and specifics.
I did a search of “som condo lawsuit” and three stories popped up. Including this one. http://www.aiacc.org/2014/07/09/california-supreme-court-rules-against-som/
I found the following article (and links to others at the bottom) interesting with regard to the Beacon vs. SOM case:
http://www.aiacc.org/2014/11/25/fear-mongers-beacon-v-som-end-world-know/
I doubt this is what Alan Mays referred to above.
Alan - Is this the decision you are referring to?
Yes, Curt, I think it is.
Here are the opening briefs:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2-s208173-resps-opening-brief-merits-053013.pdf