I’m not sure I understand your response. I thought coordination of Div 01 and the General Conditions was Spec Writing 101.
Does your contract exclude coordination of Div 01 with the General Conditions or something like that? Do you end up coordinating it some other way?
Seems strange that you wouldn’t coordinate it, given your efforts in coordinating other things, like the stamp language.
When I was consulting and couldn’t get clients to share their Division 00 content but was still on the hook to get Division 01 out without impacting the schedule, I would give them a boilerplate (unedited) Division 01 with the explanation that this was all I owed them until they responded with a Division 00. I had to alter my standard contract after my very first consulting project to emphasize that my fee was based on A201 with a reasonable Supplementary Conditions; custom front ends resulted in an hourly rate for Division 01. With those I insisted on being paid to sit down with the lawyer who wrote the document as well as the client so we could go over every point in the document as I didn’t want to be responsible for accidentally including something correct that was at odds with the insane clauses some of these folks insisted on including in the CD language.
I coordinate the specs with AIA 201 and the documents I am given access to. My crystal ball broke a long time ago. I make a lot of educated guesses. If I am not privy to General Condition revisions, I don’t worry about them. That’s the architect’s concern.
I never took Spec Writing 101, I learned to write specs the old fashioned way, by writing them. I was fortunate to have a few mentors along the way.
Guest, I also work predominately in the private sector, perhaps that keeps my nose clean. Whatever the reason, I stay out of trouble, get the job done for the right price, and am considered an exceptional specwriter among my clients and peers. I really can not offer more of an explanation, perhaps I am just good at what I do or perhaps I am a Charlatan…your guess is as good as mine.
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t like making guesses, educated or otherwise. That’s just my preference.
Back to debating the stamp language …
I no longer try to explain the Submittal Stamp in the specs. Some overly complex stamps are not understood by the architects. This is probably a topic for the preconstruction conference.
CCS = Certified Charlatan Specifier?
George, I like your comment. Warped minds think a like?
I think it is important that the meaning of each action indicated on the submittal stamp be explained in Division 01 section for submittal procedures. As an in-house specifier, I have the luxury of not needing to update this frequently, and I sympathize with consultants who work with many firms with different stamps. But I would say that it is necessary to offer a clear understanding of this process to bidders.
Each of the firms I have worked for has had lengthy discussions from time to time on exactly what each action means and what changes might be worth considering. If an architect cannot explain what the actions mean, then how do they know how to use the stamp? I think they do know, and with the help of a specifier language can be developed, perhaps along the lines suggested by Richard Baxter above.
Jerome,
Thanks for bringing up this topic. It could easily bleed into a lengthy construction administration discussion.
I agree with George. We should not be seduced into making the stamps too complicated with additional boxes to check.
What was once a generally-accepted set of actions (Approved, Approved as Noted, Revise/Resubmit, and Rejected) has been strongly influenced to change by the professional liability insurers. Most of the engineers I work with have modified their Action Stamp language to comments so bland that they border on no action at all. I’ve noticed this with contractors and CMs as well. Recently, I’ve been getting stamps from contractors that are really nothing more than acknowledgement of receipt - they don’t display anything but the Contractor’s name and the date they were entered into their office records.
Almost every consulting engineer I work with has taken a similar approach in the last ten years, especially the large firms.
One reason for this is we are moving steadily toward an institutional outlook on everything. When one works in a large system dominated by rules, one loses the incentive to take any forthright action for fear of being reprimanded or even terminated. You have to consult an ever-growing list of rules before you can do anything or else you get into trouble.
Because each office has its own policies, I think it is right that Jerome should be furnished with the definitions he seeks by each client he works for. He shouldn’t have to provide them, any more than specifiers should determine what the supplementary conditions for the standard contract should be.
David
A lot of insinuations about consultants but no specifics.
In general the only submittals the consultant expects to receive are the ones he requested in his specification sections. I would suggest that as a result he can define the nature of the review. I would be concerned if the consultant was not sensitive to the potential liability associated with submittals.
David reminds us that engineers and consultants often use stamps that are different than the architect’s. If the spec explains the architect’s language, shouldn’t it also explain the engineer’s or consultant’s?
The way I look at it the engineer is making recommendations to his client the Architect. How the architect passes those recommendations on to the contractor is reflected in the architect’s stamp. Thus I see no need to explain the consultant’s stamp although it might be desirable to point this out to the contractor.
Wow, so many questions, have been raised, at least for me, but first I need a clarification from my peers, esp those with Insurance:
I’ve made the assumption that the Architect (my client) has reviewed the contents of their Consultants Submittal Stamps, just as I do on every project to coordinate the Submittal spec section. I would think Insured Architects would be required to do so by their Insurance Company so that everyone is on the same page.
Is this not the case?
Jerome
Insurance companies do not impose requirements especially with regards to submittal stamps. In the past one carrier may have suggested submittal stamp language but that is it was suggested language.
Professional errors and omissions policies define the amount and extent of the coverage. The professional is free to do what he wants and if there is a claim, coverage is provided based on the policy. It is a hands off relationship and the insurance carrier is not even aware of the detailed practices of the professional
Many firms require their consultants use the same stamps as primary.
And how would architects feel if the Owner required that the architect use a stamp imposed by the Owner?
Mark, perhaps the Owner would like that especially if the Architect signed it with his own blood, sort of a blood oath. Prior to becoming a full time specifier, I worked as a Project Manager, the firms I worked for took shop drawing stamps seriously and coordinated with the engineers to make sure all were on the same page and yes 25 years ago they talked to their insurance agents, I guess times have changed.
Mark Gilligan is right to call me out on the insinuations he reads in my post above.
We have to take care not to disparage groups of people based on a comparatively small sample. However, I’ve had a string of projects to administer these two or three years that have put me in a disparaging mood.
Being at the end of the submittal line, in a way, I’m sensitive to other participants’ lack of spirit in “embracing” submittals by using comment stamps with language less assertive than my own. “Approved” seems to have disappeared altogether, as has “rejected.”
When you get down to it, there’s not much to take issue with - merely semantics adjusted to (hopefully) manage risk - a thin layer of warmth against the cold rain and snow.
Thanks for the medicine, Mark and others.
The language in AIA A201 regarding the Architect “approving” submittals has not changed significantly in 30 years despite the efforts of some to “tone down” the language. It seems to me that some of this originated with the courts in western states. This does seem to much less of an issue in other parts of the US.
I sometimes close my eyes and try to imagine an attorney trying to get someone to explain how something gets submitted, the contract conditions call for approval or rejection, and what the difference is between “Approved” and “Action A.”
The purpose of the submittal process is for the Contractor to show how he/she intends to comply with contract requirements. It is not for redesigning the building or acting on a substitution request. If the Contractor has acted correctly and in good faith, the least the Architect owes him/her is a clear “Approved” or “Reject” stamp. Next thing you know we will be issuing gold stars or smiley faces (and having to explain that).