CSI Endorses ConsensusDOCS

Construction Specification Institute Institute Discussions
1

I can’t believe it. I have not been able to study recent versions of this stuff, but what I have seen is not very good.

The Project Resource Manual will have to be re-written to reflect a group of documents that attempts to relegate the architect to a peripheral role during construction. There are several items that, assuming they have not been revised) violate basic principals of contracting. Declaring shop drawings to be contract documents means that a 3rd party may redefine the construction contract.

Oh well, I will be interested to see if the contractor community still endorse this manure pile after they get sued for issues related design liability after they forge ahead with their idea of what should be done (with the Owner’s approval). It will also be interesting to see how the AHJ view this role.

2

yes, I’m seeing just how much CSI represents our interests..

3

Peter, good points… But, as they say, if you follow the money, a CSI endorsement of ConDocs the next logical step.

BSD, a newly aquired company by CSI (if you hadn’t heard), is the software manufacturer for DocuBuilder. The platform on which ConDocs runs.

check it out… http://www.bsdsoftlink.com/bsdabout.htm

4

so why endorse documents that strongly favor the general contractor, slam the subs, and relegate the architect to a side role? Does CSI have that many general contractor members?

5

Maybe this is their way of attracting the real money in the industry. They can change the name to Contractor’s Specification Institute.

6

Yes, ConsensusDOCS are different from the AIA documents we all know and love, but they are not inherently evil. Assuming they are well-coordinated, they merely present a different way of doing business. Even though we treat AIA and EJCDC documents as being the same, there are differences in the way they do things, so is one better than the other?

I did look at the ConsensusDOCS when they came out, and though I may like things better the AIA way, I know there are many contractors who don’t like the way AIA documents force responsibility onto the contractor and protect the architect.

I’m sure most design professionals have worked for owners who have their own view of the construction world, which often differs markedly from the AIA view. Are the owners wrong? From their perspective, their documents, which in my view often slam the design professional and the contractor and the subs and anyone else they can think of, are the right way to do things, i.e., the way they want them done.

As to endorsement, what does it mean? Several years ago, when I was on the Institute TechCom, we had a number of discussions about what it meant to endorse EJCDC documents. As I recall, the committee couldn’t decide what it meant, and we rejected requests to endorse documents from other organizations.

7

There are key issues with AGC ConsensusDocs that go beyond their different way of doing business. The largest concern is introducing a means of altering the content of the contract without the participation of the architect via direct owner approval of contractor submittals. This process has the potential for enormous harm. I can foresee a Kansas City Hyatt Skywalk collapse resulting from this process. This and other provisions that distance the architect from contract administration may fall short of state architectural licensing provisions, requiring architects to require owners to modify the contract content just to re-introduce the minimum required architectural presence required by statute or code. The other concern is the impact of the contract on architects’ liability insurance - there’s likely been enough time for that to be sorted out, but the initial reviews of this contract system by the insurers were not favorable.

I and others have speculated that with this endorsement CSI will likely elevate AGC ConsensusDocs to an equal status with AIA and EJCDC documents in the PRM/MOP and in certification body of knowledge materials. This will result in a sea change in these materials, with the need for detailed “if you have this contract, you’ll have these provisions” representation. Architects familiar with the AIA documents will not be likely to look favorably on an education program that supports the undermining of their control of construction quality assurance activities, which I believe is the AGC’s underlying intent for their contract provisions.

8

Well, the KC Hyatt occurred without ConsensusDOCS…
:wink:

9

Look.
Architects (and I’m one) are pretty much useless.
You can hire engineers and consultants galore and get ICC to review your dwgs for code compliance(life safety)get a skilled, but unlicensed, spec consultant to write the spec, a cost estimator, a construction manager and all the others..
Really!
What do architects bring to the table? Oh I forgot - black turtlenecks, round glasses, attitude, and no understanding of budget or construction process. But DESIGN Oh! they bring that!
Nope! I can hire one of those too (without license) If it was not for state laws requiring it we would not exist.

10

[…with apologies to Francis P. Church, Virginia, Santa Claus, Marc, 4specs, and architects everywhere, but in the spirit of the season…]

"Dear 4Specs

I am 8 years old. Some of my little friends say there is no Architect. Papa says, If you see it in 4specs, its so. Please tell me the truth, are there Architects?

Marc Chavez"

Marc, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Marc, whether they be mens or childrens, are little. In this great universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, Marc, there are Architects. They exist as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Architects! It would be as dreary as if there were no Marcs. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Architects! You might as well not believe in fairies or contractors. No Architects! Thank God! they live and live forever. A thousand years from now, Marc, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, they will continue to make glad the heart of childhood. Or not.

11

There are many times, my most cynical moments, when I would wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Chavez. Over my career, however, I have been fortunate to work with a number of architects who have been diligent and professional in their service to their clients. These design professionals are aware of their clients’ needs and their budget, and their responsibility to execute their role in a project’s realization wheither it is to select a color, rearrange the structure to accomodate the HVAC system, or tell the contractor that the dampproofing product proposed for the project does not meet the specifications for a vapor-permeable air barrier.

I am not a member of the group of architects that swears that all contractors are evil SOBs who are out to cheat owners, but I do believe that complex undertakings, such as design and construction of almost any building, require oversight involving checking and rechecking. Contractors will sometimes have better ideas about specific products and issues having to do with constructability. However, as in the case of a recent project with which I was involved, the contractor was simply doing what he had always done for this owner without looking at the specifications which were written with a somewhat higher quality in mind. Under the provisions of the ConsensusDOCS, what standing does the architect have to identify the product submittal as a substitution of a system of a lower quality than that specified? What happens if this is a roofing system or fire proofing rather than interior tile setting or wall covering? There is a great deal of emphasis on the owner and contractor agreeing to proceed on a variety of issues; what if the architect raises a legitimate and substantive objection?

This may be OK for sophisticated owners who work on the same type of project with the same contractor or group of contractors, but many owners are not experienced or informed enough to understand all the implications of a contractor’s proposal to use a particular product rather than the product specified.

I may have to pay for a copy of the current ConsensusDOCs to see for myself. I do believe, however, that these documents are tailor-made for those who feel that nothing beats quality like a good price.

12

If you haven’t already done so, I would suggest it would be good to go to the discussion forums on this topic where CSI Board Members have been participating to have a better understanding of what this endorsement means and doesn’t mean:

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=706547&type=news&item=274974660&qid=d572292a-ef36-4c82-863f-e73461de3de9&goback=%2Egmp_706547

http://new.csinet.org/csi_services/forums.aspx?ForumID=51&TopicID=1294

You wil find that CSI also endorses EJCDC documents so the endorsement is not saying CSI prefers the ConsensusDOCS over other sets of documents. AIA neither seeks or accepts endorsement of the AIA documents.

You will also find that the endorsement is only for conformance to CSI technical principles. The press release sort of said that - “The CSI Technical Committee reviewed six documents for adherence to CSI principles, and recommended endorsement of those documents.” But the press release did not make it clear that the endorsement only related to that - it certainly could have clearer in what the endorsement meant.

The endorsement does not include the endorsement of the relationships, rights, and responsibilities of the parties in the ConsensusDOCS just like it doesn’t for the EJCDC documents. Various segments of the CSI membership will have preferences for particular sets of documents depending on how their role is treated as evidenced by the discussion above. It is not CSI’s role to show a preference for one over the other in this regard but rather to explain the differences, benefits, and limitations of the different sets of documents and project delivery methods.

The question of how this endorsement might affect the content of the Practice Guides (successor to the PRM) is open for future discussion and decision. The Practice Guides that will soon be available will not have revisions that relate to this endorsement - the AIA/EJCDC documents will still be the primary examples in the discussion of the relationships of the parties for the design-bid-build project delviery method.

13

But you know, one of the problems with a wishy-washy endorsement such as “we endorse for adherence to CSI principles” is that no one is going to put that on their marketing brochures; it will simply say “endorsed by CSI”. And it won’t say “only these six documents”, it will say “endorsed by CSI”.

14

ConsensusDocs have been published for 3-4 years at least. Has anyone done a project where they were used? I haven’t, and I do 30-40 projects a year, about half private using AIA documents or modifications thereof, and half doing public work which use their own (usually modifications of an old edition of AIA) documents.

15

Jo, I asked that question on Linked In, and got no “yes” responses. Since they are the old AGC docs, its possible that they are used more for projects that don’t actually have architects.

16

I’m tired of deception.

Things seeming to be one thing and they really are quite another.

Has anyone else received a letter from ConsensusDOCS that touts the CSI endorsement, and rails on “other standard contracts”? It goes on to say theirs are “best practice contracts”, etc, etc.

I was taken aback for the jab this is at what CSI should consider as our core client base if we are an organization pertaining to specifications.

The letter certainly would lead people to think that CSI’s endorsement is for the relationships, rights, and responsibilities of the parties in the contract, but like Bob pointed out above, that is not the case – the endorsement was only for adherence to the CSI principles and it was a very limited set of ConsensusDOCS documents that were reviewed at that time – now the letter mentions over a hundred contracts, and CSI had only reviewed 6 of them. Just like Anne predicted would happen.

With increased push to use ConsensusDOCS I foresee some architecture firms going out of business from the hit this will take on their duties and their new level of risk. Design firms who do know the difference will have to compete against those who don’t know, so quality will suffer for all. Like Phil points out it is a very real possibility to have literally disastrous results.

What do building officials think about this, I would like to know. Were they invited to this “Consensus”? Were any groups that uphold professional licensing standards or liability insurance? And of course they fail to mention they DID NOT have a consensus with architects.

I don’t see how this is not going to rob architects who are the client base of specifiers, whether you are in-house or a consultant. In the unlikely event that 100% of architectural firms do detect the increased risk and raise the fees, have the owners gained anything? In the long run, they would have to pay more, because who is in the best position to manage the risk of things done in the field? How is an architect going to know when they slip in incorrect products? One should think it is the contractor who can best manage that.

I for one would have to charge more, to review all my specifications and rework many of them to fit this model. Please don’t think I’m a stick in the mud who would fight against progress. If this is progress, I need to see the whole team aware of the implications and buying into it, properly rewarded for their contributions and new risk allocation.

Don’t call it a consensus and leave out vital parties involved in the process! While I’m glad you have a consensus of many subcontractor and contracting groups and some owners who so far think this sounds like a good idea, this could have been done more constructively, as it had been for over a hundred years working TOGETHER with the AIA who always strived to accept construction team input in its revision cycles. You could have brought your new consensus to them and said “look you are not getting it about some things.” I wasn’t there, maybe you did. Maybe you tried. But I think this radically different approach to risk is going to burn some architects AND owners, resulting in less chance of getting what you want in the end.

17

Chris; I want to agree with you when you said: “the AIA who always strived to accept construction team input”. However I wonder if the construction team, whoever that may be, would agree that their input had been accepted or even considered. I am not saying you are incorrect because I don’t know the answer but I suspect that if the AIA had truly accepted construction team input consesusDOCS might not be getting the support that it presently is.

I worry that the AIA has been to reluctant to accept any new risk and as such has predicated the desire by others in the industry to replace AIA documents altogether. Is it possible that we won the battle but are now losing the war?

18

Consensus Docs is “sponsoring” a free webinar on August 7, comparing a few provisions of AIA & Consensus docs. I doubt any objectivity since it’s sponsored by Consensus docs, but it does qualify for AIA/CES units!

19

Did others receive this letter from ConsensusDOCS? I would like to know how widespread it was – perhaps to every professional CSI member, or maybe a smaller targeted group.

20

I did receive a letter from ConsensusDOCS recently.