I’m curious who includes edition dates for every reference in their specs. I have seen specs, including mine with the statement: “comply with standards in effect as of date of the Contract Documents”. I have a client that wants me to include the edition date for every reference, including AWS, ACI, NFPA, SDI, etc. etc.
How does everyone else handle edition dates in their specs?
The first sentence under the References article states:
Reference Standards: Current edition at date of Bid.
Ditto David’s response. If someone were to undertake the task of looking up the dates for the thousands of standards for all their specs and typing them all into the section text of each document, by the time they got finished it would be time to start over again because many would have changed already! Referencing the date of the documents themselves is also legally binding and has far less chance of error.
Some standards are referenced in the building code, thus the date of the standard should be the one referenced in the building code even if it is not the latest. These probably only change every 3 years.
Mark is correct. I saw this condition on several occasions as a code official.
Reference documents listed in the building code are mandatory, even if out dated. Often the older versions will have provisions that impose on new work. Newer versions may allow solutions with different technology, BUT one must follow and meet the older version.
If you feel that the newer provisions allow for better solutions, an appeal can be taken to solicit a decision that allows use of the more current edition-- but this must be done on a case-by-case basis.
Appropriate changes are made during each cycle of code changes, but still during the interval the older versions are the law.
I agree with David and Chris; however, there is, I think, another thread on this point which has more discussion about references to obsolete or superceded standards in building codes.
When the SpecLink database was originally being developed, we had to check all the reference standards for accuracy. That meant verifying their actual existence and checking the title and date. Since the masters we were working with were anywhere from 1 to 6 years old, there were a lot of corrections. Then, because we had verified the dates, we decided to make them available to subscribers – there’s an optional check box that will hide the dates in the printed copy.
To maintain the dates we built a database of all the standards which we now use to verify each at least twice a year. Now that most organizations have at least their publication lists on the internet it doesn’t take long to check. We’ve found that twice a year will catch the irregularly published ones within a few months of publication. We update ASTM’s once a year, based on the 4-volume “ASTM’s in Building Codes,” because that’s the most economical source of ASTM’s for most people. (Also, ASTM updates willy-nilly, a virtual blizzard of changes, most of which are editorial.) We also obtain the new standards and compare to the old.
Besides the fact that we wanted to do this, we considered the alternative. What happens when a project spec says “comply with current edition as of the date of the bid” and you get into a dispute. Do you mr./ms. specifier actually know which edition that was? Did you have it in your office? Will the authoring organization help you figure that out? ASTM’s actually have several dates: the year shown in the designation, the mm/dd/yy date shown in the footnote, and the actual date they were available for purchase, which is not stated anywhere and is usually several months after adoption. And what if the standard you reference is withdrawn, out of print, or abandoned – do you really want to reference it?
The good news is, over the 10 years we’ve been doing this, we’ve found that only a small percentage of the 1000 non-ASTM standards referenced in SpecLink are actually updated in any one year; approx 30% of the 700 ASTMs are updated from one year to the next. Of all of those, only a small percentage have any substantial changes that would affect the spec or the execution. Plus, almost none have changed to the detriment of the spec. This is the main reason we continue to update to the most recent. It means that if you reference a more recent edition of most standards than your code does, it won’t usually cost more, it will usually get you as good or better, and it won’t usually get you less than you thought you were getting. And by referencing the latest edition date, we show that we know that the standard is still valid.
I admit that some of the standards referenced in the codes have changed dramatically from one edition to the next – ASCE 7 (for wind and seismic loads) comes to mind – but we’ve found that standards that change substantially change for a good reason (the science is better, or the products available have changed a lot). Only rarely does a revised standard change in an undesirable way. (ASTM is particularly conscientious about this – completely different requirements are almost always published as completely NEW standards, not as revisions to existing ones.) When ASCE 7 changes fundamentally, would you not want to have the project designed to the new “science”? I’ll bet if you asked the code authorities about that one, they would agree. Besides some standards are so fundamental that you absolutely must understand and know which edition you’re referring to. On the other hand, in some cases, specifiers need to reference an older version because it’s in their local code – for instance, NFPA 70 is not always immediately adopted by local jurisdictions.
Note that with SpecLink, the standards updates can be automatically accepted without affecting any of the rest of the spec. Alternatively, if the specifier wants to review the changes before accepting, the software will highlight all that would be changed for easy identification and comparison.
The building code is a minimum requirement. The referenced standards are therefore minimum requirements. The design and specifications for buildings often exceed the code. Is specifying a more current code exceeding the code? I believe it is, however, it is not usually my decision; what do you think?
Not necessarily. Some say that the International Building Code (IBC) is less restrictive that the former Uniform Building Code (UBC) in some areas. Also, state and local jurisdictions typically amend the adopted code to suit their specific needs, and many of these amendments are more restrictive that the original code.
I should point out that you can not use a newer building code when an older code has been adopted (i.e. - Using the 2003 IBC in lieu of an adopted 1997 UBC). You could request to use a newer code through the Building Official. However, approval to do so will likely not be forecoming since the building department may not be familiar with the code. On the other hand, you could request the use of a specific provision in a newer code on a case-by-case basis, which I have done on several occasions with moderate success.
Mr. Crocco, Ron is right. I would just like to add that we must remember that the building code is standing law in the jurisdicition, be it village, town, township, county, city or state. Just as we cannot set the speed limits on roads [we can only violate them!]we cannot “pick and choose” bulding codes.
In that, I realize that time is always crucial, but valid needs vis-a-vis the building code can and should be pursued through appeals. The codes always lag technology, due to their change cycle timing, but our clients want and deserve the latest and best.
This begs the question. Has anyone ever had a serious problem with conflicting reference standard editions?
No.
David, excellent question. My answer is no. And I’m dying to hear from anyone who’s answer is yes.
OK, here goes.
As a code official I had several “encounters”, the most imposing was a complete ventilation/hood system in the kitchen of a large restaurant [worth about $22,000]that was installed to a newer version of NFPA 96, when the code referenced a version dated some 5 years earlier. My inspector found this situation as did the local fire inspector, who went ballistic.
The case was “written up” as a violation since the new technology used was quite different from that required in the earlier version. The case was appealed [which I had no problem with]and resolved by the Board [after due and proper consideration, and added investigation by the mechanical engineer member] allowing the system to remain.
The fire inspector is due back from orbit in 2018.
It seems impracticable both for specifiers and contractors (and even for guide spec firms, as Susan’s post above indicates) to keep strictly current on the latest standards. And it seems unrealistic to require contractors to meet standards issued during or even close to the bidding period.
Because of this, and since such changes are generally minor, would the following policy be reasonable? Simply omit the dates from individual standards listings, and include an overall provision in Division 1 that the edition used be:
The edition adopted by the governing jurisdiction, if any, even if it isn’t the latest.
If none has been adopted, any edition that was still current at any time within the year preceding the CD issuance date (and, for ASTM standards, any included in an “ASTM Standards in Building Codes” collection that was still current at any time within the year preceding CD issuance).
More recent editions than those described above, to the extent that their requirements are equivalent to, or more stringent than, those of the editions described above, and if they are acceptable to governing authorities.
Any comments, pro or con?
about 2 decades ago, when I was working mostly on GSA and Navy projects, it was required that we (as architects) have a current copy of whatever reference we referenced in our specs – in the office. On those projects, we always had a budget number for “codes and standards” and kept them in a file cabinet for the project duration. And if I remember correctly the contractor was required to have copies of the same documents at their job site for the project duration. I remember Navy reviewers actually looking through our file cabinet during one of the project reviews.
so. having and keeping hard copy standards did happen at some time in my working life and the client was actually willing to pay for that to happen.
I am finding that as we migrate over to the IBC and their use of ASTM references instead of the old “UBC Standards” that I get a lot more calls for ASTM references and our subscription is well used in this office. I’m also finding that contractors are more nit-picky about their interpretation of these documents as well. (which I suppose is a nice change from “standard, what standard?”)
Following is what we have been using and what was the subject of a monograph I did for CSI back 1992;
A. Throughout the Building Code, and these specifications, various publications, standards, regulations, etc. have been cited, and are applicable to the work.
B. Such documents cited in the Building Code are mandatory in nature, and the dated edition of the document cited therein, must be met.
1. Referenced standards listed directly in the governing regulations have precedence over non-referenced standards, referenced in the Contract Documents, which are recognized in industry for applicability to work.
C. Except as modified by the requirements specified herein or the details on the drawings, work included in this Specification shall conform to the applicable provisions of these publications. Applicable standards of construction industry are made a part of contract documents by reference, and have same force and effect as if copied, or published copies directly bound into contract documents.
D. Publication Dates: Standards listed in these specifications [other than those listed in governing regulations] shall mean the edition of the standard in effect as of date of the project’s bid opening.
E. Copies of Standards: Provide where needed for proper performance of the work; obtain directly from publication sources.
Following is what we have been using and what was the subject of a monograph I did for CSI back in 1992;
A. Throughout the Building Code, and these specifications, various publications, standards, regulations, etc. have been cited, and are applicable to the work.
B. Such documents cited in the Building Code are mandatory in nature, and the dated edition of the document cited therein, must be met.
C. Except as modified by the requirements specified herein or the details on the drawings, work included in this Specification shall conform to the applicable provisions of these publications. Applicable standards of construction industry are made a part of contract documents by reference, and have same force and effect as if copied, or published copies directly bound into contract documents.
D. Publication Dates: Standards listed in these specifications [other than those listed in governing regulations] shall mean the edition of the standard in effect as of date of the project’s bid opening.
E. Copies of Standards: Provide where needed for proper performance of the work; obtain directly from publication sources.
With the exception of subparagraph D, I find the rest of this to be woefully unenforceable and confusing.
No disrespect intended.
Ralph, your item “D” is just the kind of requirement that prompted my previous post.
How can we reasonably require “the edition…in effect as of date of the project’s bid opening”? If bids are due on the same day (or even a day soon after) a new standard becomes effective, is it really even possible (not to mention fair) to require that the bids reflect the new standard’s requirements?
What this really means is, “Bids are based on revised documents from various sources that may be released at any time up to and including the bid date, but bidders will not be notified as to what those documents are, nor when they have been released (let alone what the revisions are), because even we don’t know what they are. It is the bidder’s responsibility to verify that every standard referenced is still in effect on the bid date, and if not, to acquire and become familiar with the revised standard, evaluate the effect of its revisions on the work, and reflect the differences in its bid.”
I realize this is a common (in fact, almost universal) requirement, but that still doesn’t mean that it makes any sense…