If all except D are “unenforceable and confusing” and D doesn’t make any sense, what then?
As a young and inexperienced spec writer, I thought it would be “cool” to include the dates of all the current referenced standards. Boy, was I green and stupid. I soon learned that the approach given me by a wiser spec writer was easiest, more correct, and fairer: the governing date is the date of the contract documents. It freezes those documents in time. After that date, the spec writer/architect/engineer has no control over what the municipality or the standards state. Compliance can only be with what is known as of the date of the writing (unless someone is clairvoyant or has the ability to travel in time - and that ain’t me).
If we try to be pure on this issue we should recognize that in a number of cases, the building code in effect when the project is bid may be different than the code in effect when the permit was issued. This will be the case in a little over a year when California transforms from the UBC to the IBC.
Expecting the contractors to know the standards in effect in the building code might be a challange. The exception might be when the Contractor is given some design build responsibilities. Many engineers and architects would be challanged.
In spite of the flaws and the possibility that the referenced standards might be at odds with the building code I would be inclined to select a given date. Selecting the date bids are due may make the contractor responsible for compliance with a standard he had no way of reading before the bids were due. If this were the case you might find this language is not enforcable.
My preferance would be to select either the date the documents were submitted for building permit or the date the permit was issued. This would increase the possibility that the design professional was aware of what was in the standards and would give the contractor an opportunity to read the standards.
Note that when the new standard is more restrictive than the old standard, the new standard is still in compliance with the code
Yes, that is a distinct possibility. However, once a project is reviewed and permitted under a specific code, then it will be inspected under that same code by the jurisdiction (provided construction starts before the permit expires). Which means, the standards used in the older code would still apply.
As an architect, I expect the contractor to be familiar with the building code and the standards referenced in them. I expect the fire protection contractor to install a sprinkler system per NFPA 13, the roofing contractor to know if the system he’s providing meets the specified classification per ASTM E 108 or UL 790, the concrete subcontractor to know the specifics of ACI 318, etc. Do I expect the general contractor to know each of these? It would be nice, but, no. As an architect, I rely on my consultants for expertise, as I would expect the GC to rely on his specialty subs.
Once a building is permitted under a specific building code, those standards referenced in that code are applicable to the project, even if they’ve been revised by subsequent editions. The building code establishes which edition (date) of standard is used–there’s no need to repeat it in the specification. The documents should state which building code the project was permitted under.
For standards not referenced by the building code, but specified in the construction documents, I would agree with Lynn’s suggestion: use the date of the construction documents to establish the cut-off date. However, if an A/E uses a standard by specific date, and he/she knew it was superseded by a later edition , then I would definitely include the date in the CDs.
I agree there may be times when a standard is revised just a few days before the date of the construction documents unbeknownst to the A/E. This may or may not be a big deal. Most changes that occur in standards are minor in nature (editorial, etc.), and would have very little impact on the application of the standard on a specific project. However, to avoid this potential problem, you can predict (to some degree of accuracy) when a standard is expected to be revised.
Most standards, like building codes, are modified on a regular cycle; typically, every three years. So, if the standard you are currently using is dated 2002, I would expect it to be revised this year (2005). You can also contact the organization that developed the standard to see if a revision is in the works, and when it is scheduled for publication.
To caveat Mark’s final statement, not all new standards are more restrictive, so just because it’s newer, doesn’t necessarily make it in compliance with the building code. I would check with the building official before using a newer standard than the one referenced in the building code.
In dealing with the edition dates of standards there are two basic approaches:
-
Establish some simple, but semi arbitrary criteria for defining the applicable editions. We can adjust the criteria to minimize certain types of risks but at the end of the day some of the contractually required standards will be the “wrong” standard. This is the common approach and is workable if we are willing to accept the inherent risks of this approach.
-
If we want to insure that we have clearly defined the “right” standards that comply with the Building Code provisions and the expectations of the design professionals then we need to change our practice. First all design professionals will need to obtain the latest copies of all of the relevant standards and be familiar with those that impact them. Second time will need to be set aside to review which editions of the standards are applicable for each project. Since many design professionals have never read most of these standards the time investment may be considerable. Thirdly we will need to specify the edition dates of the standards in the specification sections. The problem with this approach is that it will require more time and money.
Are we willing to accept the risks inherent in the first approach or are we willing to spend the time and money needed to implement the second approach (read higher fees and slightly longer schedules). If we adopt the first approach where we accept the possibility that the “wrong” edition will be referenced, then I believe that that the various strategies mentioned have similar levels of risk.