When the architect comes back to you with an email regarding “conflicts” in the specs and those “conflicts” turn out to be a minor inconsistency between TOC and the spec section (example: 104415 v 104410. How do you handle it? Is this something that really justifies an ASI? Does the contractor really want to track an ASI to correct something they figured out and really doesn’t affect the success of the project? Are architect’s really spending their resources marking up these minor items? Curious how others (independents) respond when their clients want a “track changes” updated specs to correct 2 typos on the TOC as an ASI, or something equally insignificant to the success of the project.
I’ve a public agency reviewer, in addition to some technical changes, is also “correcting” streamlined context to formal grammar (e.g., adding prepositions), restructuring grammar in sentences, changing imperative mood to indicative mood, along with other “mundane” comments. Rather than argue the lack of any consequences to the project/construction of such minimal changes, I just proceeded to start incorporating redlines…verbatim…for fear of alienating A/E’s client and creating any negativity for A/E’s future project pursuits. I now realize that I “trudge” on with these continued types of changes, it is becoming a significant “waste” of time/effort that will not yield any appreciable effects.
What is an “ASI”?
ASI = Architectural Supplemental Instruction.
Sort of a reverse RFI or “proactive” clarification from the A/E team to the GC. Generally supposed to be limited to minor items not effecting cost or time. However, some firms use them similarly to a Bulletin, Addendum, or Construction Change Directive.
The ASI is defined in the AIA system of documents and forms. It is most similar to a “field order” indicating a change in the Work that does not result in a change to contract sum or time.
Upon receiving an ASI, the Contractor may decide that there are cost or schedule implications and respond with a change order proposal.
The USACE uses the designation “ASI” for changes instead of PCO (Proposed Change Order) or any of the other change documents. Creates some confusion as you can imagine
Depending on how the Contract Documents are enumerated in the Agreement, I could see this as a worthwhile effort to correct typos in the TOC. If the TOC says there is a section 104415, and it was used to enumerate the documents then the contract only includes 104415, not 104410 (whether or not the contractor figured out that 104415 really meant 104410 is beside the point).
Not knowing more about your particular situation I don’t know if I could comment further. Regardless, it may be minor, but I would make the changes if the architect thought it was important enough. They’re the ones stamping the documents, right?
Robin,
I have been in your situation and understand your exasperation. I can do little more than commiserate.
Some clients regard slight variations in specification numbers and titles as potential deal-breakers, especially in the retail sector where the ambience can be contentious from day one to closeout. It is surprising how often minutiae can develop into disputes. When the Table of Contents is attached to an agreement as an exhibit and does not perfectly reflect the content of the project manual, it can be a pain.
If the architect for whom you are working can’t overlook the relatively minor irregularities you describe, then an ASI may set the record straight without incident. When I can, I silently correct non-substantive matters that amount to no more than typos when I get to prepare and issue conformed documents for construction.
After spending many hours getting the technical content of the sections correct, it is dispiriting to discover errors in numbers and titles.
This is the moment when SpecLink fans join hands and sing the praises of the program’s TOC-generating feature. And, they would not be wrong. After all, no one is always wrong - at work at least.
Anon: A couple of responses: (1) of course i will make the changes, am curious how others handle it. Through the ASI process, or some other means (2) i can’t imagine an Agreement that defines the contract documents as only those items listed on a TOC (or, a drawing index). The contract documents are drawings and specs. If, for example, an architect mis-numbers the drawing sheet showing waterproofing details, should the contractor be able to later claim they didn’t include waterproofing because the sheet didn’t match the index? The drawings and specs are not perfect, nor do they need to be. Could a reasonable contractor figure out that the section is mis-numbered? I would hope so. Personally, as a contractor, i would think the time it takes me to log and track an additional revision/ASI far outweighs any benefit from the clarification about a typo, but maybe i am wrong - would love to hear from a contractor.
Robin, concerning #2 … it happens all the time. I found this in a minute or two searching google: http://www.essexct.gov/sites/essexct/files/file/file/signed_agreement_09_26_13_0.pdf
Take a look at Article 8 and you’ll see that the specifications are specifically enumerated as they are listed in the table of contents of the Project Manual. If this is the case for your project, without a modification the Contractor could argue that 104410 is not part of the contract.
If they really wanted to make a fuss … they can claim that they only bid the work that was reasonably inferable from the contract documents (which does not include 104410). In order to include 104410 in the contract now by way of an ASI, it would need to be addressed in a change order to adjust the contract sum to include the work in the specification.
At various document submittal events we issue a Narrative of Changes that will list the changes to the Drawing sand Specifications. I have in the past included as a forward to the spec Narrative a list of items that we will NOT track or use bold or strike through to indicate the change:
Project Personal Directory Names, Addresses, contact info.
Simple typos where the meaning is clear.
Spec Section Name or Number typo where there can’t be ambiguity, like “Sheet Metal and Flashing” versus “Flashing and Sheet Metal”.
Article numbers that are out of order or skip.
Pagination errors that create blank spots or entire blank pages.
In the 08 Curtainwall specs I also note that “curtain wall” and “window wall” can and will be used interchangeably by Architects, Owners and Contractors.
It really comes down to one thing.
How strong a personality is your Owner or CM?
I’ve seen too many argue like H against our add services and fold like rice paper as soon as the Contractor opens his mouth.
Interesting. Now i know why i avoid public work. As an owner, i would never offer that language in a contract. That said, the contractor should have then included a bid for 104415, and, if there wasn’t a matching section, should submit an RFI. If the sections listed on the TOC are the CD’s, then they would be required to provide that material/product etc. I think it would be a very tough argument, especially considering the section was in the Project Manual, albeit with a typo. 98% of my work is private, so I NEVER come across this kind of contract language
Robin, you may be surprised to learn that your owner’s attorney’s will routinely include the Index of Drawings and Specifications TOC in the Agreement believing this is required to incorporate them into the Contract Documents. They will go further by listing number of pages and dates virtually guaranteeing future conflicts.
Robin, why would the contractor include a bid for 104415? By the Agreement, it wasn’t part of the Contract if it wasn’t listed in the TOC. Agreed that an RFI would have been the proper course of action during bidding … but I’m not a contractor and some of them (thankfully, not all of them) will look for any way to make the Architect look bad, and get more money. It may be a tough argument, but the fact that the argument is happening at all means that the Architect is already on the defense. I can’t wait for the day when construction isn’t so adversarial.
Also, I completely agree with Peter’s comment above. Enumerating documents this way is not limited to public work. However, finding private examples on the internet is more difficult.
i will talk to some construction attorneys and see if they ever use this practice. The contractor would have to include a bid for whatever is listed on the TOC, so, if 104415 is listed on the TOC, they should include it, whether there is a matching specification section or not. If there isn’t a specification section that matches that number, and they don’t submit an RFI, then one can argue they assume the risk of pricing it appropriately. But, by your contract example, that section is part of the contract documents, regardless of the remainder of the content of the project manual, so they are responsible for it. It purpose it works both ways.
If the Conditions of the Contract assert the principle of complementary documents, then it would be difficult for the contractor to deny that a section included in the project manual but not correctly listed in the Table of Contents is applicable to the contract. Public contract conditions usually give the authority to determine the intent of the documents to the architect.
In my experience, however, the contractor’s attorney is often so aggressive in pursuing claims, the architect is willing to quietly accept blame for discrepancies for fear of alienating the owner.
Michael, ASI is form G710 issued by AIA and is defined ever so briefly in Section 0126000 or 01260 - CONTRACT MODIFICATION PROCRDURES.
Robin, is this a private sector or public sector project? The only time I’ve experienced this in the private sector is on a condo job where the attorney is looking for the max amount of errors to fuel his claim for negligence. At one time I had a statement in my Summary of Work section that covered such minor errors that did not affect contract cost or time, but now that I’ve looked, it appears to have been taken out. Perhaps one of our peers has such a statement they wish to share.
David, I see your point, but you’re glossing over the fact that the documents you are asserting to be complementary need to be part of the contract to begin with. If the section is not listed in the TOC, it is not part of the contract. The section in the project manual, but not enumerated as part of the contract, can’t compliment anything because it isn’t part of the contract.
I’m assuming the sections are dealing with fire extinguishers or possibly cabinets based on the section numbers (they don’t correspond to anything listed in MasterFormat). Take the following as an illustrative example:
If the TOC lists 104410 “Fire Extinguishers” but the project manual actually contains 104415 “Fire Extinguishers,” section 104410 is part of the contract, not 104415 as it is not enumerated in the Agreement. Looking at the drawings, I see locations for fire extinguishers. As a contractor I could submit a bid based on the cheapest fire extinguisher available in order to get the bid. Maybe it’s cheaper to get a small CO2 extinguisher than the 10-lb multipurpose dry chemical extinguisher the architect wants. When the architect rejects my submittal and says that I need to provide the extinguishers specified in 104415 I respond with a change proposal for the difference in cost because 104415 is not part of my contract. I don’t know what it was doing in the Project Manual, maybe it was part of someone else’s contract, but it wasn’t part of my contract. I gave you what I thought would work based on the drawings.
I’m not saying that the example is something a contractor would want to do. I doubt they would be able to stay in business long following that controversial of a business model. However, they could do it and have a legitimate, although tenuous, claim. The Architect will most likely concede something, because they don’t want to be the reason the work has stopped or the schedule is delayed or the owner can’t occupy the building because the city won’t issue the C of O because they don’t have the right extinguishers.
I’ve seen contractors try to get change orders for the difference in cost between 18 inch grab bars and 24 inch grab bars before where the drawings showed one and the spec had the other. It didn’t work, but it didn’t stop them from trying. While it might not be the best business decision, I wouldn’t put it past some contractors from trying what I’ve described above.