I see many drawing QC issues as inter-related to Construction Administration , so I hope this thread is appropriate for this forum.
Am I tilting at windmills or do I have a credible issue here? I am reacting to an on-going statement I find on the documents that I find to be very prone to misunderstanding (read “Change Order”).
In excerpt, it states: "Paint all metal door frames visible to customer . . . "
My take is that the definition of what is ‘visible to (the) customer’ will vary depending upon the height of: A) the person doing the take-off, or B) the job superintendent, or heaven forbid, C) the arbitrator.
Am I smoking the wrong stuff or do I have a legitimate concern here? If the customer bends over is there another door to be painted??? Ouch…
I try to get folks to view their drawing notes with the idea of helping the fair minded contractor to bid his work properly and to minimize opportunities for the other types to cause trouble.
Since it is on the drawings it would appear to be reaction to some clients specific direction rather than a well thought out phrase. You are right. Painting is difficult enough to clearly scope without these notes from neverland.
I wonder if any company has a policy that all “notes” on the drawings be written by specification writers.
BETTER USE, “PAINT ALL SURFACES OF ALL DOORS WITHIN ALL ROOMS OF THIS PROJECT”.
Using what is visible is not good specification language.[Where, for example are you standing or located? Can you see other doors through the closed door you stand behind?] Need to be specific and carefully draw lines or limits for what is to be done and what is not.
Also specifications need to eliminate wherever possible ambigutiies, so there is a no-mistaken meeting of the minds of all parties.
Lack of the article definitely changes the meaning. I would argue that you could state that “customer” was the Owner. Therefor if your Owner walks around and complains about any unpainted parts of the door you got the Contractor and saved your skin at the same time.
It may be disingenuous but we “do” have an election this fall and it is the season for such creativity.
If this is a commercial project (store, mall, etc.) then the words “visible to customer” may be intended as a way to differentiate between public and private spaces, if the client desires to save money by not finish painting the factory primed doors and frames in back rooms and storage areas.
In this limited case, I expect the contractor would understand the requirement even though we question its precision.
I’ve run into this same issue using the word “exposed” – as in “exposed structural steel”. I had a contractor argue with our office that since the steel was at the back of the screen wall (and open to the weather) since it wasn’t visible at the exterior of the building, it wasn’t exposed. My boss’s comment: “if I can p— on it, its exposed. end of argument”.
Wow, great response. I feel a bit vindicated in arguing against these type of notations. Thanks for your support! Sometimes I wonder if I am being too picky . . . NOT
Just to be clear, this was not something placed in a specification, but has shown up repeated on a major retailer’s drawings.
Although the topic seems somewhat ‘silly’, when you are on a job site and the supe is using such inanities against you, you really wish the guilty office worker was there taking the heat they so richly deserve!
despite the flippancy of the “exposed” response (and granted, in order to meet my boss’s criteria some locations would require climbing ropes), if there is a distinction between “front of house” finishes and “back of house” finishes, or “public areas” and “non-public areas”, I think the prudent response is to simply list them someplace. Generally, the high-finish areas are fewer than the other ones, so you can say:
“Public areas are defined as Rooms X, XX, XY and include all doorways visible when standing in the center of the room” or something like that. Usually for “exposed structural steel”, I do define what those steel pieces are by location and elevation on the drawings. it takes about an hour to do that, and will save at least 8 hours of stupid arguments on the job site. And, I always ask the question now as part of the spec preparation. In specs, you can pretty much define anything you want to… but you can’t assume very much without a definition.
a. Work of this Section includes field painting of exposed bare and covered items exposed to view in exterior and interior locations, boiler rooms, mechanical and electrical rooms, in GMP areas of Class and A and B, in interior areas which include high spaces, and in areas of high humidity.
Another alternative is to define terms of that type in Division 01. Examples:
CONCEALED AND CONCEALED SPACE: Embedded within construction, in trenches, in crawl space, space between finish ceiling and structure above; space between double walls and furred in areas.
EXPOSED: Not installed underground or “concealed” as above.
EXPOSED TO PUBLIC VIEW: Not installed underground or “concealed” as above and in spaces other than building equipment and maintenance spaces which are not normally accessible by or open to users of facility.
Can provide resolution of the use of “loose language” anywhere in the documents.
Isn’t the better (“best”???) overall solution to indicate things as “Paint this”, and “Don’t paint this”-- in specific terms?.
Div 01 maybe fine (?) if everyon is aware of it and Mr. Johnson’s defintions are good, but still a little open-ended, ambiguous and open to arguement to those who insist on doing that.
I recall a concise definition of “exposed” from years ago (which I believe came from some master guide spec or standard) something like the following: “any surface that can be seen by any person in normal activity, inside or outside the building.” This would include such things as the inside of a cabinet, but not the soffit of its toe space. Can’t find a trace of that definition now. AWI’s AWQSI uses 27 lines to differentiate exposed, semi-exposed and concealed parts just for cabinets.