An idea that was proposed at CONSTRUCT2014 in Baltimore - What if the owner or a design/build contractor were to hire a specifier directly as a consultant to the project?
How does this work for the designer of record to review, sign & seal specs as part of their instruments of service, that were not by someone they hired? Maybe one way is if the original agreement is written so that the specifier begins a new agreement with the Architect at beginning of CD phase?
Special contract provisions needed for the copyright of these specs?
As an analogy, we’ve had projects where for long lead items (eg a large quantity of stone quarrying and fabrication), the owner signed an early contract with the stone supplier. This contract was then assigned to the selected general contractor, who also was responsible for stone delivery and installation.
So one option is for the owner/specifier contract to be assigned to the selected architect of record. Another is as you suggest; the owner/specifier contract is for pre-CD consulting; the owner/architect of record contract includes a provision that the architect will hire the specifier as a consultant.
What would be the expected benefit of this approach? I don’t see much potential up side, and it would complicate liability for all parties involved.
Imposing a requirement on the design professional to engage a particular specifier – or a spec consultant at all – seems like an unwise imposition. And the specifier would have greater exposure than normal.
As an idea I think it sounds compelling, but in all practicality it seems a little strange. CSI advocates for coordinated construction documents. Does taking the specifications and the drawings and separating them into different contracts seem slightly antithetical to that position? That’s not to say it isn’t possible to coordinate them properly, but any dispute could become problematic … I’m feel I’m fulfilling my duty to the owner by telling the architect they need to change their drawings to coordinate with my specs. But the Architect also feels they are doing their duty to the owner by telling me to change my specifications to coordinate with their drawings.
What if the architect of record has a “reasonable objection” to working with the owner’s specifier?
I was not in attendance at Construct 2014 so I do not know to what extent this was discussed. Was there any discussion of requiring licensure to practice specifying? Would this alleviate the issue of the architect stamping the specs? Probably not, you’d have to rewrite laws, and you’d start to really anger the AIA I’m sure.
What about the owner hiring the architect through DD and then turning the design over to the owner who then hires the specifier (and their team of construction document technologists) to create the construction documents; both specifications and drawings? The specifier of course would have to have a licensed architect on board. The specifier could be hired early in the design to act as an advisor to the design team in this scenario as well.
Wouldn’t it be better for the owner to just hire an architect who also happens to be a good specifier? Contractually it is a lot less complicated. Are owners clamoring for better specs? If so, where can I meet them?
STRAW POLL: For the regular posters, how many of you are also licensed architects?
As a licensed architect I can stamp my own specs. If I work for the contractor or owner (with insurance of course) no problem; Risk can be managed (i.e. insured for.) Frankly most architects don’t understand materials anyway. AND many architects already out source specifications the only difference is that I’m stamping my own spec…
Longer rant:
Especially for negotiated jobs, let me work closely with the estimator and field super and we can hone in on the best material for the time of year, crew or sub doing the work, that fits the schedule, to name a few. These are things that architects are not paid to do and as silo-ed as they are, cannot do . Let the architect label the vertical below grade walls with a nice generic term like “waterproofing” and I’ll handle the rest. They don’t know anything about it anyway…except its black (most of the time)
Architects have limited their scope so completely that they are being pushed out of the business of building into a napkin sketching, advisory role; let them be. In short the architects contract, attitude, workflow and product is still based upon a Design-Bid-Build model that at least for negotiated work is dead meat.
Certainly the specifier would have greater exposure…and it would be covered by insurance …and with greater risk can come greater reward…ask for more money.
Specifiers provide a necessary and VERY worthy and valuable service. We understand products across many fields better than anyone except the subs and craftsmen and craftswomen who do the work. capitalize on that knowledge. See http://www.di.net/articles/what-are-you-worth/
We as both architects and specifiers have not been doing a good job of showing owners either, and so we are discounted. I cant speak for designers, but as an architect and specifier I can give both to a project, and if we can to use the business phrase show the value proposition of specifying and the HUGE amounts of risk that we are removing from the job with every line we typewe can clearly get paid enough to handle the small cost of professional liability insurance AND make much more money.
What is being proposed is a power struggle between the architect and the specification consultant.
The architect’s responsibility is for the system that was designed not for the format in which the information is presented. You cannot divide responsibility in the manner proposed.
Most of the time -in house (as I am) it happens all the time. I select and specify the product and the architect has no idea…of course in a perfect world we all think about what is being designed and the system is, as you state a “designed system” and some items will remain so.
however for the most part it can and has been done regularly. and I am not talking about format.
You can divide responsibility. Every architect that has worked on a project with a “local” architect has divided this responsibility. the local takes some issues and the other architect (and all the engineers) take other parts …and stamps them… this is a regular practice.
Now, any jurisdiction should require one design professional to lead the job (sometimes an engineer), but outside of that issue (which I am not discussing) everything can and has been sliced and diced. this is another potential.
I reiterate the creation and stamping of the information currently called “the spec” can be a separate entity from the architect, and has been for years. the only difference is applying your stamp to it.
PS
As for power, the architect has already lost most of this and is losing more every year. It currently resides with the contractor
I’m saying that the Owner and Contractor don’t know what we do either. and what we do is very important …so let’s sell what we do to the people who take the most risk, owner or contractor and consequently make most of the money.
Why tie ourselves to a sinking ship?
The only reason I’m here instead of on my own is that in 3-5 years I’m done and can retire.
For the most part I think that the concept of having the Owner or D/B-lead assigning the spec contract to the Architect of Record is very ‘do-able’ since I see this happen all the time with Civil/Structural/MEPT Engineers, food service consultants, signage consultants, ad nauseam. Many do not seal their own work (except hopefully the Engineers).
As to sealing specs separately by the spec writer, this was a heated discussion years ago at CSI. From what I understand (since I was not there), requiring a CCS certification to seal specifications was originally discussed as being something that CSI was going to lobby for. Since the CCS does not confirm that technical knowledge has been established, it was deemed inappropriate as a stand-alone criteria for sealing specs. Since many Specifiers were not, and are not, registered Architects or Engineers, the concern was that qualified individuals would not seek their CCS if it was perceived as being essentially meaningless.
I presume that any Architect or Engineer hired to generate specs or complete Project Manuals as a consultant can be hired to seal those documents with or without a CCS. Any Architect of Record can opt for that and that may be a good marketing plan for those who qualify and are willing to throw their liability in the ring. My guess is that there are Architects out there that will gladly share the liability, but what will you do when your specs conflict with the drawings? Go back to including the clause that the spec govern?
Conflicts are conflicts and without an order of precedence (for which I do NOT advocate) they will be RFI’ed to death…the usual way.
AND remember that insurance is needed by anyone who sells “specialized knowledge” that another person “relies upon.” Professional Liability Insurance is available to those without stamps…
Now if your state requires the spec to be stamped…and you are not “stamp-able” then you would need to be under an architect if writing architectural sections or an engineer for those sections.
It’s my understanding that the reason sealing is required is so one person in each design discipline is responsible for the “work product” (the built result, e.g., a building) in that discipline, not a particular construction document. If the drawings and specs describe the same work–which they do, for a project or a given portion of it, they must be sealed by the same designer of record. If this single responsibility could be divided on a document authorship basis as suggested, then each architect or engineer who produced a drawing or edited a spec section could be required to seal that document–dividing the responsibility to such a point that it’s impossible to sort out liability. (And with BIM and guide specs, who can know how much any one person really contributed?)
anon.
Good points and as much as I’m a CSI supporter. For arguments sake let’s suppose I don’t care what CSI or AIA care about…what is needed for the owner to get the best value AND a good quality project, which is the point of any project. and of course I believe all good architects should be at least competent spec writers (I’m often disappointed)
Mr, Woodburn,
Also good points laws are laws and if such separation is not allowed then it’s not allowed.
let’s think about when “spec” type information is embedded in various databases making up a BIM.
for example does the architect of record “specify” below grade waterproofing to something approaching “LOD 100” and I take it to “LOD 300” who is stamping what? where was enough information provided that liability for DESIGN can be established? when am I an architect and when am I a contractor suggesting a product “substitution” to satisfy weather conditions or construction process? these are all interesting to consider.
Yes, indeed, where are all these Owners demanding specifiers be more involved earlier and that they be given more authority? I am told by the folks that are developing/proposing this approach/idea that such a thing exists, but I have never been introduced…
The idea that ALL specifiers have equal ability/skill/expertise is patently false. I have worked with many specifiers, and many of them are good, but there are quite a few that are really glorified word processors that could not and cannot offer much architectural expertise to anyone. Yes, they can Master/Section/Page-Format the crap out of anything per CSI rules, but they cannot tell me the importance of an electrolyte in evaluating galvanic reaction potential, for example. But I can. I am a specifier and I am an architect. I got my specification education preparing for and passing the CCS. I got my architectural education in college, graduating with a B.Arch. But, and this is VERY important, I got my applicable building systems/envelope/materials/products knowledge at my initiative - by reading everything and anything I could get my hands on to understand all of the stuff in those big, scary, unedited MasterSpec sections that I started using 20+ years ago.
Having a CCS or RA next to your name means very little - and is definitely not something that can be used to ascertain equal ability/skillset/knowledge among the professionals that have these credentials. Not by a long shot.
Second issue is that specifications and drawings go together - like peas and carrots. The idea that the Specifier can add some sort of value to an Owner independently of the professional contracted to produce the drawings is like selling a car without an engine - and allowing someone outside of the car manufacturer to just drop in any old engine by any manufacturer. Can’t do it. Engine and car are intertwined. Specs and drawings are the same, and need to be produced under the same agreement by the same entity, in my opinion.
It’s simple, actually. In each design discipline, for any given project or portion thereof, only one person can, and must, be responsible–the designer of record (DoR) for that discipline. Everyone else involved in producing construction documents for that discipline typically does so, by law, under the direct supervision and/or responsible charge of that DoR (the wording varies from state to state), and each DoR bears the ultimate responsibility for the work results of that discipline being appropriate for the purpose and consistent with the governing requirements. No other person, licensed or not (including hardware, food service, specifications and other consultants) who contribute documents for that discipline can relieve the DoR of any part of that overall responsibility, so they cannot seal portions of those documents.
oh . ..this is fun.
dear anon. I do not disagree. at this time there is no clamber for this earlier involvement…but as I have heard many a spec writer whine about being left out of the process until it was almost too late to save their designers from themselves. perhaps there should be.
Mr woodburn. I see your point. but I’ll have to go digging before I buy it lock stock and barrel. what about design build where all design entities are hired by one party where is the crisp delineation between parties? in fact I read a legal article on this issue and it can be a problem. are we all still separate then? Owner/Build? what about the structural steel that the SE designs but the architect specs (allowing the SE to review) is that spec the architects or the SE’s? and whose responsibility is it.
From an engineer’s point of view, or an owner who has an engineer running projects, there seems like a lot of duplication of effort and potential for major mistakes. For instance, if I’m including a 500kW genset and associated distribution in my design, that means I have to research the products and illustrate them, and transmit that information on the genset, conductors, conduit, manufacturers, standards, installation methods, seismic criteria, etc. to a third party consultant, who may or may not be doing independent product research, or have a different design process. Something is going to get missed - it already does when it is in-house. At least in-house, there is QA/QC who can, theoretically, check the specs against the drawings.
There is also the stamp on the front page of the spec book that is going to be an issue.
Out of curiosity, any idea how many spec writers have an engineering background or work in engineering? From my (limited) time spent on 4specs, it seems like a lot of the participants have architectural backgrounds and are involved in primarily architectural projects. But it wouldn’t be the first time that I’m wrong.
Marc, I submit to you that what you really want, and what makes so much more sense, is a separate and distinct professional discipline that I will call a Contract Documents Integrator (CDI). This would be a firm/entity contracted by the Owner, or the Architect, or the Contractor, or pick another of your choosing, with the responsibility to integrate all of the information produced by the design professionals - after the documents have been produced but prior to bidding/fee negotiation - The CDI would have a full time staff of architect(s), engineers, code experts, enclosure experts, cost estimators, and yes, SPECIFIERS! The CDI would review and point out all of the problems/coordination issues with the information in the documents and send that back to the design entity to get it right.
There are firms that offer a very similar service right now! Unfortunately, there is no consistency in what they do - and none (to my knowledge) have any specifiers on staff (sadly). But the model exists.
Someone would be smart to tap into this idea and develop a credential/society/association for this type of thing, yes? The National Association of Contract Documents Integration perhaps?
Again, it’s simple. Individual licensees (persons, not firms) seal the documents and bear all the responsibility (and liability) within their respective disciplines, regardless of who works for whom, who contracted to do what (or actually did what), or whether it’s design-build, etc. Firms usually pay for the E&O insurance that covers their employees’ liability, but professional responsibility is still individual and personal, not corporate. That’s why we earn the big bucks…
anon, what you call a CDI is what we used to call an “Architect.” Theoretically, I believe it still is, though I haven’t read an Owner-Architect Agreement in a long time. Don’t have a copy handy. Does it say the Architect is responsible for coordinating his or her work with the work of other consultants? Isn’t that what it means to “integrate all that information”? Do we completely dismantle architecture as a profession into its components, and register building designers, BIM modelers, specifiers?
Perhaps what we ought to do instead is acknowledge the names and contributions of everyone on the project team–everyone. Ever read the credits on a major motion picture? Everyone is listed–companies, people (mostly, I think, because it’s in everyone’s union contract). It’s comparable in scope to those it takes for a major construction project, especially if you include the Owner’s personnel, the Contractor’s and its subs and their employees, the caterers, the insurors, the portacan supplier and its drivers, etc. Still, only one person ultimately gets the credit or the blame. Sometimes it’s the final line in the credits–literally, the bottom line: “A (director’s name here) Film.” In architecture, it’s the architect. If every part of our role is eroded away, maybe all we’ll have left is the naming rights–and the blame…
One interesting experience was a project where no one knew which of several architects was really “the Architect”, and I was hired by the first Contractor as a separate contract he held with the Owner just for the purpose of specifications because no one had a clue what they were going to do for a biddable project. Finally in the end the Designer of Record was chosen and sealed the documents but it was not known until far too long what was going to happen though they were falling behind schedule, until this first Contractor (a design/build registered architect / CM / MBA who ultimately did just the SD and demolition for this project) and I worked with everybody to figure things out and get documents that could be bid on finally prepared, teaching other disciplines how to write specs along the way. Perhaps this was project information management or contract documents integration, I do not know, but it sure was, as I said, interesting.
