It is our office policy, and I concur, to issue full size sheets and full sections when changes occur to documents that have been published.
We are working with a self-titled Construction Manager (at risk), who doesn’t want to re-issue any documents “in their entirety”, claiming that so doing is detrimental to the sub-contractors because they are bombarded with too much paper.
Our stance is that we will issue full documents and a cover page with an explanatory narrative and he can issue what he wishes to the subs. All documents, by the way, are being posted on an FTP site, so no one is obligated to print anything.
I have been invited to a teleconference with the Owner tomorrow morning, early, to answer for my stand that we will issue full documents along with the “narrative”.
One of our concerns is that the single sheet with the changes on it can get lost or misplaced, where the full document is easier to place into the set of documents.
What do you do? What do you think is the best way to issue changes?
Replacement sections for specs with manual changes tracked but not using the method built-into MSWord. We flag the changes in the right margin. It is much easier than creating a narrative in the old school format with the GC cutting and pasting into the project manual. Many changes will repaginate the section (either add a pages or delete a page).
You are correct in that no trees are cut down when posted to project web sites and FTP sites.
My narrative is simply a cover page to tell the user what is deleted and what is added. Drawings and specs.
We use the same procedure that your office does. Remember, your obligation [as to what you provide] is to the Owner via that mutual contract, and I would guess you have no such contractual arrangement with the CM. But you need be aware of what the owner must provide to the CM [as agent for the owner, your action needs to match those obligations]
If you continue to provide per your office policy, the CM is free to reduce them [in size] if they choose. The pox on them for any adverse ramifications.
I have no problem with issuing complete drawings or specs, although we often just issue sketches and descriptions (along with the narrative). I usually push for teh “full” issuance when there are a lot of changes or when there have been several smaller previously changes and we want to consolodate all the “old” and “new” changes.
We do both. When using a repository, such as FTP, we create a folder of the most current set, and then we have sub-folders broken down by packages, such as Bulletin 1, Bulletin 2, Bid Increment 3, etc…
If you have a change, publish the changed documents in it’s own folder, and then also add them in the most current set, removing the existing sheets that have been replaced. The replaced sheets go into an Archive folder.
I am of the viewpoint that as architects, we control the instruments of service, so adminstration of the contract documents falls under our scope. We can’t garruntee who gets what, obviously, but we can make sure its possible that everyone can get what they need.
One practice that works is to make the changes to the original document (CAD file) and then print out the changed portion on an 8.5x11 or 11x17 with the change clouded and a delta
I strive for complete drawing sheets and full spec sections. Many more trees will be sacrificed to fix the problem of incomplete documents than will be saved by issuing incomplete documents, and as many have noted, we are not always issuing hard copies these days.
As some already one pointed out, revisions to the specs often cause repagination. Issuing a single page could result in something down stream being lost if someone robotically just replaced the page in their spec binder.
I once had to deal with a “self-titled Construction Manager” whose solution to the above was for us to issue the spec section only from the change forward. Go figure.
We issue only entire specification sections with track changes. I think this is better because the change isn’t floating out there separate from the actual section people will use on the project. Far less likely to be missed during construction. Also, almost all distribution is electronic these days. Our addendum form only includes a list of reissued sections with no indication of what actually changed. (One less place to have an error, plus far more productive.) You can’t issue a single page if you use track changes because the pagination changes.
We don’t normally issue full drawing sheets, but only sketches, though arguably full sheets makes more sense. Production-wise, the changes are made in the model so they are fully incorporated into the electronic files, even though the issue is a sketch. Very minor changes in drawings are made with words in the addendum form.
I’m for full altered documents - with specification sections issued showing new text in bold and deleted text in strikeout, along with document tracking info (date, CO number) in footer.
Addendum and change order work appears on punch lists more than original requirements because the tracking failed. The cost of handling a couple of files or a few sheets of paper is far less than the cost of redoing work.
Way back in the days of typewriters…I recall, at least for specs, a detailed “narrative” (for lack of a better word) was issued (e.g., replace words with the following, etc.). Someone did not re-type an entire section to change a few paragraphs. Rhetorically, if that method sufficed then, from a “functional” perspective, then what has time changed in that respect?
The biggest problem with the method Unregistered above describes is that everyone who has a set of contract documents has to go through their set and transcribe each change into their project manual. I remember well doing this with red pencil, or if the text was too long, cutting up the addendum and taping little flaps onto the affected page so you could lift it up to see the text underneath. With revised sections and a 3-hole binder–just take out the old section and insert the new. Much easier and more importantly, more accurate
Thank you all for your comments. It’s good to know that we are not out in left field with our standard of care.
The issue actually came down to - are you ready for this? - the CMa requesting separate PDFs, one for the cover “narrative” sheet, and one for all the documents. It seems that the CMa couldn’t remove the pages from the single PDF that we sent and didn’t want to “scare” the bidders with so much information/change/paper.
Sigh. So over an hour of our time was spent on this because he couldn’t master the software…unbelievable!
I guess the lesson learned is “nothing is foolproof to the sufficiently talented fool”
Lynn, we use PDF “package” to assemble the project manual items (not drawings). With this type of document, there is a single PDF containing other individual PDFs of each document. It’s quite easy that way to separate a single item.
Thanks, John. That’s a good tip. I think our AAs do just that, but I’ll make sure that the Project Manager knows it, too.
I’m pretty sure that even with the limited PDF software (PDF-Xchange) I have, I could delete pages and save as another document. And if I were doing this all the time, I would have software that could do just about anything to a PDF! I certainly wouldn’t be relying on the free version of Adobe…and I’d also be sure that I knew how to use all the features.
As the Einstein quote says, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro will assemble what is called a PDF Portfoilio which is individual PDF files combined into one file, if you catch my drift. This is the format we use.
One tip. I learned adding watermarks to every PDF in the portfolio in Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro will bloat a 1 MB portfolio PDF file to over 11 MB.
Sorry for showing as unregistered. My user name and password no longer stick to my postings. I must manually add them each time. I sent the last response to Lynn’s post.
Lynn - One thing about the narratives…is it an official/formal part of the “change”? Or do you disclaim it as “not-necessarily-complete-or-all-inclusive”?