curious…what is the longest period of time you would allow to pass (while a project is on “hold”)and still use prevously produced specifications? For example, I prepared specifications in 2007, the job went on hold, and the clients wants to issue the same specs (and doesn’t want to pay to have me review and update them). I am arguing against it strongly, but am curious what everyone else thinks or does.
A lot could have changed in 6 years - Building Codes, Standards, products & manufacturers may have gotten bought out or went out of business, etc. I’d say they would have to be reviewed and updated, regardless of the time frame.
I agree Rich. Already explained all that. They don’t care and won’t pay to have them updated. Of course, none of the other consultants have a problem re-issuing their specs. Other than outright refusing to re-issue them (which i have thought about), i am not sure what to do.
Real simple letter explaining that this course of action is strongly ill-advised, that the minute amount of money the client saves from having you do your job will be eclipsed by the mountain of money they will pay to fix every hole that will exist. The other part of this is that, if you carry insurance, your carrier probably won’t cover the project since you were not permitted to update the documents. If you are working for an A/E, they may want to check with their carrier as well. This client may be setting themselves for a big hurt.
I concur with Ken. There also may be an issue here with the Architect’s “Standard of Care” if the specifications do not comply with current codes, etc.?
believe it or not, i explained all that, and wrote a letter and suggested they talk to their legal counsel. My problem now, is there is a newly designed pool building, so they want me to prepare new sections (that aren’t already covered in the primary building) and it would be a “supplement” to the prior building. I think, by doing that, i am giving my blessing on re-using the old specs. Would you outright refuse? That is the direction I am leaning, but wanted to see if there is any argument for just going with it with a lot of written disclaimers.
I would consult your own legal counsel. If there is a subsequent lawsuit, you will be dragged into it.
Again, I would check with the insurance carrier. If you can get your a/e client to allow you access to their legal counsel, that would be best. Unfortunately too many a/e firms would rather sell their souls to get a small commission than protect themselves and their consultants from lawsuits.
One big takeaway I had from a recent insurance seminar is that clients who pull this type of stunt are the last to pay and the first to sue. A few wisely spent minutes with your insurance carrier or a few dollars spent on legal counsel now may more than pay for itself later.
Sorry to hear that you’re in this conundrum.
Thanks guys…i appreciate the input. I don’t have insurance and I am my own legal counsel, so i will stick with my guns. Thought i would see if anyone else had any experience or other suggestions on how to handle the situation.
We have a project currently in construction with a somewhat similar issue of old documents that were created in 2008 and then shelved.
The project has a crazy history which I will relate briefly below. The client did not want to pay for anything more than a very quick restart effort with minimal revision of drawings and specs. First we did the sort of peer review we would normally do as a professional service as a third party, but in this case for our own project. Next, we did a re-selection of the architectural finish materials which had all long since gone out of production (or at least re-named). We allowed the specifications for lab and MEP equipment to stay as-is but with the bid instructions that these represented a basis-of-design with relaxed substitution requirements for bid phase substitutions.
The effort was made much easier because we did not need to revise to a new code because the public entity client had the authority to stick with the previous code edition.
The major cause of redesign was an almost complete change over of the University teaching staff who would use the labs. They each got an opportunity to make minor changes to their lab areas.
The project is a university lab remodel at a University of California campus. Architecture firm “A” did the original design that went all the way to bid in 2008 before the university cancelled the project as the economy rapidly went sour.
Then firm “A” was purchased by firm “B” and was totally absorbed into that much bigger firm. As the years went by and people moved on the UC project on hold was virtually forgotten in dusty flat files and archived on servers.
Then firm “B” merged with my firm, “C”. What we shared with the original firm “A” was geographical proximity and a couple employees who had worked for both over the years.
So it was our now merged office that got the unexpected cold call in 2012 from a UC project manager that they wanted to restart the project and put it out to bid all over again and we all better get crackin’.
It is a very strange experience to have someone cold call you and say you are the Architect of Record for a $25 million dollar university lab project and that you need to promptly start submitting invoices.
I have to say that with the University’s help this actually worked. We are about 75% complete with only about 150 RFI’s with changes well within the University’s contingency.
The codes have changed. Thus it is likely that the original specifications have code violations. Once you are aware of this I do not see how the architect or engineer can legally stamp and seal the documents. I am assuming that you do not have an active permit that has been kept in effect since 2007.
Contrary to what appears to be common belief, specifications are not boilerplate. I track many of the changes I make to our master specifications, and it’s amazing how many there are. Some, such as restating or moving a paragraph aren’t critical and would not cause problems, but others are essential.
If a project goes on the shelf for even a year, I compare the edited sections with the masters, with a little help from my log of changes. Inevitably, many updates are required. Five years out, I’d be inclined to start over, but the new specs should take much less time because the old ones would (should) have most of the information covered.
Robin,
We had a similar situation recently. The Architect-client took our 2007 draft specifications and issued them to bid in 2013, without our knowledge. I don’t know if they reviewed their Drawings, but I doubt it. The exterior framing, sheathing, air/vapor barrier, and insulation went up before the building inspector shut down the jobsite for failure to meet Code.
As we used to say, penny-wise pound-foolish.
Maybe the lesson here is to include language in the original architect-owner or consultant contract, anticipating the situation and permitting a graceful, or at least legally sound exit/negotiating stance.
I think outright refusal to reuse the old specs is the best course of action to protect your interests and other members of the project team – whether or not they understand that. I have taken that stance, and had clients ultimately agree to a reduced fee to rewrite specs from current masters. The old spec serves as a valuable resource, substantially reducing the spec development effort.
We’ve faced this on a number of jobs; we call them night of the living dead projects. Generally, if a specification has been more than 3 or 4 years old, or if the jurisdiction has adopted a later edition of the building code in the interim, we have been successful in having the owner agree to pay for updating the specification.
The extent to which the previous specification can be reused is also dependent on whether the designers have changed their minds on what products they’re using since the documents were previously issued.
Part of your argument can be made by simply directing the Client to the “Changes” section of 4specs that Colin keeps so well updated for us.
It might help to point out that the IBC has a 3-year revision cycle.
As does ASTM and ASME A17.1, ASCE 7, and who-knows how many other Codes and standards. Oh, not to mention the new ADA.
Robin, I’m sure you won’t experience this as much since I’ve got a long learning curve, but when I think about how much I’ve learned since 2007 I worry about what I used to include, and leave out from, my specs. I don’t even want to think about what I used to issue back in the 70’s and 80’s.
I would definitely not use a specification that old. However, using the old spec as a reference for the selection of systems and materials would make preparation of a new spec much easier. Likely many things would not need too much revision (say, drywall and toilet accessories) but others may need significant research and rewriting. However, whatever revisions are needed due to code changes would require some work, or if there is a desire to incorporate a sustainability certification (like LEED).
sometimes things happen for a reason. While explaining to my client why i wasn’t comfortable doing this project, it came out that he thinks he merely tells me what sections to use (marking up an index) and i just include those sections in the spec. When i mentioned reviewing the drawings he said, “I am not asking you to do that, you are volunteering”. Apparently, he has no idea of the service i provide or what we do as specification consultants. So, there is a bigger problem going on here!! Thanks for everyone’s suggestions and input!