I have a question for something that has been bugging me …
The firm I work for is an architectural firm (no in-house engineers). One consulting MEP firm in particular has been sending us final CD specifications via e-mail attachment with the expectation that we will then take the time to print them out and insert them into our final documents before it goes to the printer for bid sets. My take on this is that we are spending our time printing out the documents and using our paper and our toner, etc., etc. I will say that I do not know what our contract says with the engineer (like, does it actually require paper copies), but up until about a year ago, we have always gotten paper copies.
I think we should be deducting the time spent on printing everything out from the final bill of any MEP consultant who expects us to serve as their printer and we should charge them a printing cost as well to cover the expense of paper and toner. A lot of times we get the structural sections via e-mail and I don’t have a problem with printing those because at the most it’s five sections or so. MEP sections are a completely different story because they can be as large or larger in size than the architectural specifications.
But, I am curious, are you, who work for architectural only firms, experiencing the same thing? What is your policy?
I prefer it electronically sent in either MS Word or rich text format. This way I can quickly edit for coordination issues, spelling, grammar, format, etc. I figure that I can do these tasks quicker than playing the back-and-forth hardcopy game until they get it right. To me, a well-coordinated and formatted project manual that is delivered on time is worth the added effort.
Yes, it would be a wonderful world if consultants could get it right the first time and delivered a ready-for-print hardcopy. But until that happens, I’ll gladly print out a copy.
As a specification consultant, my contract with my architect clients is to provide them with e-copies of the final project manual or sections I’m contracted for, to be sent to the printer of their choice.
All of my clients, (to my knowledge) provide the files to the printer in lieu of a paper master to print from. If they require a hard (paper) copy for review from me, I have that as an additional charge to the contract. I’m a very small office and have to send the files to the printer for any sizable printing jobs.
I don’t agree with the editing of consultant’s specifications. If we have changes that we feel need to be picked up, we communicate that to the engineer so it can be discussed and they can make the change. I personally think there’s a liability issue with making changes to a consultant’s documents. I do not want to responsible for a potential claim because we changed something in their specifications, however small and insignificant it may seem.
I provide a document to each consultant at the beginning of the project called “Specification Guide for Consultants.” In there, I explain exactly how I want their specifications and how I want them trasmitted to me. I also VERY CLEARLY explain that I may modify their sections under the following conditions:
a. Any changes made will affect only the format, the way the content is presented, or to correct spelling or grammatical errors.
b. Changes WILL NOT be made to technical requirements unless expressly approved by the consultant who authored the section.
c. Major format changes required on a specification section will be annotated and returned to the consultant for correction.
Changing a spelling error, a grammatical error, or modifiying the format (i.e. paragraph number, bold text, etc.) should not bring upon any additional liability for the architect. I have not had any problems with a consultant about having to change something (Actually, they’re quite receptive since they don’t have to do it).
When we have used a spec consultant to help out during crunch times (preparing architectural specifications), his contract and what we pay for is to have an electronic copy so we have something to archive when it comes time to do that and a hard copy to use as an original. He also has a small office but it doesn’t seem to be a hardship for him to provide the hard copy.
Our printer gets a hard copy project manual to use for printing the bid sets.
Hi Tracy,
It’s not a hardship to send the spec sections out to the printer for hardcopy, we just find it to be more expedient to have the A/E print them for many reasons. 1. He usually has a more heavy duty printer if done in-house, and 2. it costs him more when I send them out to print. Either way he pays for the printing, only difference is whose pocket it comes out of first.
And this way works for us.
I also like to get the electronic documents. My spec standards document specifically tells them not to include anything about firestopping or access doors (except duct access doors) in their sections. How many heed the standard? NONE! So, I usually get Mechanical General with firestopping, Electrical General with firestopping, piping with firestopping and then the telecommunication consultant also includes firestopping. It is much easier for me to delete the offending articles rather than have a lengthy discussion which will have absolutely no effect on their spec production, because they will use the same masters for the next project. It is aggravating, isn’t it?
I agree with Ronald that you should provide your consultants with a guide that includes the requirements for deliverables. I include a provision in my consultant agreement requiring the Architect to notify the consultants of their obligation to conform to the principles of MasterFormat, coordinate with Division 01, and make a good faith effort to match font style, header/footer, margins, and 3-part Section format per my sample page layout.
Most of my Architect clients send PDF files of specifications to their outside printer for printing and distribution. It is my assumption that they bill the Owner for this cost. This seems to work well because the Project Manuals that I have received for reference are properly printed with all sections starting on the right hand page.
Having all the consultant sections in electronic format would appear to be an advantage. On many projects, the Architect forwards the consultant sections to me to extract the titles and number of pages for the Table of Contents. On some prestige projects, I am asked to update the headers and footers and tweak the formatting (e.g., font type and size) to match my page style. No editing of technical content is done.
Many of my projects are negotiated or design-build, and the builders are requesting a copy of the PDF files for internal use during pricing and construction.
Other advantages of providing electronic files are quicker delivery when working at a distance, providing data that can be burned to a CD for archiving, and color coding text that would be lost when printing on paper.
For some of our projects, we take the consultant’s e-specs, convert them to locked PDFs, and upload them to our FTP site where anyone with the password can view, download, or print what they need. That can save tens of thousands of dollars and a couple of trees.
Richard makes a good point. Having a FTP site for project documents is a big convenience for distributing the final PDF files, but it would be even better if they provided a site to store the original electronic files during the development phase. Not all firms are willing to do this. Sometimes they have a site, but do not allow outside consultants to access it.
When I started with this firm, we used to get consultant files electronically, and I put a stop to that immediately. Two reasons:
the (fake reason):"your electronic files could be corrupted and we would never know.
the (real) reason: it is an overhead expense to print and format electronic files and this should be borne by the consultant.
I’ve heard complaints because hard copy files have to be overnighted to our office, but I consider that to be a cost of doing business, and a $20 delivery fee is not much in a $50,000 (or more) consultant contract.
If there are very last minute changes, I will make an exception occassionally and print out ONE section for a consultant.
Some years ago, I was a spec consultant to a national organization and they had hired about 10 other consultants and said that they could send me electronic files. some of the software used for those files was so arcane (I’m thinking of the hardware consultant here) that it cost me hundreds of dollars to have the software translated at Kinkos and printed. I had a hefty fee on that project, but I spent literally hundreds of hours (it was 238 hours, if I remember correctly) translating files and formatting them so that I could provide the Owner with a CD that had all the files on it. After that, I specified file format and hard copy. Our hardware consultants now use some file format that does not translate well if we get it electronically and I can easily spend a whole day formatting and printing a large hardware schedule – or I can get it from them in hardcopy and give it to the printer.
If you are requested by the Owner to print electronic files, I would suggest having a line item for that time and cost so that they can see just what it is costing them to “convenience” their consultants.
Seems like it really is a matter of agreement. What does your consultant agreement say about reimbursible expenses? What about your agreement with the client? Equally important it seems, are the consultants sending you stamped and signed documents? Do you allow electronic seals, or does your area require wet stamps? We ask for hard copies and an electorinc copy back-up. I don’t like editing consultant specs or drawings. I don’t want the assumed liability, real or not. We ask them to make all their own edits. I also let them have a sample of our spec so they can format beforehand. I also require they get me specs a day before they actually go out (two days depending on the consultant) and then hope to get them the day of issue. Most of the time that works and there is some time to allow for their editing if required. Then they email me the specific section and I replace it in the originals.
The electroinc copy is for our record. We really want to move towards paperless archiving, but it is a paradigm shift in a big way. Our spec department has a recycle bin that is full before anyone else. We “burn” a ton of paper.
We use Planwell here in Houston. It works great. However, we do get a large deposit of originals sent back to us which we really have no use for anymore once they are scanned and put on file at the blueprinters.
Thought for another thread: “Top 10 things to do with original specs after digitizing…”
I request hard copy originals an electronic copy of the consultants spec sections for archive and filing. This is the exact same procedure that we ask the consultants to do for the drawings. Why should the procedure for the specs be any different?
Our admin staff will occasionally make a minor correction to a consultants specification section. Usually this correction is at the last minute and is minor. For example the footer does not agree with the section title.
With any major corrections, the consultant is notified and a new corrected section is sent. Sometimes it is only sent electronically.
The teams try to give the consultants an early deadline in order to have time to review and coordinate their documents.
Amazing. I refuse to accept electronic specs from consultants as a general rule (there are always a few exceptions). Like most of you, I dont have the time, or the desire, to open and print a bunch of spec sections at the last minute. Im sure some of the pages would break differently on my printer too and that could throw page count off.
I too send a document to all consultants at the start of a project with basic format and coordination instructions. We then require, and usually get, copies (hard copies) of consultant specs as part of our 95% QC review process a couple of weeks prior to issue. I go through their specs carefully at that time and mark them up as necessary and return to them for corrections. Im amazed that some of you actually make changes to consultant documents yourselves; even minor ones. Theres no way I would accept that potential liability.
My favorite story was receiving an electronic spec section from a consultant that was Password Protected. I couldnt open it, or print it!
To this point, we’ve usually received electronic copies of consultant’s specifications … this had worked out well, and allowed us to do, if necessary, the minor editing noted above. As long as we don’t have to open each section to print them (which we do thru the desktop), it goes quickly … we would still do a cursory review to ensure the we don’t have any empty pages, etc.
We just had a situation where we recieved electronic copies of the consultant’s specifications, which included a spreadsheet of fixtures and equipment. Unfortunately, we were not aware of the spreadsheet having several worksheets so we did not print all of the worksheets. The consultant never reviewed the spec after they received their copy. Needless to say, the project was bid, no mention was made by bidders that the notes for the schedules were missing, and only now, several months into the project, was it finally discovered that these were missing. We’ll have to see how this develops with the contractor, but we have now disscussed that any spreadsheets included with spec sections will need to be redone on one worksheet (schedules and notes together) or we will need to get .pdf’s of spreadsheets.
From Doug: “Im amazed that some of you actually make changes to consultant documents yourselves; even minor ones. Theres no way I would accept that potential liability.”
I don’t see how making a minor change can add SO MUCH liability. How many architects (or specification writers) have been sued for changing something like “befor” to “before,” or renumbering paragraphs because the consultant had two subparagraphs numbered “3”? To me its not worth my time writing a lengthy “correction list” or marking up documents and then preparing the transmittal back to the consultant for corrections.
As professional specification writers, I think we all know where that line is between simple corrections to manipulation of content. I would never change a specified product, installation procedure, etc.
Every consultant gets an electronic copy of what was included in the manual. Usually, this is done at the DD submission, so they have plenty of opportunity to change anything they want during the CD phase. After CD’s, if they have a problem with it, then we’ll issue a correction in the next addendum (there’re always addenda).
I don’t want to start a long harangue here, however;
I dont create a lengthy Correction List; just redline their hard copy and send it back to them. Takes a whole lot less of my time than were I to make the corrections myself.
What happens when you change the second paragraph #3 to #4, and in other locations in the Consultant’s specs, there are references to that paragraph #3 (the one you changed to #4)? Sure there would have been a question raised if you hadn’t changed it, but now it could just be wrong. Renumbering paragraphs is “manipulation of content”.
And frankly, if I may speak frankly, who cares if “befor” is mis-spelled? I never concern myself with trivial stuff like that.