A sub called today about a question on our chain link spec. I look at the files on my computer and realized I did not have the section. So I told him that Civil wrote the spec. The sub called back and said Civil said we wrote the spec. After fooling around, I realized that the Athletic Field Consultant wrote the spec.
This made me think. Why not identify the author of the spec sections? We identify the author of the drawing sheets.
Your comments please.
David:
I do not believe any of the consultants should be named on the drawings let alone in the specifications. It helps keeep the information chain clean.
All questions should go first to the Architect. He should know who made the decisions, and is the only one that should answer. It may be an overreaction, but it makes the point, the Consultant is not authorized to make changes.
I absolutely agree with Richard.
We, as the architect, create a drawing format for a particular project. It includes the names of the company information of the consultants.
Everyone uses the same titleblock, there is no separate identification as to who has done what drawing, it reads like a single combined effort, just as the project manual does. And on the project manual, in our introductory information we have a ‘fly sheet’ that includes same information.
Sometimes at an Owner will request that an independent consultant have their work issued with ours. Neither for drawings nor project manual elements do we bind it into our sets. As a courtesy we will coordinate the printing - I create a separate cover and booklet for project manual elements so it appears in its own separate bound book but it is not even referenced in ours. Same for the drawings, we will send them out to the printer and they will have a separate binding on these other drawings.
Here in our area, Washington DC, civil, geotech, building security, and building signage are almost always separate consultants to the Owner whose documents are separate and not combined with our. Some of our Owners also deal with landscaping as a separate consultant not part of the project team. And if they have a separate architectural lighting consultant, they too are almost always totally separate from our documents.
For high rise apartments and condos here, the owners will often take separate design services proposals for the main public spaces (lobbies, upper level lobbies and corridors, specialty rooms like party rooms, fitness centers, etc.) and though we also have a complete interiors department, they don’t always get the contract for interiors, so those drawings and specification information are also totally separate packages.
William
As with William, our firm creates one title block with all design professionals listed. However, as required by law in North Carolina, the indivisual designers must affix their seals to their work. Further, the sheet identification, (UDS/NCS for sheet number) identifies the discipline by a single character, A for Architectural, S for Structural, etc.
We also include on Document 00001-Project Title Page, the list of all project design professionals, including names, addresses, telephone, fax, and e-mail addresses. We go further list on Document 00005- Certifications Page of the project manual all sections of the Specifications (Division 1-16) under the name and signature of the responsible design professional which claims aurthorship of the work. This keeps the chain of responsibility clear.
In cases where we are only acting as the specification consultant for an A/E firm, we are listed as such on the Project Title Page, however, the Architect of Record is listed as the author of the appropriate specifications on the Certification Page.
We have been doing this for years and have had no problems.
Richard Hird stated, and I concur, that “All questions should go first to the Architect.”
Should it also be stated that all questions from subcontractors should go first to the general or prime contractor?
I do believe that the ‘authors’ of the various parts of the contract documents should be identified. I have occasionally seen specs identified by the major consultants - after all, they are usually identified on the drawings. I see nothing wrong with this, and in fact, as Dennis points out, there are legal issues, at least with the licensed professionals. Plus, I think that the consultants deserve recognition for their work. There’s no go reason to keep their identity bottled up and hidden. Hopefully, the project architect knows off the top of her or his head who wrote each spec section!
On the other hand, communications should go through the GC to the Architect to the consultant. This is true in part because those subs and consultants work for the GC and the Architect, and also because those two firms serve as the “integrators” of information - every decision affects something else. I usually advise both the GC, the subs and my consultants at the start of the job that I don’t want them talking directly except under specific circumstances. Often during construction, having direct conversations (such as between the steel fabricator and the structural engineer) is necessary due to the “language” spoken. If I have a good consultant, they advise me in writing of every conversation for the record.
I agree with the last couple of posts: in the table of contents, I typically identify the preparing party for the spec sections, and our drawings are identified by preparer, also. We used to separately issue those documents prepared by the consultants to the Owner (geotech, etc) but now these are bound into our documents with a notation either on a section cover sheet or on the table of contents as to who the preparer (ie, responsible party) is for that portion of the documents. I’ve found that this cuts down on questions to us in some cases; provides a clear an easy method of identifying the responsible firm for document preparation; and also serves as a check for me when I get questions 1 year and 30 jobs later…
As for project questions: I agree entirely with Mr. Bunzick’s second paragraph.
If the chain link section had not had the words “copyright 2003 XXXXX Consultant”. I would have never figured out who wrote the spec. The project has stopped and started for 3 years and the project architect is on vacation.
Sometimes the project managers have me put a Project Directory in our specs that list all the consultants. Our drawing titleblock has a list of all the consultants and address and phone #'s. Engineers and Architects are required to put a stamp on the drawing sheets that they prepared.
Although I agree that all questions should be directed through the architect, we should not try and conceal the information of who prepared what. I always wondered why our table of contents has a letter after the section number identifying the consultant, i.e. Section 02230 C - Site Clearing. “C” stands for Civil Engineer.
I would agree that if you are including sections that are not part of the architectural team (architect and consultants to the architect) that not only is it a good idea to indicate which sections are by consultants to the owner - but that its really necessary. You need to identify that work for which the architect is not responsible - most particularly, not responsible in maintaining the current status of the document. You have no real way of knowing if they ever revise them or reissue them or even replace them…and that’s for both drawings and specifications.
Which it the reason that we don’t put them in the project manual - and that’s still the best position.
William
Who would be the author of Section 03300 - Cast-in-Place Concrete? Is it the structural engineer or the architect? or the civil engineer whose drainage structures use cast-in-place concrete? of the landscape architect whose gazebo has concrete footings? or the mechanical engineer whose boiler has a raised housekeeping pad? or the electrical engineer whose transformer has a slab on grade and whose parking lot pole-mounted area lights have concrete foundations?
Sometimes there are multiple responsibilities.
As I understand the Project Manual concept … and I guess I have a rather liberal viewpoint … anything that can fit between the covers of the Project Manual can be in the Project Manual, whether it is part of the MasterFormat numbering or not (I’m thinking of “Appendices” which can contain all sorts of referenced documents).
For two recent projects, the signage consultant produced an elaborate document that contained both drawings and specifications but the specifications did not conform to SectionFormat and PageFormat. Rather than go through a dispute, I included the signage document in the Project Manual as an Appendix. I won’t win a CSI specifications competition but it worked fine for both bidding and construction.
David
As specification writer I try hard to meet the needs of
designers that do not show what needs to be shown on the drawings
bidders that do not define trade scopes during bidding
contractors that do not hire qualified subcontractors and tradesman
lawyers that can not make a case solely on what is right and wrong
insurance companies that do not intend to cover what goes wrong
Even though I should not have to be concerned about any of the above I do. Hopefully you will forgive me for not caring about a management that can not find their files.
John,
Typically the architect is the author of Section 03300 - Concrete, with input from the Civil/Structural Engineer.
I am talking about sections that we get from our consultants that we just stick into the project manual. I believe that these consultant prepared sections need to be identified if only by a code. This would also help our CA people track down who they should ask questions.
David
Just for the fun of discussion, there was a proposal that MasterFormat Section numbers should begin with a Discipline Designator similar to the NCS for drawings. This would mean you could have structural concrete, architectural concrete, mechanical concrete, electrical concrete, etc. They might look like this S-03300, A-03300, etc. The project manual would be organized by disciplines again similar to drawings. The task team would not support the idea and so we had other suggestions to consider.
The reason for identification of the author of the Section has nothing to do with the lines of communication, and everything to do with responsibility for content. We currently have a project and the structural engineer is responsible for 03300- Cast-in-place Concrete inside a turbine building of a nuclear station. We are happy to allow them have the responsibility for this work, besides they work directly for the Owner not the Architect (me).
We also have design work which the Owner is responsible for. Now, do you think I am happy to allow them to be responsible for this work? Heck yea! And we eagerly attach their name besides the Project Manual Sections which they prepared.
PS. John, there is nothing wrong with an Appendix in a Project Manual. I don’t usually have them, but it is an acceptable way of handling stuff that needs to be shared with the bidders and contractors.
IF [???] we see a need to ID the author [and many of us do not!] let’s keep it simple [I agree that the Task Force should reject the prefix letter]-- so how about this, IF necessary?
SECTION 00000 - XXXXXXXXXX [centered]
Prepared By: _________________
Checked By: __________________
PART 1 GENERAL
1.1 SUMMARY
etc.
In this age of electronic media, even for wordprocessing, and I am not aware of anyone who produces a spec without it. How about using the Hidden text feature or a comments note that can be inserted into the electronic copy for the record to identify the “Prepared by and Checked by” information. I feel putting it into the printed text adds clutter that is not needed to build the project.
The hidden text is a good idea, and I agree with my NoVA colleague regarding the added “clutter,” but I think I need to side with Dennis on this one. The Document 00005 - Certification Page seems to be the best place, not only for authorship but for professional seals as well. I’ve run across too many issues and scenarios that only the Certification Page would solve, such as:
A structural engineer prepares their Division 6 sections (for a large wood-frame building) so poorly that they basically have to be re-written, supplemented, and re-formatted, not to mention actually edited for the project (thank goodness I had their electronic copy). I ended up spending unnecessary (and non-budgeted) hours cleaning up their mess. Ultimately, I ended up being the author, not the structural engineer.
The CA department does not have computer rights or access to the specifications folder, or if they do, they don’t have the know-how to be able to turn on the hidden text.
The consultants don’t give us electronic copies of their sections, only hard copies. Hence, no ability to view the hidden text.
Specifications prepared by consultants not in sequence, i.e. structural (earthwork for building pad and drilled piers - Div. 2, concrete - Div. 3, structural steel - Div. 5), M/E/P (fire alarm and fire protection - Div. 13 [when you can get them to do ther instead of in 15 and 16!], mechanical - Div. 15, electrical - Div. 16) are just some examples. There’s also the civil and landscape stuff intermixed with the rest of Div. 2, which is sandwiched between Div. 1 (by architect) and Div. 3 (some by architect, some by structural). And then there’s the sound/acoustical consultant writing their own Div. 16 sections - which the elctrical engineer won’t seal. The professional seals - which end up being scattered all over the T of C pages, may be in the vicinity of the specifications prepared by that consultant, but are not specifically identified as being associated with, or having been prepared by, that particular consultant.
Proper identification of specifications prepared by Owner’s outside consultants, without them appearing on the same page, or adjacent to, specifications prepared by other consultants.
Seems like the Certification Page would fix all that. Plus, with the information readily available to the end-users of the Project Manual, the subcontractor would not have called the architect directly in the first place. He would have called the consultant. Still wrong (should go through the GC), AND the CA person was left out of the loop! Hmmmm . . . now THERE’S a case for keeping them guessing. It’s so nice the feel needed. 
This discussion started because a sub wnated to talk directly with someonw other than the Architect - in other words violate the proper communications chain. The Architect of Record can keep any kind of sheet in his office to know where the author of any and all sections of the manual can be located, but please why contribute to your own troubles by publishing the author’s name. You want to be aware of and control the information on your own project. The Certifications Section is the proper location for identification of the author of each section, so how did the Architect issue a manual without knowing another party wrote the section?
Robert,
I absolutely agree. Its really easy to track on a duplicate table of contents who did what. It invites direct and uncontroled contacts to the consultant author of specific sections - and that invites someone to give an uncoordinated answer and potential problems.
There is simply no need, and no real rational, that can stand up to logic as to why someone would do this on individual sections.
The only exception is that one situation where you are forced or required to publish in the project manual documents by others not in the design team, direct consultants to the owner.
William
The above brings me back to the use of hidden text and comment fields within the document. The information is there and is visible to those that need to get to it, (the designer/specifier) without cluttering the information needed to build the job. It’s easy to do, track, and doesn’t get lost from the original document.
As to the argument that putting the author of the specification section in the project manual invites direct contact: You would have to keep their identity secret throughout the entire construction phase for that to work. As soon as one memo or other bit of information is mentioned as to who the “kitchen consultant”, “structural engineer”, etc. (make your own list) is, the problem instantly returns. I’d rather make sure my consultans know the proper protocol along with the contractor and the subs, and emphasize procedure from the start of construction.
There’s another dirty secret to this issue. Most architects do not have sufficient fee (often because the owner doesn’t see the value - ah, but I’m getting off track again) to provide much staff during CA. Thus, as an example, I have been the single person on a $50 million project. If every conversation goes through that one person, they become rather a bottleneck. As long as the documentation is appropriate, selective direct contact can serve a useful purpose. Sometimes pragmatism has to win out over the correct methods. If you’ve been there, you know what I mean.