Construction Contract Administration

Do you find a difference between public/hi-ed  and multi-fam/residential (development) projects for the CCA phase ? We do both types of work, but when it comes to CCA there seems to be a lack of understanding on how to use specifications for the work. For the Multi-Fam GC it's purely a vehicle for submittals. All other scope requirements are ignored. They want all these "directions"  noted in the drawings! The specs are ignored and they say they don't read it! It's not a huge spec either 350 pages for Architectural sections.

This is my example- this is the situation for Multi-Family/Residential work:- The exposed steel equipment supports on the roof were not primed nor painted by GC. It's now rusting, (as exposed steel would here in So Cal). We pointed this out in the AFOR and indicated it needed to be primed and painted. Spec section 05 0513 - Shop Applied Steel Primer ; Section on Surface Preparation  indicates the Application & Surface Preparation. Section 09 9100 - Painting states "Unless otherwise indicated, paint all surfaces throughout the Project, except the following. 
a. Concrete. 
b. Steel decking. 
c. Roofing. 
d. Insulation and its facing. 
e. Finish hardware, except items specified with a USP finish. 
f. Prefinished metal surfaces, including anodized aluminum, chrome plating, powder coatings, and similar pre-finished materials. 
g. Natural finish metal surfaces, including mill finish aluminum, stainless steel, copper, bronze, brass and similar finished materials. 
h. Walls or ceilings in concealed and inaccessible areas, including furred areas, chases, and shafts. 
i. Moving, mechanical, or electrical parts of operating units, including valve and damper operator linkages, sensing devices, motor and fan shafts.. 
j. Nameplates and required labels, including UL, FM, and other equipment identification, performance rating, or name plates. 

Where surfaces are not specifically indicated, paint them to match adjacent similar materials or areas. "

The GC has the Owner convinced we are at fault as there wasn't a "note" on the drawings. We believe the specification above is a sufficient, requiring priming for steel & painting of the exposed steel. The GC submitting a CO to the Owner &  the  Architect being blamed, (apparently the spec was never read to that level of detail, so it doesn't count!). This would not be the case for the public work. They read and comply. Steel in the same location on a public project is painted!  Any thoughts on this or am I just dealing with "bad" actors (meaning a lesser quality of contractor than those doing public/commercial work).  We have been documenting and copying the Owner to insure the liability paper-trail. 

We were taught to place information once.....putting execution notes construction drawings is always a bad idea. They belong in the specs as you have done. Have had a look at the owner's contract with the contractor? Does it require the contractor to build according to the Contract Documents, which are defined as construction drawings and specifications? Does your contract with the owner call for you to deliver Contract Documents, construction drawings and specifications? By looking at the contracts signed with the owner you may have some good legal ground to stand on to place the blame where it belongs. Good Luck!

Janene,

There is certainly a difference in experience, knowledge, and competence between contractors, and further, there are differences between contractors that perform commercial vs. residential construction. For future projects, it would be wise to understand these differences and tailor your documents accordingly. By suggesting this, I don't mean that you should "dumb them down" but rather understand the level of sophistication of the contractors that are likely to be building from your documents. One thought would be to provide specific references to the relative specification sections and provide more general references in notes on the drawings referencing the specs.

As to your current dilemma, if the specifications are listed in the construction contract as a Contract Document, it's a poor excuse that the Contractor failed to read it and that argument is not likely to prevail in dispute resolution. I suggest that any response to a request for additional cost or a Claim be responded to with specific citations from the Contract Documents that may disallow the request or Claim. Hold your ground and educate your client.

Also, it seems you may have allowed this to fester. If the Contract utilized AIA Documents there are means to address a Contractor's failure to perform but the Owner must be willing to exercise those remedies. There are also provisions in the B-Series Documents to be paid Additional Services for excessive claims but your firm needs to be willing to request payment for such services.

good luck!

I have found an unbelievable disparity between the document-literacy of commercial contractors and residential contractors. Understanding this, I have chosen options that are primarily designed to get the job done--and secondarily may cause contractors to become more document-literate (at least I hoped that).

One (not very successful) attempt included printing specifications on full-size drawing sheets--6 to 12 pages of specs per sheet, depending on drawing sheet size.

Another practice I have considered, but never attempted, was printing all details in the Project Manual--one detail per page--instead of in the drawing set. I learned about this from a firm practicing in Southern California in the 1980's. I believe their objective was to ensure that the Project Manual was used consistently throughout construction and to get builders used to using a Project Manual. And perhaps to save money on printing? I've always been concerned that this might add details to the list of ignored contract documents.

------------------------------
Sean Catherall AIA
Murray UT
------------------------------

Arlen, I found your comment very insightful and I think you've pinpointed the main contributors to the sometimes irrelevance of specifications. Among many thoughtful remarks, you said, "...our specs have become less readable, more encyclopedic, and less useful to field tradespeople." In my career, I have witnessed handfuls of initiatives to shorten specifications and to make them more accessible. However, these initiatives don't get far and don't stay for long. I see two impediments that spec reform will have to be overcome: 1. The hegemony of CSI. It seems to cling to tradition and its own interpretation of "best practice" to the detriment of spec-writing. 2. The attitude that the specification is primarily a formulaic, legalistic, get-out-of-court-free card--a summation of a non-linear, creative process boiled down to a set of how-to-build instructions to an alien who has never seen a building before, written by an attorney who gets paid by the word. Our current spec format appears to assume that every project starts with a contentious hard bid that will end in a lawsuit and/or a brawl if we don't deliver the Talmud of contract rules. I rarely see construction procured this way in the 2020's. It's time we rethink this tradition.

Regarding Arlen's "many more references to standards without including what in the standard is critical for the application" comment:

a.  For ASTM or other standards referring to products, the key is that the item meets those standards.  Packaging should say that.  Contractor should tell his supplier "sell me stuff that meets this criteria".  If you happen to be at the job and see otherwise, then start talking about "non-conforming materials" being used. 

b.  For basic residential work, there will be no submittals, Contractor will buy what they like to work with or what is in-stock.  Architect will probably not be aware of the discrepancy.

c.  For ASTM or other standards describing how to execute the work - like, maybe drywall finishing or tile setting - sub-contractor will probably just do it like they always have.  Application instructions on the packaging are in too-small font to read, if they had the time. 

d.  And, yes, Civil and Structural drawings  often include "General Notes" pages covered with "Contractor shall" messages.  I think these are intended to get drawings approved by plan reviewers.  It could be possible to create something like that for the architectural sections, in an extremely abbreviated version.

e.  I can't remember a building plan reviewer asking for a copy of a Project Manual.

For those looking for a simple specification master, I recommend seeing if you can locate "SpexPlus" on a way-back search of the internet.  It was free, until it wasn't - I think that the Masterspec behemoth bought the rights.  Kind of like the original MSpec "Short Language Version" but even more condensed.  My latest master dates to 2017.  Yes, a lot of products have appeared since then, but it is a solid foundation to build on.  I have used it for projects bigger than houses - no houses yet - but it probably could be distilled to become "Sheet specs".

And, related to an earlier suggestion about binding details in the project manual - 35 or so years ago the firm I was with did that for a high school project; 11x17 detail pages.  Naturally, since no one purging archives at the school district or at the firm recognized that they were something a bit more special than just "more spec pages", all of those original 11x17s and copies were discarded.  15 years later, when it was time to do a small addition -- matching details became a guessing game.  According to those who worked on the project, 11x17 copies were very handy for installers to use.  Today, iPads, etc. take care of that.

I definitely find variability even among commercial contractors in diligence and understanding of the role of specifications and reference to scope and execution. Its ireally difficult to handle and we have started billing CA hourly for this reason because we have lost so much money so many times training GCs and CMs on where things are outlined between specs and drawings and making the case for items being included that we feel we cant estimate a fixed fee for construction without knowing the GC and their capability. 

There are a few things we do that can help. 

We do very thorough scope review with the low bidder before they sign the contract for construction with the owner and go over specific items in the spec that we find are regularly missed and then include those minutes in the contract as an exhibit. 

Obviously the contract for construction includes the spec and drawings and the specific issuances are dated and numbered and the general conditions A201 is included as well which all help to reinforce the inclusion of all items in contract documents. 

Preconstruiction meetings are very helpful to manage expectations as far as procedures and we always mention that there are quality and execution requirements that need to be met included in the specifications and these should be included in the submittals. 

And lastly if there are scope notes like the paint you are referring to in the spec we try and note them in the submittals if we can to head it off at the pass. 

Its not going to stop all of what you describe from happening but at least you have a paper trail to point to with the owner to show your due diligence and the liklihood of a great deal of push back from the contractor goes way down.

Thank you all for your informative responses. 

My take away is that - yes the "resi-multifam" GCs are a "challenging" group! We should stick to our guns and document our position. CA fee should be "hourly" especially if the GC is not someone we've worked with before as the training (and discussions related to that training) can really eat our time up.  

Good insight from many. Having done primarily non-residential work I agree it can vary by the GC or CM. Regarding the "complexities" of specs, we have been using BSD SpecLink (now RIB SpecLink) for many years. I think SpecLink specs are more streamlined in that it can pare the spec down to the pertinent info. Masterspec can be wordy and seem overly prescriptive sometimes. There are some specs that have need for more verbiage added, but I think the focus is still to keep it to the info that matters, what you care about vs what the contractor can have some leeway in.