northwest region csi architect/consultant...

Northwest Region CSI

Architect/Consultant

Coordination: Bridging the GapSeminar 3B

Cherise Schacter, Interface EngineeringMay 9, 2014

Credit(s) earned on completion of

this course will be reported to AIA

CES for AIA members.

Certificates of Completion for both

AIA members and non,AIA

members will be available on,line

approximately 4,6 weeks after the

program.

This course is registered with AIA

CES for continuing professional

education. As such, it does not

include content that may be

deemed or construed to be an

approval or endorsement by the

AIA of any material of construction

or any method or manner of

handling, using, distributing, or

dealing in any material or product._______________________________________

Questions related to specific materials, methods,

and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.

This presentation is protected by US and International Copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation

without written permission of the speaker is prohibited.

© Interface Engineering 2013

Copyright Materials

This presentation will address the issue of conflicts in

specifications between consulting engineers and the

Architect.

Collaboration and Coordination tools will be discussed

to help eliminate these conflicts.

CourseDescription

Learning Objectives

, Identify the areas in the specifications that have potential for

conflict between the Architect and consulting engineers

, View real life examples of conflicts and discuss the

ramifications and lessons learned

, Discuss different methods and procedures to coordinate this

information and help eliminate these conflicts.

� Instructor Twitter Handle: @CheriseSchacter

� Event: #NWRC14

� Course Number: #3B

28 Years Experience in the Design/Construction Industry

Emerick Construction, General Contractor – 1 Year

Selig/Lee/Rueda Architects and Planners 3 23 Years

Interface Engineering – 4 Years

They call me “The Kraken”

CSI, Member (2+ years), Portland Chapter

Chapter:President3ElectChair – Education CommitteeMember – Programs Committee, NWRC Committee, Scholarship Committee, Certification CommitteeNewsletter Editor

Institute:Education Committee, 2nd yearCSI Academies Planning Team

Change!

“AIA Best Practices – Quality Control: Managing the Top 5 Risks”

“No matter how desirable a program of in3house loss prevention might be, such a program will not function if it imposes unrealistic burdens or unobtainable unrealistic burdens or unobtainable unrealistic burdens or unobtainable unrealistic burdens or unobtainable goalsgoalsgoalsgoals. It must, therefore, be implemented with little or no increase in general It must, therefore, be implemented with little or no increase in general It must, therefore, be implemented with little or no increase in general It must, therefore, be implemented with little or no increase in general overhead expensesoverhead expensesoverhead expensesoverhead expenses.”

This original article was published by Schinnerer & Co. in 1973. In over 40 years, the five areas within architecture practice that most frequently give rise to claims have remained the same.remained the same.remained the same.remained the same.

1. Failure to supervise inexperienced employees.

2.2.2.2. Inadequate project coordination and inInadequate project coordination and inInadequate project coordination and inInadequate project coordination and in3333house coordination.house coordination.house coordination.house coordination.

3.3.3.3. Failure to communicate between the prime professional and the Failure to communicate between the prime professional and the Failure to communicate between the prime professional and the Failure to communicate between the prime professional and the consultants.consultants.consultants.consultants.

4. Lack of quality control on design changes.

5. Poorly worded contract documents.

CommunicateCommunicateCommunicateCommunicate the Owner’s Needs

CommunicateCommunicateCommunicateCommunicate Roles & Responsibilities

CommunicateCommunicateCommunicateCommunicate Project Requirements

CommunicateCommunicateCommunicateCommunicate Conflict Resolution

COORDINATE COORDINATE COORDINATE COORDINATE the Team!

� No higher education is offered for Engineers in project delivery or contract requirements.

� The first education for a consultant typically happens as a result of a conflict on a specific project.

� Engineers almost never see the Owner/Arch Agreement, General & Supplementary Conditions, or Division 01 requirements.

� Engineers typically do not get a full copy of the contract documents until the project hits the streets.

� Engineering firms rarely have trained specification writers and individual engineers, regardless of training, typically write and edit their own specs on each project.

� Sometimes, multiple engineers in one firm are working on different parts of the same spec.

� Consultants have to adjust their specifications, language, requirements, formats, and information for every architect client.

Consulting Engineers represent 4%4%4%4% of total CSI Membership

Consulting engineers represent 4% of Consulting engineers represent 4% of Consulting engineers represent 4% of Consulting engineers represent 4% of total CSI Membershiptotal CSI Membershiptotal CSI Membershiptotal CSI Membership

So, where are consultants learning about contract requirements to avoid conflicts?

THEY’RE NOT!THEY’RE NOT!THEY’RE NOT!THEY’RE NOT!

� Clearly communicate requirements to all of your consultants. Do you have a process? Is it a reasonable process?

� Consider including CSI Certified consultants as a priority when selecting consultants on your next project.

� Include a request for number of CSI certified staff and type of certification as a part your RFP or request for fees from consultants.

� Invite your consulting engineers to participate in a CSI class, webinar or chapter meeting. Help them know what they are missing and how to fix it.

Bottom Line:Bottom Line:Bottom Line:Bottom Line: The Consultant works for the architect.The Consultant works for the architect.The Consultant works for the architect.The Consultant works for the architect. If it is important to you, it will become important to them.

Questions:Questions:Questions:Questions:

How many thoroughly read consultants specs before the project goes out?

How many communicate contract/Div 01 requirements to the consultants?

How do you communicate these requirements to the consultants?

Question:Question:Question:Question:

How many ask for Contract/Div 01 requirements when you are preparing your specifications on a project?


If you do request project, contract, or Division 01 requirements, how do you know what to ask for?


How many request an actual copy of the Owner/Architect Agreement and Division 01? Do you know what to do with it

when you get it?

� Duplications

� Omissions

� Lack of Knowledge of Contract or Bid Requirements

� Lack of Division 01 Knowledge

� Standard Format/Language Differences

� Open Communication/Exchange

� Owner’s Role

� Timing of Decisions

� Terminology

� The more participants on a project, the more likely errors/conflicts will exist.

� Consultants often, misguidedly, insert Division 01 requirements in their specs due to either lack of knowledge of what is typically included in Division 01 or as a “Cover my Butt” in case the architect does not address their needs.

� Consultants have to comply with different client requirements Consultants have to comply with different client requirements Consultants have to comply with different client requirements Consultants have to comply with different client requirements on every project.on every project.on every project.on every project.

� My experience is that architects do not thoroughly communicate these requirements to the consultant.

� General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions, and Division 01 affect all disciplines. All disciplines should understand the content and have the same information.

� Often, the owner is not educated in the roles and responsibilities of a design contract.

� Coordination suffers if decisions are not made in a timely manner.

� Why do we expect consultants to know what they don’t know and don’t see?

� What are we doing to change it?

Not as much as we could be!Not as much as we could be!Not as much as we could be!Not as much as we could be!

Large Government Project:

Mechanical Consultant:

Seismic Design Category – B Soils Building Category 3 II

Fire Suppression Consultant:

Seismic Design Category – B Soils Building Category 3 I

Architect:

Directs contractor to reference structural drawings.

Structural:

Seismic Design Category: B (ASCE 7305, 11.6)

Large Government Project – O & M Data:

Division 01:

a. Submit two copiestwo copiestwo copiestwo copies of each manual in draft form at least 15 days before final inspection. Reviewer will return copy with comments within 15 days of receipt.

b. Correct each manual to comply with review comments and submit four copiesfour copiesfour copiesfour copies of each corrected manual.

Mechanical Division:

a. Submit one bound copyone bound copyone bound copyone bound copy. (This conflicts with Div 01)

b. Reviewer will return incomplete documentation without review.

c. Contractor to bear costs of additional reviews.

(Items b & c are not stated in Div. 01)

Electrical Division:

a. Submit one bound copy on CD/DVDone bound copy on CD/DVDone bound copy on CD/DVDone bound copy on CD/DVD. (Huh?)

b. Reviewer will return incomplete documentation without review.

c. Contractor to bear costs of additional reviews.

(Items b & c are not stated in Div. 01)

� Section 01060 – Regulatory Requirements

◦ “AllAllAllAll statutes, ordinances, laws, rules, codes, regulations, standards and lawful orders of allallallall public authorities having jurisdiction of the work are hereby incorporated into these Contract Documents.”

(Boy, I hope this contractor had read EVERY code and standard known to man!)

◦ This sentence is followed by a list of applicable Codes for this project including the National Electrical Code with California National Electrical Code with California National Electrical Code with California National Electrical Code with California AmendmentsAmendmentsAmendmentsAmendments.

Large University Project

� Section 21 01 00 – General Requirements (Fire Suppression)

◦ Comply with Division 01 (OK, that’s good!)

◦ The requirements of this section apply to all work of this Divisionapply to all work of this Divisionapply to all work of this Divisionapply to all work of this Division.

◦ Section goes on to list applicable codes that conflict and do not match the list in Division 01. One example, a reference to the National Electrical National Electrical National Electrical National Electrical Code. Code. Code. Code. No “with California Amendments” is listed.

Soooooo, do you comply with Division 01? Or do you follow the list in this section? Why is the consultant repeating the information?

This same information was repeated in Division 22 and 23 (different lists in each, both in conflict with Div 01)

In addition, some individual sections in these divisions again repeated Code references not specific to the section. Some of these had referenced editions that were out of date and in conflict with Div 01.

� Section 26 05 00 – General Requirements for Electrical Systems

◦ States that requirements of this section supplement Division 01 supplement Division 01 supplement Division 01 supplement Division 01 requirements. requirements. requirements. requirements. (OK, that could be good!)

◦ Provides a division specific list of codes (It’s getting better although some were repeats)

◦ Individual Electrical sections only reference codes/standards specific to that section. (Even better)

Division 27 & 28 mirrored Division 26. This is much closer to how it should be done.

Problem: All of these were on the same project.Problem: All of these were on the same project.Problem: All of these were on the same project.Problem: All of these were on the same project.

� Architect’s Division 01:

◦ There are no Division 0 documents (including GC or SGC) listed in the table of contents or included in the Project Manual.

◦ There is no statement in the documents that a General Conditions or Division 01 govern the work.

� So, does that mean it is a free for all for each Division when it comes to general provisions?

◦ A few sections in Div 01 reference that “General Provisions” apply to that particular section.

� What, they don’t apply to other sections?

◦ The first mention of “General Conditions3Division 0” is in the Summary of Work Section, under work specified elsewhere.

� Which General Conditions? AIA, EJCDC, Owner?

� Where can I see this elusive General Conditions? Does it really exist?

� Are there Supplementary Conditions? I noticed a Division 02 section referenced them.

� Division 2 – Existing Conditions:

◦ Includes incorrect references to other sections in the Project Manual.

◦ Again references the elusive General and Supplementary Conditions (this is the first time a reference to Supplementary Conditions shows up.)

◦ Record Drawings requirements conflict with Div. 01.

◦ O&M Requirements conflict with Div. 01.

◦ This one is good:

“AllAllAllAll local, municipal and state laws, rules and regulations governing or relating to anyanyanyany portion of this work are hereby incorporated into and made a part of these specifications and the Contractor shall carry out their provisions.”

Note: The Division 01 References/Standards Section is 10 pages of a very general list of Codes, Standards and Regulations.

� Division 15/16: (Yes, some people are still using these)

◦ Quote: “References to product specifications for materials are listed according to accepted base standards. Materials to meet latest approved versions of these standards.” Huh? Whose accepted base standard? Which standards?Huh? Whose accepted base standard? Which standards?Huh? Whose accepted base standard? Which standards?Huh? Whose accepted base standard? Which standards?

◦ Conflicting Access Door/Panel Requirements. Completely different information.

◦ Riddled with “…as indicated …” As indicated where? By who? As indicated where? By who? As indicated where? By who? As indicated where? By who? Consultants love to use “as required” or “as indicated” when they don’t really know where the information may be located.

◦ Documents instruct Contractor to pay for permits, plan reviews and inspections. Hmmm, don’t think this belongs here.Hmmm, don’t think this belongs here.Hmmm, don’t think this belongs here.Hmmm, don’t think this belongs here.

◦ Documents reference a Division 7 Fireproofing section that does not exist and reference “approved firestopping material.” Where is it approved? What is Where is it approved? What is Where is it approved? What is Where is it approved? What is approved?approved?approved?approved?

� Architect/Owner Agreement – Requirements

� General & Supplementary Conditions

� Seismic and Geotech Data

� Existing Conditions/Owner Requirements

� Unit Prices/Alternates/Allowances

� Contract Modification Procedures

� Submittal Procedures

� Items requiring Coordination

� Location Specific Regulatory Requirements

� Special Project Requirements

� Meetings

� QA/QC Procedures

� Temporary Facilities/Utilities

� Access Panels

� Warranty Requirements

� LEED Requirements

� Cutting and Patching

� Delivery, Storage and Handling

� Substitution Requirements and Procedures

� Substantial Completion/Final Acceptance

� Startup/Commissioning/Training/Demonstration

� Cleaning/Closeout/Maintenance

� Division Specific Items that may require cross coordination (i.e. Civil and Plumbing)

� Loss of valuable time during CA dealing with conflicts

� Excessive Change Orders

� Construction Budget Overrun

� Mediation/Arbitration

� E & O Claims

� Loss of Client

If you can’t afford to take the time to coordinate your project then If you can’t afford to take the time to coordinate your project then If you can’t afford to take the time to coordinate your project then If you can’t afford to take the time to coordinate your project then you can’t afford the time it will take to deal with the issues.you can’t afford the time it will take to deal with the issues.you can’t afford the time it will take to deal with the issues.you can’t afford the time it will take to deal with the issues.

� You likely use the same master documents for each project and then edit them to fit each project.

� You are probably pretty familiar with your masters and where things need to be edited.

� Hopefully, you employ trained spec writers or staff with some level of Construction Document/Project Delivery education who understand your documents.

Make a Check List that matches your Make a Check List that matches your Make a Check List that matches your Make a Check List that matches your Master!Master!Master!Master!

Yes, really, it is that simple.

◦ Go through your Master Documents and make a list, in order, of all the things that typically need coordination/communication with your consultants.

◦ Do a list for each section where you experience conflicts.

� Now that you have that list, make some spots to “fill in the blanks” with project specific information you need to share with consultants.

� Before you even start to edit or require specs, fill out your newly created form to fit your project.

� Not only will this be valuable information for your consultants, but it will be a point of reference for your team for the duration of the project.

� At the end of your list, include questions for which you need answers from your consultants. Include all disciplines. When they have all filled out their section, share that document with the entire team. Require this!Require this!Require this!Require this!

� Standard published coordination checklists, while a good reference to help set up your own, rarely work because they do not fit or flow with your particular documents therefore they become cumbersome.

� Keep it Simple!

◦ 60 pages of very detailed spec requirements requiring an entire master rewrite is not effective.

◦ If your consultants already have little or no CD education, long winded, detailed requirements will only create confusion.

◦ Simple Instructions like:

� “Delete any general submittal requirements. Only include requirements specific to a particular section that are outside the parameters of the Division 01 Submittals section.”

� Ask for a check set early, redline it and send it back.

� Direct your consultants to ONLY reference discipline specific items in their Basic Requirements or individual sections.

� Ask your consultant to give YOU the language for the items they typically include but belong in your Divisions (i.e. Access Panels, Fireproofing, etc.) Then tell them to take it out of theirs.

� Early in the Project:

◦ Ask for a couple sample sections from each consultant (and the Basic Requirements from MEP)

◦ Look them over 3 What’s wrong?

◦ Call a meeting with all disciplines

◦ Hand out your checklist and requirements & discuss your expectations

◦ Remember, you could have six engineers in one firm working on different divisions. They all need your requirements.

EDUCATEEDUCATEEDUCATEEDUCATE

YOURYOURYOURYOUR

CONSULTANTSCONSULTANTSCONSULTANTSCONSULTANTS

� Contrary to popular belief, they are not intentionally trying to cut corners or cause conflicts.

� The workflow is much different and many more fingers are working in the pie.

� They have no idea what is in your documents.


YOURYOURYOURYOUR


� Open your door!

� Invite your consultants to ask questions. Do not make them feel like they can’t bother the almighty architect.

� You are the client – don’t make them afraid to get it right.


YOURYOURYOURYOUR


� Hire consultants with CSI certified staff. What? You can’t find What? You can’t find What? You can’t find What? You can’t find any? any? any? any?

� THEY WORK FOR YOU! ◦ Start informing your consultants that, going forward, firms

with CSI certified (or other contract document education) will be given preference in your consultant selection process.

◦ As soon as it becomes important to you, it will become important to them.

� Educate yourself. There is no excuse for not understanding the documents for which you are legally bound.

� We can’t begin the dialogue on coordination until you come to the table and get this knowledge. You can’t protect yourself without it.

� There are super cost effective ways to begin this training for your entire staff. See me after class, I will tell you.

� Why are consultants “afraid” to ask the architect these questions. They want you to get it right.

� You should get 50 lashes with a wet noodle if you ever submit an unedited master to your client for an early deliverable.

� Invite a qualified architect to lunch. Bribe them with food and ask if they will look over a few of your sections and get you started in the right direction to close these gaps.

� If they are your client, they will be really impressed that you are proactively trying fix these issues. TRUST ME!

� Pay a qualified person to go through your documents and provide advice. The time and money you will save in the long run will far outweigh the cost.

� Don’t let every engineer in your office write specs. If they don’t have the education, they shouldn’t touch them. Remember, the drawings and specs are the CONTRACT!

� Would you let the janitor Cape Canaveral start up the space shuttle solely because he sweeps it out?

� Have in3house coordination meetings. Nothing looks worse than multiple disciplines in one firm with different information that conflicts with the architect.

� Educate your support staff. There are many ways your support staff (admin, drafters, etc.) can help you catch mistakes. Get them CDT certified.

� Ask for a copy of the Owner/Architect Agreement, General and Supplementary Conditions, Division 01, and any other important documents you need to do your job.

� Make your own list, in the same order it appears in your documents, of all the items/areas that need to be coordinated with the Architect or have potential for conflict.

� Call your client, go over your list, ask questions and get on the same page.

� This will knock their socks off!

� Why? Because engineers NEVER do it.

� How do I know? We do it!

� Architects:◦ You are the lead – so LEAD!

◦ Fully communicate requirements and share important documents early.

◦ Be accessible and collaborative.

◦ Start asking your consultants to get trained. Limit the liability these gaps create.

� Consultants:Consultants:Consultants:Consultants:

◦ Seriously, step outside your box and learn what you don’t know

◦ “I didn’t have time” is an excuse, not a reason

◦ Start asking questions, asking for requirements and communicating

◦ Be accessible and collaborative

◦ Be the consulting engineer that stands out from the crowd. Be the pioneer!

This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems Course

Hanley Wood

Cherise Schacter, CSI, CDT

Standards Coordinator

Interface Engineering

[email protected]

Twitter: @cheriseschacter

Phone: (503) 38232687