Drawing Conflict resolution

[DwightB]

I'd like to know what has the final say in case of a conflict on the condocs?

Two places in particular for this issue.

One is the case of a restroom fan. The mechanical plan shows an installation diagram using a vibration isolation mount but the fan that is specified shows 4 alternate mounting situations, each is directly attached to joists or cross framing. If the architect says, "install per manufacturer's instructions", but the installation detail shows using a vibration isolation mount, which is the sub supposed to do?

Next case:

A water heater is in a small closet in a restroom. The size of the restroom is insufficient for venting, so grills in the closet door are inappropriate. Grills in the restroom door are unacceptable as the doors are part of corridor separation and in a fire wall. Architect has a note specifying "install concentric vent through the roof per manufacturer's instructions...". However, the manufacturer's instructions show four alternate venting options if there is a confined space. Vents can go through the wall to the exterior, or through floor or ceiling where attic or crawl spaces "freely communicate with the exterior". The attic is vented as required for code, but it seems as though a 150 degree attic on a hot day might not provide the convection needed for a water heater closet. Was the sub supposed to install through the roof as per diagram if the manufacturer's instructions don't require through-roof vents?

 

[Mac]

I'd like to know what has the final say in case of a conflict on the condocs? Two places in particular for this issue.

One is the case of a restroom fan. The mechanical plan shows an installation diagram using a vibration isolation mount but the fan that is specified shows 4 alternate mounting situations, each is directly attached to joists or cross framing. If the architect says, "install per manufacturer's instructions", but the installation detail shows using a vibration isolation mount, which is the sub supposed to do?

Next case:

A water heater is in a small closet in a restroom. The size of the restroom is insufficient for venting, so grills in the closet door are inappropriate. Grills in the restroom door are unacceptable as the doors are part of corridor separation and in a fire wall. Architect has a note specifying "install concentric vent through the roof per manufacturer's instructions...". However, the manufacturer's instructions show four alternate venting options if there is a confined space. Vents can go through the wall to the exterior, or through floor or ceiling where attic or crawl spaces "freely communicate with the exterior". The attic is vented as required for code, but it seems as though a 150 degree attic on a hot day might not provide the convection needed for a water heater closet. Was the sub supposed to install through the roof as per diagram if the manufacturer's instructions don't require through-roof vents?

First case, the sub should ask for clarification from the arcihtect. The equipment decision should be communicated to the building dept. for approval prior to installation.

Next case, same answer - it's truly a decision for the architect & client to determine.

 

[globe trekker]

DwightB,

FWIW, I agree with Mac. The architect-of-record should be contacted, so

that s/he can specify which installation method to use. This is a CYA

moment for the contractor.

.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

One is the case of a restroom fan. The mechanical plan shows an installation diagram using a vibration isolation mount but the fan that is specified shows 4 alternate mounting situations, each is directly attached to joists or cross framing. If the architect says, "install per manufacturer's instructions", but the installation detail shows using a vibration isolation mount, which is the sub supposed to do?

In our jurisdiction/state, it is the coordinating registered design professionals responsibility to make sure the architect and mechanical engineer have discussed and resolved the conflict of specification/detial. In my opinion, I would say it is the mechanical engineer's right of practice to make that determination, and the architect should remove/revise their reference note to correspond.

Next case: A water heater is in a small closet in a restroom. The size of the restroom is insufficient for venting, so grills in the closet door are inappropriate. Grills in the restroom door are unacceptable as the doors are part of corridor separation and in a fire wall. Architect has a note specifying "install concentric vent through the roof per manufacturer's instructions...". However, the manufacturer's instructions show four alternate venting options if there is a confined space. Vents can go through the wall to the exterior, or through floor or ceiling where attic or crawl spaces "freely communicate with the exterior". The attic is vented as required for code, but it seems as though a 150 degree attic on a hot day might not provide the convection needed for a water heater closet. Was the sub supposed to install through the roof as per diagram if the manufacturer's instructions don't require through-roof vents?

The contractor needs to contact the RDP for clarification. As much as the architect uses the phrase "per manufacturer's instructions," there should be some boiler plating in the construction docs notes stating where drawings are conflict with site conditions or manuf. specs, contractor shall contact designer.

 

[brudgers]

If the manufacturer's installation instructions comply with code, and the design documents say "install per manufacturer," then the contractor is free to choose among them.

This would also be the case if vibration isolation is not required by code (it is a fifth option beyond the manufacturer's instructions) from a code inspection standpoint.

The code official is not responsible for determining the scope of the construction contract and is probably best advised to avoid trying to do so.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Was the sub supposed to install through the roof as per diagram if the manufacturer's instructions don't require through-roof vents?

Does the manufacture ALLOW their equipment to vent verically through the roof with a concentric would be the question

I agree with brudgers and others it is not the code officials responsibility it should be a Request For Clarification from the contractor/sub to the DP

 

[Mac]

"The code official is not responsible for determining the scope of the construction contract and is probably best advised to avoid trying to do so."

True dat - I still take a more responsible approach because I don't want to have to order non compliant work replaced, after Joe the plumber has a brilliant venting idea.

 

[ICE]

This might be worth reading.

HOW TO WIN CONFLICTS AND OMMISSIONS

WITH PLANS AND SPECS EVERYTIME

By

Anwar Hafeez

Anwar Hafeez is graduate civil engineer, who has personally supervised $1.4 Billion in projects like the

Washington, D.C. subway; Armed Forces Medial University; LAX Airport Expansion; San Diego

Convention Center; L.A. Central Library and other projects. These projects ranged from $250,000.00 to

$300 Million. Mr. Hafeez has settled over $170 Million in Change Orders/Claims. Mr. Hafeez has its

claims consulting firm for over 10 years, which helps subcontractors with preparation and negotiation of

claims; CPM Scheduling; Teaching Seminars on Project Management and Change Orders/Claims.

In order to deal with Defective or Incomplete or Inadvertent Errors in Plans &

Specifications, owners and their architects have put in provisions in the contract usually

in the General Conditions of the contract under the heading of “Order of Precedence of

Documents”, which is listed as shown below (similar language in other contracts):

n Contract between Owner and GC

n Special Provisions

n General Provisions

n Specifications

n Details on Drawings

n Plan Drawings

This means that if the contractor has a CONFLICT between the Plan Drawings and

Details on Drawings, then the Details on Drawings prevail. If there is a conflict between

the Drawings and Details on Drawings and the Specifications, then the Specifications

will prevail. The higher “Order of Precedence of Documents” governs or prevails. It is

sort of like a poker hand where 3 of a kind beats 2 pairs, etc.

This only works if you have a CONFLICT NOT AN OMMISSION.

CONFLICT is defined as the Details on Drawings show one thing to construct and the

Plan Drawings something different to construct. OMMISSION is defined as the Details

on Drawings show one thing to construct and the Specifications are silent and do not

indicate anything.

To illustrate this further, SDC & Associates’ client encountered a problem on the last day

they were waterproofing a hospital. The waterproofing subcontractor had completed all

his work on the project, which consisted of installing waterproofing membrane on the

footing and turning it up the wall, similar to the sketch shown below:

The inspector on the project told the sub that he did not follow the detail shown above.

This detail states that this is a TYPICAL TERMINATION DETAIL and small print

states “Powder-Driven Pin and Washer @ 18” O.C. through continuous anchor strip”.

The inspector told the sub that his work is not done until he fulfills this requirement.

The sub reviews the specifications and finds no requirement for installing a Powder-

Driven Pin and Washer @ 18” O.C. through continuous anchor strip. There is no material

specified for an anchor strip.

The sub writes a RFI whose answer is “The continuous anchor strip shown on the below

grade waterproofing details is a 16 gauge metal strip. Submit samples”.

When you review specifications, you should understand how specifications work as

follows:

· Section 1 – States Scope of Work and related Specification Sections

· Section 2 – Specifies the materials to be used on this project and submittal

requirements [Nothing specified that is in the Detail on Drawing]

· Section 3 – States Installation Procedures. In this case, it states to install the

waterproofing membrane in accordance with the manufacturer’s

recommendations

The sub goes to the manufacturer who is horrified and says : (a) NO! NO! NO! You

cannot follow this detail; (b) You want to do what? Shoot thru the waterproofing

membrane and damage it; © This will VOID THE 5 YEAR WARRANTY.

The architect states that this is not acceptable and that the manufacturer must provide the

5 YEAR WARRANTY. So, the manufacturer devised a method to install a 2nd layer of

waterproofing membrane to cover the holes created by shooting thru the waterproofing

membrane. The sub installed this additional work, having no choice to do so.

The sub’s Project Manager sent a fax asking for a Lump Sum of $15,000.00 for this extra

work, without submitting any back-up. This was rejected by the owner and architect

stating that “since anchor strip is shown on contract drawings it is part of your contract”.

There is other verbiage that deals with OMMISSIONS in the “Order of Precedence of

Documents”, one of these states that”If some thing is shown on the drawings but is not

in the specifications – it is part of your contract”. What do you do?

This is the basis of the denial of this Claim by the owner and the architect. Suppose, if

you have wood base shown in Room 101 and the owner states install wood base per the

contract. You simply say that since the wood base is not in the specifications, I do not

know the quality of the wood base to be furnished and installed and your architect was

negligent in not providing this information to me. Therefore, my obligation is to install

the cheapest wood base available on the market; pine wood base. The owner will

invariably say that they want oak or mahogany wood base and now you can get a change

order for the material difference between pine and oak or mahogany.

The second verbiage that deals with OMMISSIONS, states that ”If something is

specified in the specifications but is not shown on the drawings – it is part of your

contract”. What do you do?

Suppose the specifications specifies oak wood base and the owner states that he wants

you to install this and you argue that it not shown anywhere and you argue that you do

not have to install it. In order to prevail in this situation, you must explain what the

purpose of drawings is for, which is to:

· Do take-off of quantities for the bid

· See locations for installation of specified materials

You must explain that since the owner’s architect was negligent in not showing the

location of the oak wood base on the drawings, there was no way for you have taken off

the quantity needed to install. So, propose to give them 1 Linear Foot of oak wood base

and ask the owner where he wants it installed. By giving the owner 1 Linear Foot of oak

wood base; you have satisfied the contract requirements. If the owner wants you to install

more quantities, then you can get a change order for the extra quantities and work.

Now, getting back to the “Order of Precedence”, where is the CONFLICT in the

documents for you to enable to win the Entitlement for Merit of this claim. GIVE UP???

This was our challenge when we took over this case for our client about a year after the

work was performed.

The CONFLICT is between the Detail on the Drawing & the Specification, which is:

· Detail on the Drawing show a TYPICAL TERMINATION DETAIL and

states “Powder-Driven Pin and Washer @ 18” O.C. through continuous

anchor strip

· Specifications Section 3 under Installation Procedures, states to install the

waterproofing membrane in accordance with the manufacturer’s

recommendations, which has TYPICAL TERMINATION DETAIL, which

the sub followed and installed his waterproofing membrane by

Therefore, under the “Order of Precedence”, Specifications prevail over Detail on

Drawings. We explained this to the owner and the architect and we won the Entitlement

for Merit for this case, despite the Architect’s protests.

There is built in mechanism in the contract to solve CONFLICT problems; the Architect

and the Owner did not use it in this case and the sub being unaware of this CONFLICT

solving mechanism did not use it either. The owner problem here is that the Architect and

the Owner argued that this was an OMMISSION problem, when in reality it was a

CONFLICT problem.

We re-priced this change order from $15,000.00 to $52,753.01. When we won the

Entitlement for Merit, the owner wanted to pay the sub $15,000.00 which we rejected but

the $15,000.00 cost proposal became a thorn in our side, the owner offered us that

settlement at least 3 times. We told the owner that the sub’s Project Manager gave an off

the cuff guesstimate which grossly incorrect and that is the reason that this Project

Manager does not work for the sub anymore.

You need to price change orders in great detail, show the process step by step and price

step by step. Using this methodology, we settled on $40,095.24. The owner wanted to

keep the settlement below $40,000.00. I asked the owner, when they can pay us, the

owner said within 5 days and we settled on $38,903.67. When you get paid is part of

negotiations as well. The settlement could have been higher if we did not have to deal

with the initial $15,000.00 cost proposal; so never give off the cuff guesstimates.

Why were we successful?

· ENTITLEMENT FOR MERIT: Using the Order of Precedence of Documents

· QUANTUM: Clearer pricing

One last thing, how do solve CONFLICTS:

1. BETWEEN DRAWINGS AND DRAWINGS

2. BETWEEN SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The rulings have been that the most stringent of two requirements is what you should

have bid. Sorry, can’t help you here.

If you have a problem like this where the reflected ceiling plans show 12 lights and the

electrical drawings show 8 lights, how many lights do I need to install? The answer is

12 BUT how many of the 12 lights are build able; according to the Spearin Court Case of

1918, when an owner issues a set of contract documents for bid, the owner gives an

Implied Warranty that these contract documents are not defective and are complete and

suitable for building a project. In this case, 4 of the 12 lights are not build able, since you

do not know what the conduit and wiring requirements are; what panel board are these

lights connected to and whether any of these lights are to be on the emergency system.

So, if you argue this correctly, you can get paid for wiring the 4 lights as a change order.

So, now go out there and solve all the drawing and specification conflicts and win

everytime.

To contact Mr. Anwar Hafeez, you can call him at (800) 732-3996 or E- mail at

ah@sdcassociates.com. To know more about his firm, SDC & Associates, Inc., sdcassociates.com.

 

[lunatick]

This might be worth reading.doc-1066204835-article-1518.pdf

No link. .

 

[lunatick]

Part of the answer here is knowing your roles, duties and responsibilities.

The AHJ, is not there to do quality assurance or control work.

They are there to inspect for those items specifically required by code.

Likewise the RDP concerning Means and Methods there is a similar dance. A really boring, no one outside of this world cares for nor understands.

With respects to conflicts.

Item 1, Mechanical calls for isolation. Isolation should be what was bid and installed. Otherwise is an RFI issue between the C and the RDP.

Item 2, RDP calls for through the roof. The C was to go through the roof. As each mfr may have different install instructions, the note will be generic. It also is meant to stave off some questions. In this case, if through the roof wasn't an option. An RFI should have been made.

In either case, is there a code you are citing on this?

Otherwise, as an interested citizen, you may make a comment. But again, the AHJ isn't there to be quality assurance/control of the work performed. This is the owners responsibility to do or delegate.

 

[Mark K]

If it is not clear whether the design complies with the code the building official can require clarification. But if there is not a question of code compliance it is not the building officials responsibility.

The article that ICE referred to reflects arguments that some contractors use to claim additional money. This is a discussion that the building official should not be involved in.

There are instances where the contractor can claim extra money for conflicts and omissions but the problem is when the contractor uses distorted logic to claim excessive costs. For example in the case where the contractor claims that there is uncertainty regarding the extent of the wood base it is not logical to assume the contractor should only be responsible for one foot but such claims are used increase the value of the change order. In addition if the extent was so obviously not clear it should have been identified during bidding and the question should have been resolved prior to issuing the bid.

The key point that some inspectors and building officials do not appreciate is that their job is to deal with code enforcement and not to protect the interests of the owner or to be concerned about justice. In practice there may be unintended consequences of these attempts to protect the owner.

 

[ICE]

The article I referenced shows an example of a hierarchy for conflict resolution. Then it goes on and on with examples. The point is that there is an explanation on the plans of what trumps what.

The article that ICE referred to reflects arguments that some contractors use to claim additional money. This is a discussion that the building official should not be involved in.

That was funny.

The key point that some inspectors and building officials do not appreciate is that their job is to deal with code enforcement and not to protect the interests of the owner or to be concerned about justice. In practice there may be unintended consequences of these attempts to protect the owner.

That is hilarious.

This happened. It happens a lot with corrections and deviations from the plans.

Contractor places a water heater blocking a bedroom egress window. The window was new as part of the remodel and so was the water heater. The contractor placed the water heater in front of the window because that's where it was located before the new window was installed and that's where there is a concrete pad and plumbing connections.

The owner confronts me in the presence of the contractor. The owner says that the contractor is blaming me for the extra charge because the water heater should be "grandfathered" in it's former location. The owner was upset because my correction was costing $2500.00 to move the water heater 4 feet to the right.

Now there's a discussion I should stay out of? ....... I should stand idly by as the contractor screws the owner?

I don't know what you do for a living but here's hoping it has nothing to do with protecting anyone.

 

[Phil]

The article I referenced shows an example of a hierarchy for conflict resolution. Then it goes on and on with examples. The point is that there is an explanation on the plans of what trumps what.

That hierarchy is only valid when there is a clause in the contract documents that creates an order of precedence.

 

[ICE]

That hierarchy is only valid when there is a clause in the contract documents that creates an order of precedence.

That's right and it can be structured in any order the author chooses.

 

[MtnArch]

Contractor places a water heater blocking a bedroom egress window. The window was new as part of the remodel and so was the water heater. The contractor placed the water heater in front of the window because that's where it was located before the new window was installed and that's where there is a concrete pad and plumbing connections.The owner confronts me in the presence of the contractor. The owner says that the contractor is blaming me for the extra charge because the water heater should be "grandfathered" in it's former location. The owner was upset because my correction was costing $2500.00 to move the water heater 4 feet to the right.

Where was it shown on the drawings? If it was shown in front of the window on the permit set, it **should** have been caught in Plan Check PRIOR to a permit being issued and the issuing agency better figure out how to pay off the HO for the extra cost. If it was shown in a different location the GC should move it to where it was originally shown (WITHOUT any additional cost). If it wasn't shown **at all** the HO, the RDP (or, more likely, UN-registered "designer/drafter") and the GC better arm wrestle about who is paying for it to be moved to a code-compliant location.

 

[brudgers]

That's right and it can be structured in any order the author chooses.

Or no order at all - and that's very common practice for construction contracts.

 

[ICE]

Where was it shown on the drawings? If it was shown in front of the window on the permit set, it **should** have been caught in Plan Check PRIOR to a permit being issued and the issuing agency better figure out how to pay off the HO for the extra cost.

It was the contractor that made the mistake and he gets to pay for it. We sometimes fail to catch a mistake. That doesn't make the AHJ responsible for the mistake. The idea that someone can make a mistake and if the AHJ doesn't catch the mistake, the AHJ shall make that someone whole, is wrong.

Contractors try to apply the same flawed logic when they say, "You didn't mention that at the previous inspection" or how about , "Well that's not on the plans" and my particular favorite, "That's what the plans show"

To answer a few more questions: "Yes, you might get new corrections every time I show up" "No I don't have a vendetta against you or your company" 'I don't know why an inspector/plan checker missed this but perhaps you can shed some light on the question.... How did you miss it?"

I should get this on my business cards:

But Sir, we're talking about a mistake. A mistake that you made. After all, it was you that built it this way so it's you that gets to correct it.

 

[MtnArch]

ICE -

What I was trying to point out was that if the plans came in **with a water heater shown in front of a window** I would HOPE the plan checker would see it and flag it as a problem that needed to be corrected before a permit was issued. Yes, RDP's can make mistakes, a drafter working for the RDP can make a mistake, or in this wonderful computer age the gol-durn thing was copied there by accident along with something else and wasn't caught by the RDP. And sometimes it's simply because whoever is doing the drawings just doesn't have the skill to think in 3D and see what ELSE it could affect.

 

[jwilly3879]

My guess is that the water heater wasn't even shown on the plans.

 

[ICE]

My guess is that the water heater wasn't even shown on the plans.

Shirley I would have a picture.

Other things that consistently fail to make the cut are el. service drops, A/C condensers, building sewers, swimming pools, retaining walls, slopes and mean dogs.

 

[Mark K]

When an inspector or building official attempts to define who has to pay for what he is involving himself in something where he has no legal authority and as a result he no longer has the protection of governmental immunity.

 

[ICE]

deleted a duplicate because once is enough

 

[ICE]

When an inspector or building official attempts to define who has to pay for what he is involving himself in something where he has no legal authority and as a result he no longer has the protection of governmental immunity.

So sue me.

When I come across a lying, thieving contractor I rise to the occasion.

Shirley I could tell you stories.

But I won't because all the weaklings that read this would be incensed since they don't have tiger balls. Nope not at all. They scratch their mouse balls and hide under an AHJ skirt.

It's not that I fault them for being weaklings. I find fault with them because they try to take away my tiger balls. They want me to be a weakling because they are embarrassed.

Ya, go ahead and sue me...in the end the contractor can be an official lying, thieving contractor as declared by a court of law...might even get an official idiot certificate.

Understand that my methods work, in large part, due to the demographics of the area I am assigned to. The overwhelming majority is Hispanic. They do not have much wealth. They are not educated. Many do not speak English. Society and government pay them scant respect. They are easy prey for bandits. Nobody but me notices what I do. When I stick up for them they are surprised and if they are grateful, they seldom show it. My usual reward is scorn.

For any of you that are considering stepping out from under the skirt....use finesse...it's not difficult to get the point across without exposing yourself to a lawsuit...sometimes all it takes is a wink and a nod...if you must smack 'em with a bat, sneak up on them and stay in the shadows...realize that you're not looking for recognition...it's the result that matters.

Wait a minute, I shouldn't encourage anyone to do what I do...You could get in serious trouble and besides that, people like me wouldn't be people like me without people like you. :devil

 

[brudgers]

deleted a duplicate because once is enough

Five bucks says there are people who wish you would apply that philosophy to code citations.