Has anybody ever run across a set of plans that overruled a spec book? My understanding is that a spec book always governs the job. I'm asking this because the plans show to bed the 48" RCP drainage pipe with 3/4" washed rock, but the spec book allows any and all sands for embedment materials. I bedded it with sand and now am being held accountable for what's on the plans. I'm not being crooked, I always look in the spec book first for embedment material, didn't see it on the plans. I've been drilled that the spec book overrides the plans, GC says this is one of those rare jobs where the plans rule. Holy cow, what a mess.
What do the project documents and your contract say about which one rules - specs or plans?
That's what I'm looking for, where do I find it? Right where I signed on the big X?
Is your subcontract an AIA document or one drawn up from the GC?
It's an AIA document.
The one thing that comes to mind - Is there a clause in the contract (either GC/owner or GC/sub) that states "Any discrepancies between the plans and specs should be immediately brought to the attention of the architect/engineer"? What does the General Subcontract Conditions of your contract with the GC say?
Cya I found it in the "Supplemental Revisions to the General Conditions of the Contract." It says: "Should there be a conflict within or discrepancies between Drawings and Specifications the greater quantity and/or the higher quality shall govern unless the Owner determines otherwise." The issue at hand is that the drawings show to backfill the 48" storm drain with 3/4" washed rock while the spec book doesn't even mention washed rock, but only "sand, blow sand or similar material. No crusher fines allowed..." I bedded with sand. Who determines the higher quality? The dirt contractor is the one stirring the pot 'cause he made a deal with me and the GC to cover it once I'm done, and finish the rest of his work. He's busy on another job and is using this as a delay tactic. Fortunately, the Architect bought it and gave us the OK to cover it, but I need to know for future reference. I even helped the dirt guy dry the cover material and cover it because rain was coming and I would have still been responsible for any bedding that washed away.
My suggestion would be to send an RFI to the GC or architect/engineer to clarify before starting work on future projects. It seems like every job I have bid with architectural drawings had some sort of discrepancy. I also make it a habit of asking the GC prior to starting if I do have a question such as this one, do I send them an RFI or the architect/engineer. There was one project that we called the architect for clarification and the GC went through the roof. I guess they thought that made them look incompetent that a sub was asking for clarification?:beatsme
Rfi GC is being an *** on this. I just went around him to architect because of Communication clause in my AIA subcontract agreement with him allows it. It tee'd him off though, cut my pay request by $10,000 due to RCP not being finished(cause I had it bedded with sand) Danged if you do, danged if you don't. But now his TxDOT road bore permit amendment has turned into a GIANT change order on my part. DOH! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Should always go through the person you have contract with or at least attempt to and be able to prove it. Then they always have all types of CYA clauses to dump it back on the subs! I just went through the worst job in my 35 years in business with untold amounts of letters to protect myself. Tons of change orders which amounted to 80,000 and tons of fights! No one is happy and my best ally was a digital camera to document why I was delayed at every turn.
Typically, the spec book overrules the plans. However, there have been jobs where following the spec book exclusively would have gotten me into trouble. I've seen quite a bit of copy and paste spec books that the architects and engineers put out that applied to their last job, but have nothing to do with the current job. They expect your work to be perfect, but that doesn't prevent them from half-assing it when they put the plans and specs together. Best thing to do when there's a discrepancy, is to email the question so that you have a record of who said what. Respect the chain of command. Contact the GC if he's the one that hired you. Whether it's your intention or not, going over his head to the architect without informing him makes the GC look like an idiot when the architect calls him and he can't come up with an answer because he doesn't even know there's an issue. To some, this would be seen as having a knife shoved in their back. Intentional or not, the damage to their image and ego is the same.
Here in Michigan it is what has the engineers stamp on it. Dan
Sand at issue joispoi, GC knew there was an issue, told me it had to bedded with gravel. He never asked the Architect about the contradiction between plans and specs. He got mad when I asked him to go up the chain about it, he acted like I should do whatever he commanded. Did I burn that bridge, sure did but not before a lot of thought. I won't even bid to him anymore and if he blackballs me with other GC's then I'll continue bidding small jobs as the GC instead of subbing from someone who's only interest is themselves. My intent was to sub from him, not become his slave and I'll help him any way I can till I get through with the job without cutting any corners. I think his job is to go to bat for me, not work against me. I'm still learning though and that's why I brought this up.
GC's all get over it fast, your only as good as your last price. All GC's are interested in themselves first. Protect yourself first make friends later after work.
You're right. He should have asked for a change order instead of telling you to eat the difference. With an AIA document, that would have meant he got his % on top of the upcharge. That's not the kind of working relationship you're going to miss.
What Joispoi said about cut and paste spec books has been my experience too. A lot of generic stuff they put on every job sometimes having nothing to do with the job in the prints. I've recognized the same boilerplate from different architects at times - I think they all copy from the same book.
Engineer I see what you mean about cut and paste spec books, that's why there's such a thing as refundable plans. They just reuse the spec books on their next project. By the way, the engineer that drew up the civil plans is not allowed on the jobsite anymore. I don't know who decided that between the city, the architect, or the GC. Supposedly, the engineer goofed on the state road bore permit so badly is the reason given to me. I've been waiting for 3 months on it. I'd love to tell the GC I want more money for the wait, but I'm trying to control the urge.