Here’s something I run into a bunch, and still working out best way to handle it. I usually finish a design before a builder is selected. The engineering is done then, too. Works best this way be/c we’re doing the details that builders will base their bidding on. When I’ve tried to get builders involved earlier, I used to hear, “What’s the rebar pattern? What’s the concrete thickness? Makes a cost difference.” So now we have a full plan set for them and it’s proven a lot easier.
But when you squeeze a balloon at one end, it gets bigger at the other. In this case, I end up making decisions that I’d prefer to have builders’ input on. For example, there are several acceptable exterior coatings, including elastomeric acrylics, urethanes, and polyureas. There can be a significant cost difference, and part of that depends on the builder, be/c some materials require equipment that not all builders have. So if I specify polyurea, I’m either unintentionally favoring one builder by disqualifying another, or at the very least giving one an advantage over others. That might be ok, except that the acrylic could also be acceptable and the choice might depend on price. But the price can’t come till the builders get involved, and by then the plans are done. Know what I mean? Can’t just list multiple choices everywhere there are multiple right answers.
This comes up with finishes, interior wall construction (wood vs steel vs shotcrete), some design elements, etc. Best frame-construction equivalents might be foam vs cellulose insulation, wood siding vs fiber-cement, one type of shingle vs another, etc.
And it never fails that when I specify X, one builder wants to talk them into Y, and when I specify Y, another likes X. In most cases, I really, really don’t care if it’s X or Y, but SOMETHING gotta go on the prints.
[Of course this brings home a benefit of design-build.]
As a builder looking at a set of plans, what do you prefer to see: ambiguity on details that you fill in when bidding or building, details even though they might not be your favorite ones, or something else?
Replies
Hi Jim,
I used to see bid spec language a lot where this was adressed. It usually read something like, "Apply two inches of Type B blah, blah, blah or equivalent" The word equivalent would appear frequently in the specs and a note at ttop or bottom would notify biddders that the architect ( or other authority) would have to right to decide whether the substitution meets desired standards while the burden of convincing said authority rested with the contractor submitting the bid.
More specifically, I might find the request specs denoting a BUR hot roof as "According to J-M specification number XXXX for a three ply fibreglass roof system"
Each roofing manufacturer issued a spec book with several pages for each roof type and named in those pages the specific product and manner of application.
Since I prefered GAF products, I would find the similar spec pas for a three ply fifteen year fibreglas BUR roof and insert that number in my bid pages in lieu of the J-M spec requested. I never had a problem with having bids accepted by the owners agent that way.
There were times when it was more difficult. For instance, when a school system planned to add anelevator for handicapped access, the superintendant knew next to nothing about these systems and the board did not want to retain an archy. The super contacted a sales rep from an elevator company to look things over and make a proposal.
Since it had to be bid out by law or policy due to size of job and public money, th ejob had to be offered for bid and the language would betaken from the salesman's proposal without the phrase "equivalent" thrown in. Result was that any contractors not familiar with that particular product would be discouraged from entering the process. It was just mild intimidation by exclusive language. To serve your clients best and be fair to all, leave the door open to review of changes and substitutions.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Thanks for that, y'all. Paul, I do use "or equivalent" in a number of places...good to get your read on it.A follow-up. Client wants to save money. I know one contractor who prices interior shotcrete walls cheaper than any other type. I know another contractor who prices wood frame cheaper than any other type. I don't know the price points of other contractors. Sooooooo...what wall type to detail to get the client the least expensive solution (assuming that shotcrete vs wood vs steel makes no difference in any way to me or the engineer)? It's a whole different set of drawings for me and for the engineer.
I see a couple of different types of issues.The one about the exterior finish, I THINK (not know anything about this type of construction, could be handled by listing an A system, B system, or C system. Aren't those just boiler plate specs?But other areas such as the interior walls there is no simple clean way on doing that.One option might be about half way through, would be to generate a "request for comments". You would have basic floor plans and then some examples from other jobs showing the options. Have that circulated to potential bidders and ask for comments about how they would build it.Then use that to feedback to pick out one technique and go with it.The only other option would be for the owner to pay for 2 complete sets of designs if there is realy that much difference between the two.
Given those two options... you really have no option that I see other than present the two options and have both bid.
I agree with the suggestion about two sets of prints paid for by owner. In the end, the two sets of prints may very well be much cheaper than just one... given this specific circumstance.
Bottom line, what would the second set of prints cost vs the potential for savings?
Of course... the whole "I don't know what I want syndrome" going on is probably going to bite ya in the end. You'll sweat out all of this detail... trying everything you know to save costs. And the customer steps up and says, "I really like X technique... and really have been leaning that way the whole time! I just wanted to see what the options were".
At that point, just try to remember the alphabet and recite it backward at least once before speaking... it helps to calm the nerves and cools the steam that will be pouring out the top of your head!
I would add one thing to "or equivalent." It should read "or APPROVED equivalent," with the "approver" specified.
The version on our plans and specifications says, "or architect (sometimes engineer) approved equal." The specs also call for submittals from various trades. That way everyone bids the same product/method or takes the time to insure their version of it will be acceptable before they bid something different, and they know up front who has the authority to ultimately make that decision.
Thanks for that suggestion. One diff is that I don't handle bids (and don't charge a fee commensurate with that either), but "designer-approved equivalent" could still be relevant.
I am a big fan of VERY detailed specs and plans. This way, I am bidding the project on an "apples to apples" basis. In today's world of sub-contracting.. if I do not have specific equipment to meet a spec, I normally can find a sub that will be able to do the job. If I cannot find an acceptable solution to the problem spec... then I probably don't have any business bidding the job.
The process of making changes for cost savings, quality improvement, etc... is part of the "value-engineering" phase that i offer as part of any bid. basically, I agree to sit down with the archy, owners, engineers, etc to develop ways to create more value in the end-product.
Each situation is different.. and is highly dependent on changes in pricing, availability, etc. I may make certain suggestions at one point in time... and when presented with the exact same situation at another point in time... I may make a completely different suggestion.
I would not, however, do this value engineering prior to being awarded the contract. Just would not be good business. LOTS of time involved in this process.
My suggestion for your dilemma would be to be as detailed as possible in the specs presented for bid. Include as part of your RFP a clause that would require X hours of value-engineering after the contract has been awarded (number of hours to be determined by the scope of the project).
Just as an example, I just was awarded a rather extensive and large basement job. Archy drawings and all (so very rare in a basement job). I will be sitting down with the owners and the archy next week to go over my ideas for improvements in the specs (saves me money, time etc... and as a result... saves the owner dollars). I fully expect to be able to cut 8-10% on this particular bid. My terms are 25% of any cost savings to me... 75% to the owner (gives me huge incentive to cut costs.. and is a pleasant surprise for the owner when the cost actually goes down on their project... sans any changes).
Now... from an archy's perspective... this creates an extra step in the process (one final revision to the plans and specs). However, the customer ends up with a better end-product... and the builder doesn't have to continually be bugging the archy with approvals for changes that should have been settled in one lump sum from the outset.
Sure.. changes will still need to occur... but they are cut WAY down.
Just a thought for ya... hope it helps.
Edited 3/4/2005 1:35 am ET by Rich from Columbus
Edited 3/4/2005 1:35 am ET by Rich from Columbus
As a designer of HVAC systems, I could always tell how well I did my job when the bids came in. If they were very consistent, I can be fairly certain that I provided enough detail that every contractor knew what was required without guessing. Classic dilemma is that the designer required to make decisions that are possibly beyond their scope, but that no one else is willing to make up front and everyone is willing to question or challenge after the fact. However many different ways there are to achieve a specifc goal, once something is decided, further decisions are easier make.
Now, as a wholesale distributor of HVAC equipment and materials, I am faced with bidding the jobs I used to design. Ambiguity in plans is never a plus. It is very easy to bid a job with all the details explicitly specified. Should anyone choose to offer an alternative, in addition to a base bid, which because of my experirence and background, I frequently do, that simply gives the customer a better range of options from which to select.
Bottom line, in my opinion, is that the more details explicitly specified in a design, the better.
I believe I make it unanimus (to this point anywho) by urging specificity.
The more the better.
I too appreciate "or equivalent" where uncertainty must remain.
Sidenote: Lost a job recently (for a family member no less) because I gave him a number based on initial desires...it turned out the project ended up scaled back drastically, but because said family member felt my initial estimate was taking advantage of him, he didn`t bother requesting a second. The real kick in the azz.....I knew he couldn`t afford the project as was originally intended, so many of the cost reductions were based on the ideas I gave him to begin with. Gotta love family!
FREE SANCHO RON
The answer to this problem?
Wood-framed construction.
I'm running away as fast as I can...<g>
I will hunt you down and...you're bigger than I am, right?...never mind.
Ah grasshopper...
It is not the size of the vessel that matters, but intead, the quality of the content within...
Okay...so I lose.<g>