Scottn,

I was looking for that exact article to link here as well!  At least I believe it is the same [year, publisher, topic are ] but it is on a thumbdrive with a computer virus and no longer accessable to me.  I've forwarded it to a few people in the past.  It discusses the designers obligation for their work, the historical tendency to shift that obligation to the fabricators and the need to reclaim that obligation.  It was very well written, balanced and expressed an understanding of the practical effects deficient design has on the time/cost of real world constuction.  If you can link it I will resave it for future reminding to and upbraiding of the slackers.  To: jk2189@earthlink.net

My current strategy, as yet unproven in that I have 4 bids out using it and don't know how it will fly with the GCs it will effect is to include this language in our subcontract bid proposals [all provide and install projects] where sub standard bidding documents are provided:

Scope of Work language: "using our standard shop connection details". [Then if the don't approve what they should have included in the bidding docs. we will gladly price whatever it is they finally decide on].

Terms and Conditions language:  "When required, shop drawings will be furnished and, when approved by the purchaser or architect, they shall be deemed to be correct interpretation of design and dimensions".  [I expect some of them will choke on that].

When I put out a proposal I am very comprehensive in detailing scope of work, reference specific sheets by number and sheet details.  This has been commented on by a few GCs, but our intention has alway been to make it very clear what we intend.  There are some jobs where we will exclude a particular component, ie. if we are not doing the install we might provide the anchoring studs but specifically exclude the epoxy as we have no control of waste.  However we always include a general exclusion that reads: "The proposed scope of work excludes any product, material, service or additive not specifically mentioned".

I don't like to bid as speced. I prefer to bid as build, but that preference requires a lot of time/energy/cost just to get everyone on the correct page to begin with before bid, and doesn't increase my odds of winning a bid anyway.  My efforts to get things clarified might earn some small degree of respect  or appreciation for doing others leg work but in the end , if my number aint the lowest it's my tough luck.  This doesn't include the umbrage one undergoes occasionally from questioning an architects drawings or an engineers absence of anchorage depths [reflecting an absence of calcs].  The new language we are including in scope of work is intended to protect ourselves from the obligation of building something that is unconstructable or will drive the cost of the work to a level the market would not bear.  An example would be a railing system as drawn that requires an additional 150 hours of field welding and accompaning painting contractor touch up costs, with no provision for expansion joints supplied and where common sense and a little logic would offer a better more cost effective product.

I recognize this topic dosen't belong in a forum area specifically restricted to inspection, so again my apologies to the OP and moderator of this board and my appreciation of the indulgence.  The opportunity to recieve input from those with more experience who've fought this before is helpfull.