Ron, thanks... your first link had this in it: The *ConsensusDocs 200* (Agreement and General Conditions) takes a much more proactive approach regarding conflicts by containing the following clauses:
*14.2.2 In case of conflicts between the drawings and specifications, the specifications shall govern….* * 14.2.5 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE In case of any inconsistency, conflict, or ambiguity among the Contract Documents, the documents shall govern in the following order: (a) Change Orders and written amendments to this Agreement; (b) this Agreement; (c) subject to subsection 14.2.2 the drawings (large scale governing over small scale), specifications and addenda issued prior to the execution of this Agreement or signed by both Parties; (d) information furnished by the Owner pursuant to subsection 3.13.4 or designated as a Contract Document in section 14.1; (e) other documents listed in this Agreement. Among categories of documents having the same order of precedence, the term or provision that includes the latest date shall control. Information identified in one Contract Document and not identified in another shall not be considered a conflict or inconsistency.* So there is something out there saying that large scale drawings govern over small scale... Oh jeez, by 'large scale' they do mean more zoomed in, right? This whole argument is messing with my head now! Steve, we're all in it together until the GC needs a scapegoat. Benjamin Young On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:29 AM, rongreenman . <[email protected]> wrote: > I Googled "AIA hierarchy of plans" and after a cursory look I found this > as pertinent. Although it seems to favor the larger scale drawing, unless > your detail drawing has a later date, but i'll eave that for you to figure > and base a case. There was a lot of other stuff on that Googled page that > might have a good argument imbedded inside, or a clue as to where to go > next so i suggest playing. > > http://www.floridaconstructionlegalupdates.com/construction-contracts- > and-your-order-of-precedence-clause/ > > https://www.google.com/#q=aia+hierarchy+of+plans > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Steve Leyton <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I love the way we’re all in this together until something goes wrong, >> then the GC starts pointing fingers. >> >> >> >> From a consultant’s perspective, the GC is at fault for not submitting an >> RFI to clarify a conflict in the CD’s. >> >> >> >> Steve L. >> >> >> >> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces >> @lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Ben Young >> *Sent:* Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:14 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Drawing orders of hierarchy >> >> >> >> Kind of strange, but does anyone know where I can find in writing >> somewhere some common sense info on the hierarchy of contract drawings? >> >> Here's the issue: >> >> Main floor print shows a particular wall as being 'type g' which is >> indicated as being full-height in the wall types plans. >> >> Also shows the walls as not being 'connected' to the other walls it >> intersects with, which I know means its normally a different wall material, >> type, or some other indication of being 'not the same' >> >> On the detail drawings for these areas, there's a note that says this >> particular wall is to only be 6'-6" in height and not going up to the deck. >> >> GC is trying to claim that since the drywaller followed the overall >> plans, and we followed the detail plans, we're both equally at fault for >> this one. >> >> I know that's ridiculous since just like dealing with codes, you can have >> a broad rule (wall type G) and then all specific exceptions to that rule on >> a case-by-case basis (a note saying this wall isn't full height) >> >> Similar to a note that says 'all walls to be full height unless indicated >> otherwise.' >> >> I'm pretty comfortable defending my position, especially since the >> overall floor plans have a note to reference the detail drawings. >> >> FYI, this is a hotel, and the main floor plans don't show the notes, but >> the unit plans (plan, finish, interior elevations, etc) do. >> >> I'm just wondering if there's some obscure AIA document that says how >> this is supposed to work, or anything I can fall back on besides common >> sense, which we all know doesn't exist inside most superintendent's offices >> on construction projects. >> >> For the record, I showed the walls dashed on my plans which indicates a >> wall that doesn't cross the RCP cut plane, and there's a counter in the >> room which has the same dashed linetype. Both were not indicated as dashed >> on the architectural plans, so I changed them on my RCPs for submittal >> based on the notes on the unit drawings. >> >> Yes, this involves a change order over added heads. >> >> There's nothing in the specs or drawings that I can definitively point to >> that says what I'm looking for, so this is a last ditch effort. >> >> Also, my plans have already been approved by the A/E team, and the AHJ. >> We only noticed this when we saw the wall framing going up to the ceiling >> on-site. >> >> Any help would be greatly appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ben >> >> >> Benjamin Young >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum- >> firesprinkler.org >> >> > > > -- > Ron Greenman > > 4110 Olson Dr., NW > Gig Harbor, WA 98335 > > [email protected] > > 253.576.9700 > > The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner > Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera > director (1942-) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler. > org > >
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
