csi logo png

THE WINNER'S CIRCLE

Indianapolis Chapter CSI Newsletter

October 2012

winners circle skyline
Greetings!

I promise, there won't be any political ads in this newsletter, just good ol' fashioned information.

Please let us know if you have any ideas for future newsletters.

 

signature grey text 

 Indianapolis Chapter CSI Newsletter Editor

baines ad
Upcoming Events
Programs Committee
 

Indianapolis Chapter CSI Meeting The Continued Emergence of BIM in the Construction Industry

Thursday October 18, 2012 from 5:30 PM to 8:30 PM EDT

A discussion of BIM in our Industry

Riverwalk Banquet Center

 

Indianapolis Chapter CSI Education Seminar: Sheet Metal Factory Tour

Thursday November 15, 2012 from 2:45 PM to 4:30 PM EST

A tour of a sheet metal factory

Tarpenning-Lafollette Company

 

2012 Standing Reservation List

Monday December 31, 2012 from 12:00 AM to 11:00 PM EST

Riverwalk Banquet Center

 

Day at the Races 

 Friday, November 9th, 2012 from 11:30 AM till last race

Churchill Downs - Louisville, KY

View from the Tower
Andy McIntyre, CSI, CCPR
new info   

    

 

Greetings fellow CSI'ers! The leaves are turning, the temps are falling, and football season is in full swing. It can mean only one thing; fall is here!


Mark your calendars for the next few months. This month, we will have a presentation on the continuing emergence of BIM. Architects, does having "mad Revit skills" mean job security? Product reps, do you have BIM models ready for designers to integrate in their next project? Come join us and learn about how BIM continues to impact our industry.


In November, we'll have a tour of the Tarpenning-Lafollette sheet metal fabrication shop (limited attendance, reserve your space now!), and a follow up program on SMACNA standards for architectural sheet metal. And December will bring us our annual holiday party.


These changes in the season bring me to the 3rd in a series of 12 reasons why you should be proud to be a member of the Indianapolis Chapter of CSI. Reason #3 came to me in an email from a chapter member in Kansas City: Job leads! As he stated in his email looking for a new manufacturer's rep agency for his client: "we have recently elected to change our Architectural Sales Rep in your territory. I was a member of the KC CSI organization for over 20 years and realize the value of networking in the CSI organization.  Please return this request and let me know if you can inform the membership that Ruskin searching for a new Architectural Product Representative in the Indiana territory."


He came to the Indy Chapter first as a source for potential candidates! How many of you have received job leads through CSI connections? I have received several, and count myself blessed that the connections I've formed at CSI have directly led to gainful employment. Reason #4: Job leads!


If you've read this far, I'll task you to go one step further. Halloween is coming soon. The first person to email me your favorite costume when you were a kid gets a prize! Spoiler alert: In fourth grade, I was the Green Lantern. I took an old milk carton, cut out holes, wrapped aluminum foil around it, and dropped a green "glow stick" in for my lantern. What's your favorite costume memory?


I look forward to seeing you at the meetings, and as always, am open for discussion on matters pertaining to our Chapter, the Region, the Institute, or our industry in general!


See you soon! 

 

mcintyre signature

 

  
 
  
 
YouTube Channel  
Visual Education

 

The Indianapolis Chapter CSI has entered into a new phase of the digital communication era, and now has a dedicated YouTube Channel for the benefit of our membership.

Please look forward to upcoming updates.


Table Tops

Jeremy Hoffman

Indianapolis Chapter CSI

 

The Indianapolis Chapter of CSI is accepting reservations for Table Tops for upcoming Chapter meetings.  The list of programs for upcoming Chapter meetings is published in this newsletter, the web site, or contact Program chairman Andy McIntyre, so if you would like to target a particular meeting, make sure to get your reservation in early.  We do have a limit of four spaces available for Table Tops in a standard meeting room and 10 if we have a double room.

 

Table Tops are an opportunity to promote your company, products, or services to all attendees of our regular chapter meeting during the social hour.  There is a maximum of 20 minutes for Table Top presentation at a regular Chapter meeting.  You have the floor for maximum of five minutes during the dinner to communicate to the entire group if there are four presenters. If there is a greater demand, the 20 minutes will be divided by the number of presenters and rounded down to the nearest 30 seconds.

 

The Table Top presentations are FREE, one time, to new members, and cost current Indianapolis Chapter members only $75.  Non-members get the same opportunity for $125.  A 30 by 60 table with a cover and skit will be included.  All proceeds go to support the Chapter.

 

Another opportunity for a Table Top is during an Education Seminar.  The cost is if you combine it with the Chapter meeting and Education Seminar the cost would be $100 for current members and $150 for non-members.

 

If you would like to schedule a Table Top for a future meeting or seminar, contact:

 

Jeremy Hoffman - CREW Technical Services

jhoffman@crewtech.com  or (317) 713-7777

Make sure to put 'Table Top Request' in the subject line  

Perfect Attendance Pins

What number are you? 

 

If you have received a Perfect Attendance Pin in the past and know what your last achieved number is, please contact Ken Schmidt, either at the chapter meeting or shoot him an email. 

 

In an effort to ensure we have accurate records, this would be greatly appreciated.

Certification Quiz
Jack Morgan - Quizmaster
 
1.  All of the following are true about extended warranties EXCEPT:

a. They are usually written from the manufacturer's point of view.
b. They usually prorate the product for the years of service already performed.
c. Usually exclude consequential damage to any building component other than the warranted product itself. 
d. Most manufacturers find the risks inconsequential and do not limit performance.

2. The word "any" when used in specifications means:

a. A limited number selected at the discretion of the Contractor
b. Every occurance
c. Only those occurances that can be readily detected
d. A specific number of occurances selected by the Owner

3. The Agreement defines the relationships and obligations between _______ and incorporates, by reference, all of the other documents that make up the Contract Documents.

a. The signers
b. The authors
c. The Contractor and subcontractors
d. The Owner and Architect

4. Three types of bonds are:

a. Performance Bond, Payment Bond, and Bid Bond.
b. Performance Bond, Roof Bond, and Bid Bond.
c. Maintenance Bond, Performance Bond, and Bid Bond.
d. None of the above.

5. The Owners first line of financial defense is:

a. a well informed attorney.
b. an adequately insured contractor.
c. high limits of insurance coverage.
d. a rigid contract.
 
Answers located at the end of this newsletter....
picasa icon
Chapter Photos
September 2012

 

  
  
  
  
 
 
We hope you have enjoyed seeing these previews of the latest images from our events.  To view more, visit our online photo album.
picasa icon 


How have the architect's responsibilities changed?
Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, CSC 
  
About a hundred years ago, when AIA produced the document that eventually would become the familiar A201, the architect was firmly in control of construction. The 1915 AIA general conditions state, in Article 9, "The Architect shall have general supervision and direction of the work... The Architect has authority to stop the work whenever, in his opinion, such stoppage may be necessary to insure the proper execution of the Contract." Article 11 required the Contractor to "give efficient supervision to the work", and Article 12 required the Contractor to "provide and pay for all materials, labor, water, tools, equipment, light and power necessary for the execution of the work."

Those basic responsibilities remained essentially the same until the 1960s. Since then, a lot has changed.

In 1961, an architect was found liable for the death of a worker in Day v. National U.S. Radiator Corporation. It wasn't the first time an architect had been sued and it won't be the last, but this was a case that called into question the basic responsibilities of the architect, as defined by the general conditions.

Briefly, Wilson & Coleman, an architectural firm in Louisiana, designed a new hospital building for the Louisiana State Building Authority. The contractor hired a subcontractor for all work related to the central heating system and the hot water system, which included a boiler. The specifications required a thermostat and a pressure relief valve for the boiler, but the subcontractor installed them instead on a water storage tank. The subcontractor did not inform the architect the system was ready for inspection, or request that an inspection be made. The subcontractor performed a preliminary test, the boiler exploded, and one of the subcontractor's employees was killed.

It seems obvious that the subcontractor caused the explosion, first, by not installing the required safety equipment, and second, by not requesting inspection of the system before testing. However, a district court found the architects responsible, and relieved other defendants of liability. The architects appealed the decision. The court of appeals not only agreed with the lower court, but increased the amount of damages.

How could the courts come to this decision? The architects, by contract responsible for "supervision of the work", were found negligent for failing to inspect the installation of the hot water system, and for approving shop drawings that did not show a pressure relief valve. In other words, the architects should have been at the site all the time, and should have watched the entire construction process. Apparently, they should have known the boiler was being installed, and they should have inspected it continuously, even if the installer did not tell them about the installation.

In the end, the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. That court determined that the architect's responsibility was not to continuously verify compliance with the contract documents, but to verify before final acceptance that the contractor had used the correct materials, and "generally that the owner secured the building it had contracted for."

In this case, the courts eventually came to the conclusion that the architect is not responsible for safety, provided the architect is not specifically assigned that responsibility. In other decisions, similar conclusions were made, except in cases when the architect assumed that responsibility by voluntarily becoming engaged in matters related to safety.

Even though the architects in this case eventually were absolved, the AIA quickly updated and reissued its A201 in 1963, only two years after the previous edition. In the 1963 general conditions, the architect's responsibilities were reduced; the architect now was required only to "make periodic visits to the site" and was not required to "make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections..."

In the 1966 A201, the definitions of responsibilities of both the architect and the contractor were expanded. The brief comments regarding the contractor's supervision of the work and paying for "light and power" were supplemented by making the contractor "solely responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for coordinating all portions of the Work under the Contract." And if that wasn't clear enough, Article 2 - Architect, states the same thing, as a negative, for the architect: "The Architect will not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, and he will not be responsible for the Contractor's failure to carry out the Work..." (my emphasis).

Read again what is said about the responsibilities of the architect and of the contractor. In essence, the architect is responsible for showing what the building should look like, and what materials should be used where, and the contractor is responsible for pretty much everything else. Note there is nothing that requires the architect to tell the contractor, or the manufacturer, or the installer how to do their jobs. In fact, it states "The contractor shall be solely responsible for and have control over construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for coordinating all portions of the Work..."

In 1970, the last vestige of the architect's former power was removed. The power to "stop the work" was taken from the architect and given to the owner. This was important, as architects continued to be found liable for worksite injuries, despite the exculpatory provisions of the general conditions. In effect, courts found the "stop the work" clause to mean the architect remained in control of the project, had a duty to understand the hazards associated with all types of work, and should take appropriate action to prevent injuries. Since then, the requirement to "make periodic visits" was changed to "visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction" to further reduce liability.

Some may argue that none of this diminishes the architect's position as Master Builder, but AIA commentaries suggest otherwise. The commentary to the 2007 A201 states, regarding the means and methods clause in 4.2.2, "The last sentence [which ends with 'since these are solely the Contractor's rights and responsibilities'] underscores the statement of the contractor's responsibilities in 3.3.1 and reinforces the dividing line between the contractor's responsibilities and those of the architect" (my emphasis). Regarding 1.2.1, which states, "The intent of the Contract Documents is to include all items necessary...what is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all..." the comment is, "The contractor is expected to make reasonable inferences...[if] the documents show wall partitions covered by drywall...it may be inferred that some reasonable method will be used to attach the drywall to the underlying framework."

Clearly, those who write the general conditions no longer see the architect as responsible for much beyond a general description of the intended results, and now expect the contractor to play a more prominent role in execution of the contract.

2012, Sheldon Wolfe, RA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, CSC

Follow me at http://swconstructivethoughts.blogspot.com/, http://swspecificthoughts.blogspot.com/,
http://twitter.com/swolfearch

 
 
foundation logo


Scholarships
Education Foundation 

 

You have the opportunity to donate directly to the foundation in a secure way in order to boost the number and financial quality of the scholarships.  The donations to this foundation are tax deductable.  If you are considering this good deed and have any questions about the tax aspect, please don't hesitate to contact the Foundation.

 

 

notebook

Board of Directors' Minutes

Online Archive 

 

Minutes of the Indianapolis Chapter CSI Board of Directors can be read here.  Please contact the president with any comments or questions.
Standing Reservations 
Meeting Arrangements Committee
For those of you who know you will be attending each chapter meeting and don't want to mess with making sure they have a spot each month, the Chapter offers to its members in good standing the Standing Reservation List.
 
Please review the terms of this program at the following link.
Quiz ANSWERS:  1. - d; 2. - a; 3. - a; 4. -a; 5. - b 
In This Issue
Tower
Table Tops
Meeting Innformation

Date: 
October 18, 2012

Location:
Riverwalk Banquet Center
Fee:
Members: Free
Guests: $20
Students/
Retired: $10
Time:
5:30 Social Hour
6:30 Dinner
7:15 Program
assa ad
mapei
tsi ad