# Plans clearly not to code and bids are due, what do you do?



## LARMGUY (May 14, 2012)

Hypothetical situation.

You are a fire alarm installer.  Plans are received on a large commercial building.  It is immediately obvious the fire alarm system will cost $100,000 plus.  It is also immediately obvious the fire alarm is not to code and will take upwards of $5,000 to bring it to code.  :banghd  Oh yeah, bids are due in less than a week.  

The question is, do you bid the job as is?


----------



## fatboy (May 14, 2012)

I would bid it as is, and then attach an addendum to let them know what it will cost if they actually want it to go through plan review, and inspections.


----------



## conarb (May 14, 2012)

I would call the DPoR and notify him/her, if there was time they would revise the plans and specs, with less than a week chances are that they will tell you to bid it as per the bid documents and they will investigate the alleged discrepancies and issue a CO later.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 14, 2012)

Bid it plan and specs only everything is is an extra.


----------



## steveray (May 15, 2012)

I agree with MT professionally.......but my old boss made a very good living bidding per bid documents and wacking them for all of the extras he knew were coming....


----------



## Doorman (May 15, 2012)

Watch out for a 'Weasel Clause' in the specification preamble.

It is not uncommon to see something like _"All components required for proper operation are to be included whether specified here or not.  No extras will be allowed, a complete functional system is required."_  The gist of this is, an architect has to be concerned with the entire building and site... carpeting, HVAC, paint, parking lot lites... the design professionals count on the varied trades to be experts in their respective fields.

As mentioned, it doesn't hurt to clarify your price offer with the fact that you have cleaned up a few problems.  You still may lose to job, but that's better than doing it and losing money.

Just my two bits...


----------



## Coug Dad (May 15, 2012)

I agree with doorman.  Many specs contain CYA clauses that require the contractor to provide a fully code compliant system regardless of what is shown in the documents.


----------



## jar546 (May 15, 2012)

There are always amendments after plan review.  Cover your bases with the language in your bid.  Bid per current specs to keep you competitive


----------



## FM William Burns (May 15, 2012)

I'm in Doorman & CD's camp with this one. As the one who is ultimately tagged the "bad guy" when I review it with a bunch of deficiency comments following, I appreciate when a professional recognizes the error or attempt for revisions (oops I didn’t say that) and addresses it. 

In my experience those who have contacted me with discrepancies or affix a clarification in their bid typically get the bid and the matters can be addressed with an addendum from the DP’s and reference to revised shop drawings.


----------



## Coug Dad (May 15, 2012)

Good luck finding an owner who will approve an extra for a fire sprinkler or fire alarm system contract.  Most designers are incompetent and the owner expects the contractors to be the experts and provide what is required.


----------



## Doorman (May 15, 2012)

_"Most designers are incompetent and the owner expects the contractors to be the experts and provide what is required."_

I have, on more than one occasion, not bid the doors on a messy job...  I don't have to have every job that comes along, and I don't need projects that are poorly designed and specified in my book of business.  It is sad, but this is usually the fault of the owner for selecting design professionals that are in over their head, or the owner has them on limited service/fee and wants to control his own destiny; this destiny usually results in the entire project augering in at mach 3.2.


----------



## LARMGUY (May 15, 2012)

So most of you are saying play the game by wasting time bidding what is specified when the entire system should be re-engineered and bid as a total professional solution.

I feel part of my job as integrator is to educate the owners of the property into the 21st century with minimal kicking and screaming.

Here is my answer.

Four companies bid the specs with addendums to bring to code.  :yawn  Our company does not.  We bid only the entire up to code system not wasting time upon the original specs.  In my opinion this shows more professionalism up front than the other four companies because it implies our company is intelligent, no nonsense, and doesn't waste time on bids therefore doesn't waste time on jobs.  We have never missed a deadline or failed an inspection.


----------



## Doorman (May 15, 2012)

_"I feel part of my job as integrator is to educate the owners of the property into the 21st century with minimal kicking and screaming."_



Why is that?  Was this education part of the contractual agreement?


----------



## LARMGUY (May 15, 2012)

Doorman said:
			
		

> _"I feel part of my job as integrator is to educate the owners of the property into the 21st century with minimal kicking and screaming."_
> 
> Why is that?  Was this education part of the contractual agreement?


Because of the quote below.



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Good luck finding an owner who will approve an extra for a fire sprinkler or fire alarm system contract.  Most designers are incompetent and the owner expects the contractors to be the experts and provide what is required.


"Good luck finding an owner to pay for the extras", if I have done my job correctly by "be the experts and provide what is required", and proved it with the backing of the code and the professionalism we maintain, we have educated not alienated the owner by not whacking them with change orders.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 15, 2012)

LARMGUY said:
			
		

> So most of you are saying play the game by wasting time bidding what is specified when the entire system should be re-engineered and bid as a total professional solution.


Then make a bid statement to such effect, but do not expect to get every job you bid.  Good deeds are often confused with professionalism, and therefore tend to not go unpunished.



			
				LARMGUY said:
			
		

> Our company does not.  We bid only the entire up to code system not wasting time upon the original specs.  In my opinion this shows more professionalism up front than the other four companies because it implies our company is intelligent, no nonsense, and doesn't waste time on bids therefore doesn't waste time on jobs.  We have never missed a deadline or failed an inspection.


Great.  You are fortunute to work for a company that has clear cut policies that reflect their value system, and you will be rewarded by those who witness and respect those same values.  Carry on.

However, if you also want to have your cake and eat it too, you will have to find a way to play "the game(s)" and still reconcile your company's core value system without comprising it's integrity.  Good luck.


----------



## GCtony (May 16, 2012)

Notify the designer and let them tell the bidders how to bid it.  If you bid what's in the plans and specs, it's apples to apples.  If you bid it the right way, you're giving the customer (the architect)  something he's not asking for. It's a catch 22.

For what it's worth to those that say "bid it the right way"  Most owners and architects look  at the number, not what's included in the number. That's why some put that CYA clause in the instructions to bidders.


----------



## MtnArch (May 16, 2012)

E-mail or fax (whatever is listed in the specs) an RFI bringing the issue to light (system isn't designed to code) and request direction in writing.  This puts the DP on the hook to either issue an addendum stating that the system is to be bid per plans and specs, or that the bidder must bid it to be completely code compliant.  Either way you get your answer.


----------

