Life would be simpler if 90% of the bid docs we get weren't completely silent beyond "meet code" or contained fatal errors.
My favorite is when they fluff out their notes with snippets of #13, like specifying the MRA, say .1/1500. Oh- so if there's unsprinklered combustible concealed spaces we don't need to go to 3,000 SF? And we can't take the remote area reduction? How does THAT benefit the Owner? George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax g...@rowesprinkler.com -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 1:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Project Specifications While I understand what David and some others are saying about excessive RFI's from incompetent sprinkler companies etc I believe that your post points out what most of know to be true the majority of the time.... Most RFI's are created by sprinkler companies needing information that wasn't provided by the A/E team for us to do a proper design. The implication that I get when I read that phrase is ... you figure it out don't bother me with it or I am going to charge you for my time. Reminds me of the stuff we see often where the typical warehouse building has 30 sidewalls and the documents say to sprinkler per NFPA yet we have no idea how or what is being stored. Also, I am trying to figure out how slowing the job down increases profit? Kinda always thought the opposite was usually true... Rod at Rapid -----Original Message----- From: sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of rfletc...@aerofire.com Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:16 AM To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org Subject: Project Specifications Found something new in a FP spec that I think is worth sharing. Spec's are copyrighted by a nationally known FP consultant. "Excessive assistance provided by the Architect/General Contractor to the Contractor, at the Contractor's request, shall be at cost to the Contractor, via back charge, ..." And it goes on to say that just because they charged for the assistance it doesn't "imply direction or approval". It's odd that there is no "Excessive Interference" clause. Ron Fletcher Aero - Phoenix _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
