RE: AISC Code of Standard Practice 2000[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: AISC Code of Standard Practice 2000
- From: Charlie Carter <carter(--nospam--at)aiscmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:18:39 -0600
Thank you for your further comments. I'll add them to Jason's for the Code Committee to consider.
Your advice that everyone read the entire AISC Code of Standard Practice is very good and should be very well taken by designers and constructors. I think the 2000 document is a very much improved AISC Code and one that the majority will appreciate.
>Much of the Code of Standard Practice deals with the scope of work of the
>Fabricator and Errector. This typically creates a conflict since it is the
>intent of most General Conditions that the Contract Documents do not
>"..control the Contractor in dividing the Work among Subcontractors or in
>extablishing the extent of Work to be performed by any trade" (AIA
>A201-1997). I would suggest that issues related to scope of work of the
>Fabricator and Errector should be negotiated between the Subcontractors and
>the General Contractor and should not be included in a document intended to
>be referenced in the Project Specifications.
For background information, the AISC Code Committee has direct representation of the folks that develop AIA's MASTERSPEC and AIA's A201 and similar documents. It may be that those representatives (and the other designers on the Committee) did not share your concerns for potential conflicts. Or perhaps they thought the benefits of having a default agreement between buyer and seller for fabricated structural steel outweighed the potential pitfalls. In any case, it is important to note that the AISC Code scope statement in Section 1.1 specifically limits it's own applicability to the absence of instructions to the contrary in the contract documents.
Incidentally, I do not think CSI has recommended against the inclusion of the 2000 AISC Code. If so I wonder why they seemed so enthused about it when we presented it to them. I believe their recommendation goes back to older versions of the AISC Code, which are history at this point.
Personally, I think the design community and construction industry would together grind themselves to a halt if everyone started reinventing the wheel (negotiating anew the agreement between buyer and seller) every time a project were let.
P.S. Are we really all working this Saturday?
- Prev by Subject: RE: AISC Code of Standard Practice 2000
- Next by Subject: RE: AISC Code of Standard Practice 2000
- Previous by thread: RE: AISC Code of Standard Practice 2000
- Next by thread: RE: AISC Code of Standard Practice 2000