Volume 39, Issue 5, May  2004

Viewpoints
A Contract Glazier and an Architect 
Provide Step-by-Step Insight
on the Same Job
by Mike Henke and Greg Kachoris

It’s been said that there’s two sides to every story. Such is the case when it comes to glazing projects. Among others, the glazing contractor and the architect both have different responsibilities when it comes to bringing a structure to life. 

In order to learn more about how project perspectives differ, we asked a glazing contractor and an architect to keep a one-month journal on the same job. USGlass asked Arcadia Products Inc. (API) of Northbrook, Ill., and Kachoris Altay Architects (KAA) of Chicago agreed to participate as the glazing contractor and architect respectively. 

The two companies were involved with the tenant improvement portion of the new 12-story office building for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) headquarters located at 567 West Lake Street in Chicago. 

A variety of products were used in the project. The job included approximately 125,000 square feet of custom I-beam curtainwall that featured insulating, low-vision units and custom color frit spandrel glass. On the ground floor, the curtainwall included low-iron, clear glass, vertically butt-glazed with large, painted, aluminum column covers.

For the tenant improvement portion Arcadia installed 428 RACO frame openings, 52 single and 18 pairs of aluminum stile doors and glass and one sliding window. The glass in the frames and doors featured ¼-inch clear, tempered glass. Glass in the conference room areas was 7/16-inch frit. Arcadia also installed eight custom, aluminum display cases.

The CTA was the project owner and Power Construction Company was the general contractor. Other parties involved included: RACO, aluminum supplier; Goldray and Oldcastle, glass suppliers; and OWP/P consulting architect for the interior.

The Architect’s Perspective
March 4, 2004: Received the first submittal from Power Construction Company. Power submitted five copies for mullion and partition closure shop drawings. Upon receiving the shop drawings we logged in the submittal, noting when it was received. We then reviewed the submittal and made corrections to reflect the desired design intent of the product. Logged in the notation “make corrections as noted” and dated. 

March 5, 2004: We kept one copy [of the submittal] for our records and returned four copies of the shop drawings stamped and signed with the desired corrections to Power Construction Company.

March 11, 2004: We received the second submittal. Power Construction Company submitted three samples for patterned glass, GL-1, 12- x 12-inch fritted glass. Submittal was logged in showing when it was received and to whom it was being sent for further review. We also sent the three samples to OWP/P to review and determine if they met their design intent. 

Also received the third submittal. Power Construction Company submitted three samples for patterned glass GL-2, 12- x 12-inch fritted glass. The submittal was logged in showing when it was received and to whom it was sent for further review. Three samples were sent to OWP/P for their review and to determine if the samples met their design intent. 

March 18, 2004: Two samples were returned to KAA by OWP/P with the notation “no exception taken.” We reviewed OWP/P’s notations and agreed with their comments. We again logged in the submittal showing when it was received and with OWP/P’s comments. We kept one copy for our records and returned one sample to Power. 

OWP/P returned two samples to us today with the notation “no exception taken.” Reviewed OWP/P’s notations and agreed with their comments. We again logged in the submittal showing when it was received and with OWP/P’s comments. We kept one copy for our records and returned one sample to Power. 

March 26, 2004: Received the fourth submittal. Five samples for RACO aluminum finishes were sent by Power. Logged in the submittal showing when it was received and to whom it was sent to for further review. Sent those samples to OWP/P to review and determine if they met desired intentions. 

March 31, 2004: OWP/P returned four samples to us with the notation “no exception taken.” Reviewed OWP/P’s notations and agreed with their comments. Logged in the submittal showing when it was received and with OWP/P’s comments. 

April 2, 2004: KAA kept one copy for our records, sent one sample to the CTA for their records and returned two samples to Power. Coordinating with Power and OWP/P, the submittals had approximately a seven-calendar-day turnaround from the date they were submitted. All of the shop drawings and samples submitted met the design intent and project specifications.

The Contract Glazier’s Perspective
Monday, March 8, 2004: Received glass samples for submittal from Goldray for custom laminated tempered clear glass with custom matrix pattern frit (#1 and #4 surfaces). Glass is 7/16 inches with 3/16- x .060-inch interlayer x 3/16 inch, all clear tempered glass. Sample GL-1 has a custom matrix pattern and sample GL-2 has custom jumbo matrix pattern. API put descriptive labels on glass and forwarded to Power Construction to forward to KAA for approval. Sent three samples of each via UPS ground, which should deliver to jobsite office tomorrow. This glass will be glazed into aluminum sidelite frames and interior doors around the conference room on floors three through 11.

Called and sent fax to RACO to confirm when it will submit their aluminum door, frame and sidelite shop drawings along with hardware schedule for first submission. In fax I confirmed we need these this week for submission.

API previously put an aluminum frame schedule together, which included all aluminum door, doorframe and sidelite frames. We previously sent this to RACO to confirm required frames. We missed ten stand-alone sidelite frames, which didn’t have doors (W3a). We will revise schedule tomorrow and add these frames.

Tuesday, March 9, 2004: Revised our aluminum frame schedule to include (W3a) frames and forwarded it to the aluminum frame manufacturer via fax to make sure they include these frames in their shop drawings. I received a fax from RACO’s draftperson to confirm they are trying to get the shops out by this Thursday and will send next day for Friday delivery. 

Called and left message for RACO’s draft-person to confirm missed frames will be included and to discuss shop drawings.

Sent fax to Power today to confirm if GL-1 and GL-2 custom matrix pattern runs horizontally or vertically and asked KAA to confirm when they returned approved glass samples. 

Wednesday, March 10, 2004: Spoke with RACO’s draft person concerning shop drawings. She hoped to get drawings out tomorrow for overnight delivery. 

Thursday, March 11, 2004: Worked on other projects.

Friday, March 12, 2004: Received interior aluminum window frame shop drawings along with aluminum door schedule. Reviewed schedule with Denise DeLuca (API project coordinator). They also sent clear anodized aluminum finish samples for approval. Noted on transmittal that aluminum wide stile door submittal will be here Monday. Reviewed RFI questions that RACO had concerning deleted frames (hollow metal in lieu of aluminum at second floor). Reviewed other RFIs and forwarded RFI to Power/KAA concerning some hardware changes on the sixth floor that showed up on new door schedule we received from KAA [that was] not on contract documents. Asked KAA to confirm correct hardware.

Hoped to finish up shop drawing review by Wednesday of next week to get answers back to RACO so they can make changes and forward revised set of drawings by Friday. 

Monday, March 15, 2004: Received wide stile door submittals this morning and reviewed. Corrected the 27 doors that have the custom matrix 7/16-inch laminated glass in the conference rooms in lieu of ¼-inch glass. Glass stops need to be changed to accept 7/16-inch glass. Other revisions noted and will be faxed back for changes to be made. 

Tuesday, March 16, 2004: I called Erol Altay of KAA (responding to e-mails he sent me) to discuss the color of structural silicone sealant on the base contract and some column cover details. I also asked him to make sure they confirm the direction of the 7/16-inch laminated custom matrix pattern glass (horizontal or vertical) when they return the glass samples. Erol was not aware of the direction so he put Greg Kachoris on the line. Greg explained that the CTA’s design consulting architect, OWP&P, would need to confirm that. They will note the direction of the pattern when they return the glass.

Denise DeLuca and I further reviewed RACO door and frame submittal. Noted changes and confirmed RFI questions. 

Wednesday, March 17, 2004: Put together a fax back to RACO with answers to RFI questions and general notes concerning the aluminum frame and door schedule submittal. Faxed back to RACO. 

Thursday, March 18, 2004: Called RACO to confirm that they had received our fax and to discuss any questions concerning revisions. Also asked for two additional clear anodize finish samples. We will submit to Power/KAA when we receive additional samples for approval. Discussed the different size drywall details for wider walls (multi-layer drywall wall types); per architect’s details we should still be using standard 4 7/8-inch aluminum framing system.

Friday, March 19, 2004: At CTA jobsite all day. Reviewed base project lobby truss installation. Met with Erol Altay on site to review mock-up of sealant at ground floor exterior curtainwall. Also discussed approved interior 7/16-inch custom matrix laminated glass. The pattern runs vertical. Power hand-delivered transmittal with copies of approved 7/16-inch laminated glass.

Monday, March 22, 2004: Met with API’s John Crigler (shop project manager) and Jim Hoeflich (senior project manager) to discuss fabrication and installation of RACO framing. The screw spline system is the way to go to eliminate notching of trim covers to miss the corner brackets. Shop fabricate sidelite frames and screw them together in shop. RACO will fabricate all doorframes. Discussed how everything fits together. Pre-assembled sidelite frames to k-d doorframes in the field. 

Called RACO to get update on shop drawing revisions. They thought they would be done today to send out next-day Federal Express, or, if not complete, [finish] tomorrow and forward for next-day delivery
Tuesday, March 23, 2004: Didn’t receive RACO shops. Called RACO for update and they confirmed they would be going out today overnight. 

We received back a transmittal from Power/KAA that approved the Goldray custom patterned glass GL-1 and GL-2 (7/16-inch clear laminated custom matrix etch frit on #1 and #4 surfaces). KAA confirmed that the frit direction for GL-1 and GL-2 glass would be vertical with a confirmation from OWP&P. 

Wednesday, March 24, 2004: Received RACO shop drawings for aluminum door and frames. They still had a few minor revisions, which we corrected before we submitted to Power/KAA for approval.

Received confirmation from Power/KAA and RFI concerning some of the sixth floor door hardware schedule clarifications. The clarifications were included in the RACO submittal. 

Thursday, March 25, 2004: Hand-delivered RACO submittal to Power’s jobsite office and briefly reviewed what was included in the submittal with their project managers. Stressed once again the importance of Power’s drywall subcontractor reviewing the frame submittal for proper drywall and stud opening for the frames to fit properly. We confirmed we would have a field meeting with the drywall foreman to review the RACO information.

Friday, March 26, 2004: Received copies of RFIs concerning revised drywall types in which aluminum doorframes will be installed due to drywall thickness and tile. All RACO frames will be installed in 4 7/8-inch thick drywall openings. Had several e-mails from KAA concerning items on the base building work column covers and caulking.

Monday, March 29, 2004 through Friday, April 2, 2004: Vacation! 


USG

© Copyright Key Communications Inc. All rights reserved. No reproduction of any type without expressed written permission.