| Author |
Message |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1365
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - 11:46 am: |    |
Peter Jordan had a presentation called "What Specifiers Wish Architects Knew." This thread somewhat fits into that vein, but instead of focusing on architects, I want to include all design professionals: architects, engineers, and specialty consultants.
Additionally, many design professionals know a lot, it's just that they don't understand how we specifiers work, such as what do we need, when do we need it, why do we need it, etc.
I'm hoping that this thread could be a depository of our collective thoughts on the subject. Depending on the responses (if any), this can be consolidated into a public document published by CSI or SCIP (or a joint document from both).
I'll start this off in a following post with a suggested format...
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - 11:49 am: | |
ADVICE: Inform your specifier which products are subject to change due to value engineering or cost reduction actions.
WHY: Depending on the product, a specification section is generally not prepared in a very short period of time. In addition to the editing/writing time, the specifier spends plenty of time doing research and reviewing the drawings. If the design professional is using an uncommon product that is likely not included in the specifier’s specification masters, either a master section will need to be modified significantly or a completely new, custom section will have to be prepared. This could involve several hours of the specifier’s time that will be thrown away if the uncommon product is eventually not used. If the specifier is informed that certain products may not make it through the cost evaluation process, then the specifier can delay working on those sections until decisions are made.
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 814
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015 - 12:51 pm: | |
ADVICE: Division 01- General Requirements should be completed first, not last, when producing a specification.
WHY: Division 01 is the fulcrum for the written documents, expanding on the conditions of the contract and governing the technical specifications. It requires major input from owner and contractor, in varying degrees depending on the section being addressed. Because it governs the technical sections written by consultants, it is beneficial to complete Division 01 early so it can be distributed to the consultant team. Finally, unlike standard conditions and forms, Division 01 needs to be written fresh for each project - it is not boilerplate. |
Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: presbspec
Post Number: 274
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 26, 2015 - 01:43 pm: | |
Thank you Ron! I may print this thread out and use as a handout for every project manager I work with. |
James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: jsandoz
Post Number: 183
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 30, 2015 - 08:49 am: | |
I will definitely share both Ron's and George's comments with the designers in my office. I am seeing more and more uncommon products in projects these days.
Regarding George's comment, it escapes me why, in our increasingly budget-minded and litigious world the general requirements are given so little consideration. For me this is an even bigger chore than getting technical information from the project team. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 336
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 02, 2015 - 12:00 am: | |
ADVICE: Allow reasonable time for processing specs, measured beginning when you provide reasonably clear design input and updates for specs. In case you are not sure what input is needed for specs - if it is about quality or type of materials and systems, it should go in the specs. If it about location and extents it should go on the drawings using only very generalized terminology that ties it to a spec section or subheading in the specs. In case you are not sure what is reasonably clear input - if it is an all products catalog from a manufacturer, that is not helpful - you could just as well have said please add mfr x to the list. We do not know what product or application you are talking about. Help us understand its function and how it is being used, what performance and other salient attributes you care about. If it is a cut sheet with various options please mark them. Review it and clean it up before you send to your spec writer if it is something you would reject if received in a construction-phase submittal because it is not clear which products they are proposing or what applications. Collect these cut sheets as you are designing, and mark them with the products you chose.
WHY #1: IT IS YOUR JOB TO GIVE THE SPECIFIER GOOD INFORMATION FOR WHAT ARE ACTUALLY YOUR* SPECS. However, some people seem to believe that if you have a spec writer you never even have to look at the specs. Quite the contrary per the AIA and statutes. The Specifications right along with the Drawings are YOUR* instruments of service to the Owner. See AIA B101 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect (which also applies to subconsultants under pass-through provisions). It does not become someone else's responsibility because of it being on 8-1/2 by 11 sheets. According to AIA and statutes, the Designers of Record own the responsibility for the specs and the drawings alike. A spec writer unless he/she is also the Designer of Record has to work under the direction of the Architect or other DOR -- we operate much like a draftsperson who is not licensed, and even if we are a licensed design professional, we still are not the DOR for your project. If we do not receive good direction, we just have to go with whatever direction if any that we receive.
So even if your title does not say you are a designer + specifier simply because no one waved that magic wand over you yet, you are a specifier in the sense that the B101 says you are - the specs are part of YOUR* instruments of service. For collecting the input for specs, it is always easier to do it now while it is at your fingertips than to ever hope to recreate it later.
WHY #2: BECAUSE IT WILL SAVE YOU TIME. Yes that is right, SAVES YOU time overall. If you gave your specifier good quality information in plenty of time: A. During design you will find it much easier to mark up those specifications because the first draft can be oh so much better, & B. Your spec writer can give you more value in YOUR* specifications that you will use to administer the construction contract.
If you keep it in your consciousness about what info will be needed for YOUR* specifications all the while that you are collecting information for your drawings, you are helping yourself as well as your specifier, and you will thank yourself when you can look back at your marked cut sheets during bidding and VE -- why did we use that product... oh yes, that is why! How does the VE product compare -- hmmmm, where is the value in this "VE"? Why, this product they are proposing is not even recommended by the manufacturer for our application!... or hmmmm, their product is 4 times thinner, it can't be just as durable no matter that their tests of other attributes sound good - and they keep pushing the issue so lets see how the Owner feels about "saving" money with this suggestion.
And you will thank yourself again during construction as all the submittals come in. You will have something extremely useful that you can immediately compare them against.
WHY #3: IT MAXIMIZES THE VALUE THAT THE OWNER RECEIVES IN THE END PRODUCT OF THEIR BUILDING when specs are clear and consistent, allowing bidders to accurately price and reasonably compete. Informed owners will recognize the difference between useful and messed up specs and be more likely to keep coming back to your firm for their services.
(*Where I say "YOUR" I mean from a professional responsibility standpoint, not necessarily a full copyright standpoint which varies depending on your basis with the spec writer.) |
Colin Gilboy
Senior Member
Username: colin
Post Number: 417
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 09:45 am: | |
[Holly Robinson asked me to post this for her. She had some problems posting]
I attended a contractor panel discussion 11/20/2015 at Cincinnati's AIA Academy, some excerpts:
CONTRACTOR FORUM: Top Ten Mistakes "Design Teams" Make
1. NEGOTIATE FOR MORE TIME:
a. Tight deadlines discourage quality, it's the truth and there's not much to do about it. Throwing more people on the project in the last week doesn't help. No one will remember or care in the middle of construction if you didn't have enough time to do work correctly or completely. They will remember at the end of construction was whether the set of drawings was good or not and how much poorly prepared documents cost them and the owner.
b. Get more time to do a quality job FIRST- BE HONEST WITH YOUR CLIENT!
2. ISSUE COMPLETE DOCUMENTS:
a. Avoid issuing incomplete drawings and trying to catch up with addendums.
3. DIMENSIONING:
a. Dimensions should be clear and concise.
b. Don't make the Contractor do math.
c. Dimensions should allow for normal work flow.
4. TOLERANCES:
a. Understand the tolerances of different materials and accommodate how they fit together.
b. Adjust your expectations accordingly.
5. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE ECONOMICAL DESIGN SOLUTIONS:
a. Design to the Budget.
b. Know where the expensive design elements are in the project.
c. Select products that match the budget expectations.
6. AVOID VAGUE NOTES, STATEMENTS OR REFERENCES:
a. "Or Equals"
b. "As Required"
c. "See Structural Drawings", "See Architectural Drawings"...
d. Tell the Contractor what you want them to do.
7. QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWS:
a. Build sufficient time to do a QA review before the job goes on to the next phase or goes out to bid - not after and not during construction.
b. Having a fresh set of eyes on drawings benefits everyone.
c. Make sure you thoroughly coordinate the Architectural Drawings with other design disciplines.
8. KNOW WHAT TO DRAW:
a. Know what the intent is, know what you are doing whether it is drawing a detail, modeling a component or writing a note or spec.
b. Don't draw anything unless you know what you are drawing.
9. KNOW WHEN TO BE SPECIFIC AND WHEN TO BE GENERIC:
a. Make sure your drawings and specifications match.
b. Provide clear direction to the Contractor and identify Design Options when appropriate.
c. Clarify substitution procedures.
10. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES:
a. Check your unrealistic expectations
b. Make sure the person providing CA services knows the project and can effectively navigate problems in the field.
c. Responses to RFIs, Shop Drawings, Submittals.
d. Punch list procedures.
Colin Gilboy
Publisher, 4specs.com
435.200.5775 - Utah
800.369.8008 |
Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: don_harris
Post Number: 289
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2015 - 01:02 pm: | |
2. ISSUE COMPLETE DOCUMENTS:
a. Avoid issuing incomplete drawings and trying to catch up with addendums.
Maybe the contractors should stop giving the Owners GMP's at SD or DD and they could actually see complete documents to price and stop blaming the Architect for cost increases.
I guess you can tell this is a pet peeve of mine. |
Greta Eckhardt
Senior Member
Username: gretaeckhardt
Post Number: 38
Registered: 08-2013
| | Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 08:29 am: | |
The suggestions already made are terrific but I would like to suggest a simpler approach:
ADVICE: Require all architectural staff to achieve CDT certification.
WHY: This way we will all have a common understanding of how documents are organized, and what is important, as well as a common language for talking about this topic. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 523
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 12:33 pm: | |
I like Greta's idea that CDT certification be made a requirement, but perhaps a little less stick and bit more carrot may work better.
Upon achieving CDT certification, full time employees will have:
1. Test fee reimbursed.
2. $1.00 per hour raise. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 886
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 12:36 pm: | |
I tried pushing CDT as a requirement at my office for several years, finally gave up. We have one CDT, one CCCA, one CCS/CCCA.
In contrast, we have forty-three LEED APs. They're apparently much more valuable and important, because they're included in marketing.
Exam fees are paid when one passes pretty much any exam; no raise. |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015 - 05:16 pm: | |
My advice for architects (and designers) working with specifiers is to give the specifier as much information as possible and make sure all the selections are made.
Many times I have been sent catalog cutsheets with none of the options indicated or I have been given only partial information. Many times I can write specifications based on my knowledge or past experience. When it comes to colors and patterns, it is the architect's call.
I tell architects if they don't make the decisions, the contractor will and I guarantee they won't like it.
On a related note, my dentist has a sign in his office that says, "Only floss the teeth that you intend to keep."
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant/Web Publisher
www.localproductreps.com |
|
4specs.com Home Page