Archive through March 17, 2014

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, December 23, 2013 - 01:04 pm:    When should one specify by Basis of Design? It seems when there is: 1. Difficulty finding equivalent products, assemblies, or systems that meet the specific, necessary performance requirements or criteria. 2. A desire to keep the spec open (non-proprietary). 3. When one is lazy (to keep looking beyond the one specified item). Is there more to it? What are your thoughts? (I could not find other 4specs discussion on this topic, and the project delivery practice guide has only two instance use of this term - I, unfortunately, do not have the specifying practice guide). Ed Storer Senior Member Username: ed_storer Post Number: 8 Registered: 05-2009 Posted on Tuesday, December 24, 2013 - 11:48 am:    I started using basis of design in 1988 for elevator specifications, as information for the contractor. "Standard" Shindler elevators wouldn't fit a hoistway or machine room that was designed to fit an Otis elevator and vice versa. On the other hand, Shindler was capable of making elevators of comparable quality. It was done with a desire to keep the spec open while avoiding change orders when a "standard" elevator from an "acceptable" manufacturer wouldn't fit the spaces allotted. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 703 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, December 24, 2013 - 03:11 pm:    Basis of design specifying can be a useful tool, if done correctly. Identify one specific product as “basis of design” by listing manufacturer name, brand name, model number and similar characteristics that uniquely identify the product. Include in the specification only those descriptive, reference standard and performance requirements that identify “salient characteristics” of the product. Salient characteristics are those that are important in keeping the design intent. Confirm that there are comparable products by comparing the listed salient characteristics of the basis of design to comparable products. Once the basis of design product is chosen and the salient characteristics that will be used to judge comparables are specified, the specifier has two options for comparables. One is to keep the specification open, allowing any other manufacturer who has a product that meets the salient characteristics. While a list of comparable manufacturers is not needed, it is often helpful for bidders to list those known comparable manufacturers [or products] following language such as “Comparable manufacturers [products] include:” The second option is to write a closed specification, listing the manufacturers that are known to provide comparable products following language such as “Provide the specified product, or a comparable product manufactured by one of the following:” So to answer your three points: 1. The specifier should have already found …”equivalent products, assemblies, or systems that meet the specific, necessary performance requirements or criteria.” If not, be intellectually and professionally honest and write a closed proprietary specification with the one product you know will work. Trying to write a basis of design spec without knowing there are comparables just invites needless work on the part of the contractor team in looking for nonexistent products, and on the part of the A/E in reviewing submissions for non-comparable products. 2. A basis of design specification is not necessarily open. It can be closed – as in allowing the basis of design product, and ONLY three comparable products listed. It’s still proprietary if you list multiple manufacturers, but limit it to only those listed. 3. Lazy specifiers create more work for themselves – see 1 above. Use basis of design specifying when there exists a product whose salient characteristics meet the design intent. Define those characteristics, and use them to judge whether other products are in fact comparable. Merely listing a product as “basis of design” without defining what characteristics are important leaves the decision on what is comparable open to interpretation. It’s unfair for the bidders, and spells trouble for the A/E when submittals are made. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand) St. Louis, MO Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 315 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, January 03, 2014 - 01:45 pm:    I concur with George. In short, read Division 01! Also CSI practice guides and Regener's book. Main topic - Product Requirements. Secondarily - Substitution Requirements. Be careful not to confuse "comparable products" with "substitutions". Read how it is defined in the applicable master specifications and the *PROJECT'S* Division 01. a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 03, 2014 - 01:30 pm:    Sorry to revisit this again, but... Do the salient characteristics represent the minimum requirements that must be met, or do they represent the characteristics of other proposed assemblies/systems they will be judged on as being "close enough"? * The way I see it, if it is the first, then, why not just eliminate the term and list a generic description with the salient characteristics? (along with any optional, approved manufacturers and their respective "items"). * If the second, then it seems there could be a lot of gray area in comparing equivalents. Are the General Conditions or Division 01 section on product requirements supposed to address the authority decision-making on 'basis of design' issues? Regener's book addresseds "Quality Basis" but I don't see "basis of design". It also seems Basis of Design specifying is giving preferential treatment, and should not exist for public works projects. Shouldn't due diligence by the designer include researching sufficient and appropriate systems, and listing a minimum of two (preferrably three)? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 671 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, February 03, 2014 - 07:35 pm:    I will admit to using the "Basis of Design" fairly casually, but I do find it very useful especially when there are very specific details shown on the Drawings, but the products can be interchanged without difficulty (I like to think of aluminum storefront). Using a comparable product should not take a lot of retinkering with the details. Having said that, certain there are items like elevators that changing from one manufacturer to another can cause major headaches for systems with the same nominal capacities. Relatively slight changes in hoistway size can require additional engineering, especially when the project is more than a few stories high. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1555 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2014 - 11:28 am:    I would not see basis-of-design being practical with elevators, as Peter points out. But for many accessory items and some finishes it is really a good solution. Using a basis-of-design rather than a completely thorough description makes everyone's job easier. For many of these products, each manufacturer already has produced an equivalency chart showing their products against their competitors (though this is not always publicly available). George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 711 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, February 05, 2014 - 12:16 pm:    "...a generic description with the salient characteristics" is the definition of a descriptive specification and therefore it wouldn't even require listing manufacturers - although listing them as you suggest as "approved manufacturers" or even better "available manufacturers" is an option to keep the specification open. Division 01 - probably in the "Products" section - is where you would define the rules of the game for evaluating comparables. As always, the more specific you can be about this, the easier the evaluation will be. Basis of Design - and correct me if I am wrong any of you more experienced specifiers - is a relatively recent evolution. I think it may have started, or at least leapt to popularity, with ARCOM MasterSpec introducing it into their masters. If you have access, their Division 01 is a good example of the type of language for defining and evaluating Basis of Design. When John did the revision to Rosen's original book, Basis of Design was probably not as prevalent, and therefore was absent. I don't know if Mark Kalin's recent version covers it in more detail. I know CSI has not caught up in the Practice Guides as much as we should have, and the issue will certainly be addressed in upcoming revisions – especially in the Construction Specifications PG. As far as Basis of Design giving preferential treatment - the architect/engineer is hired by the Owner to select materials, products, and systems with salient characteristics (there’s that term again!) that meet the Owner’s definition of quality. So I see using a storefront system, for example, as a Basis of Design as being precisely what you should be doing for product selection. Just because you use YKK instead of Kawneer doesn’t limit competition or create an unfair environment for bidding. And “in theory”, there is no reason why you shouldn’t be able to write a Basis of Design specification for elevators, although “in practice”, I agree with John and Peter. It would be a difficult specification to write effectively, as compared to the storefront example. “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is a big difference.” George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand) St. Louis, MO a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - 04:50 pm:    Is there anyone that has a definition of "Basis of Design"? Do you use it in your construction documents? If not, why not? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 715 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - 09:35 pm:    Per MasterSpec: Basis-of-Design Product Specification: A specification in which a specific manufacturer's product is named and accompanied by the words "basis-of-design product," including make or model number or other designation, to establish the significant qualities related to type, function, dimension, in-service performance, physical properties, appearance, and other characteristics for purposes of evaluating comparable products of additional manufacturers named in the specification. b (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - 04:03 pm:    For what it's worth, here are some definitions from the State of Ohio Standard Requirements for Public Facility Construction: Basis of Design Component: A component listed first in the Specifications. Acceptable Component: A component listed in the Specifications after the Basis of Design Component. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 720 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 - 05:45 pm:    OK, what's a Component? b (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2014 - 12:19 pm:    They don't provide a definition for that, but apparently the terminology is used to distinguish between a Basis of Design product and a Basis of Design document that records the Owner's Project Requirements. a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 21, 2014 - 12:47 pm:    Please correct me where needed. Based on what I understand, it seems the main reason for using "basis of design" is when details need to be drawn, but cannot be done so without reflecting a single manufacturer's product (since other acceptable products would need to be drawn differently). But on the other hand, it seems to me that drawing it one way, to reflect the "single-named" product is also acceptable without using the term "basis of design." What does the term “basis of design” add? I say, list: 1) Its salient characteristics. 2) The words "or equal" or a list of the other acceptable manufacturers. 3) Ensure the design will accommodate other proposed products. If complicated, item 2 should ideally be designed around the few manufacturers listed (e.g., sized), such that would be acceptable. If so, then you HAVE a basis of design specification. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1761 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 21, 2014 - 01:26 pm:    I see "Basis of Design" most frequently when it's an aesthetic issue, and most frequently, that's an interior issue. (Not always, though; recently there was only one manufacturer offering the desired sight-line for a rated curtain wall, so that was the Basis of Design; other manufacturers were welcome to custom produce) Back to the usual: the salient characteristics then are the design, color, the appearance, etc., even though many other manufacturers can produce a product that would function as well. "Or equal" absolutely will not work, since the product has to coordinate with many additional products. The only way another product could be used would be with approval of the designer/architect. Michael Heinsdorf, P.E. Senior Member Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe Post Number: 13 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Friday, February 21, 2014 - 01:44 pm:    I've also seen Basis of Design used when the physical characteristics of the products to be installed are completely different. For instance, the DOD and State Department require the engineer to use to a certain product as a basis of design for a pop-up vehicle barrier, as there are significant differences among the different manufacturers of those products when it comes to height, width, depth, etc. As long as the vehicle barrier meets the K-12 rating and the specified duty cycles, and the contractor is willing to bear the cost of redesigning the system (even with the re-work, bids have been competitive), the product is acceptable. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 437 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, February 21, 2014 - 02:13 pm:    I agree with Lynn and Michael, "Basis-of-Design" is used either for an aesthetic issue or a "this one fits in the available space" issue. The aesthetic issue is pretty obvious, particularly for interior finishes. Products specified in many different Sections have been selected because they work together and are often presented to the client for approval together on a color board. Everything needs to hang together. I have had a designer change (slightly) all of the wall paint colors when faced with a different corner guard manufacturer than they expected. I think that the "this one fits in the available space" use is the more critical application because it can often be very subtle and not even something you could expect to be considered by person making the selection. I can recall where we selected a specific roof top cooling tower because only that one and a couple others in the same configuration fit into the building's maximum allowable height limit. MEP engineers and bidders aren't used to taking a criteria like that into consideration. For these reasons we always try to say in the spec "why" something is the basis of design. That is a good exercise because if you can't clearly state why, then it probably doesn't need to be a "Basis-of-Design". a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 21, 2014 - 07:04 pm:    Ok, "or equal" would not work. I meant to say "or *approved* equal" But, my point is... isn't it up to the designer to define the essential characteristics? If you require a certain color match, a certain size, or configuration, define it and require it. And with approval authority over any alternate submission, you essentially have a basis of design specification (this assumes the designer has properly vetted each manufacturer's product with each essential characteristic). No need to include the term. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 681 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2014 - 07:52 am:    If you do public work, you will usually need to include "or equal" or "or approved equal" or ... There are relatively few instances where you cat legally restrict product selection. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 683 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2014 - 10:44 am:    The reasons I like "basis of design" for public work is that it lets the Bidders and Contractors know what we actually drew without unduly restricting pricing options. The one area that I can think of is storefront systems. The standard 2 by 4-1/2 inch system is a comodity product as far as I am concerned, but there are minor differences from product to product. When Architects download specific sets of details from a specific manufacturer, a really good storefront person knows who makes that particular extrusion. What I am interested in is thermal performance, water and air infiltration restrictions, wind load, impact resistance, glazing requirements, and finish. I don't really care if it is EFCO, Kawneer, OldCastle, or Tubelite (sorry if I didn't mention your favorite system). The basis of design says, "Here's what we drew, but we are open to other stuff that meets our requirements without a formal substitution." Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 238 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2014 - 09:26 am:    I'm going to start my Monday morning by agreeing with Peter Jordan, on more than one post. My client Architects like me to use Basis of Design, precisely for this reason, to indicate to the bidders on which products they have based their Drawings and Models. This goes for both private and public bid projects; it's just sharing some of the design process with bidders, without intending to restrict competition. - J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 684 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2014 - 11:04 am:    If you feel compelled to start your week by argreeing with me, you might want to consider staying in bed for a few more hours. a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 24, 2014 - 11:08 am:    Yes, that makes a lot of sense, to share the fact that what is shown reflects a certain product/system. Two questions, then: 1) Do you actually define the term in your contract documents? 2) If so, where? And a 3rd: 3) Playing the devil's advocate further (NOT using basis of design, having a single listed manufacturer with 2 more acceptable manufacturers, NO "or approved equal", and having the drawings reflect the first manufacturer): how problematic could it be, that the Contractor might submit one of the alternate manufacturers, with the claim that the drawings do not reflect the "approved" designs, and successfully win more money? i.e., should designs be done by the designer and not left to the Contractor? vs. basis of design alleviates the designer from having to draw the alternate details. (Yes, I'm playing both sides and trying to turn this over in my mind). David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 64 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 08:50 am:    To a (Unregistered Guest): Regarding your third point, I had that very situation on a fast-track multiple-prime project some years ago. An alternative manufacturer's rooftop mechanical unit was approved instead of the BOD. GC had framed openings based on the BOD and, of course, they had to be re-done to accommodate the approved unit. In spite of all the Division 01 requirements for coordination, the Owner sided with the Lead Contractor in calling it a $50,000 error/omission claim against the A/E firm. This is when I learned that the public owner is often sympathetic to the contractor, irrespective of what the contract says. a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 01:55 pm:    David, was your situation specifically a "basis of design (BOD)" specification? My 3rd point was in the NON-USE of BOD, where other acceptable and vetted manufacturer products are listed. If it was a non-BOD specification, was the alternative manufacturer a "listed manufacturer" or simply an approved "or equal"? I could see the GC had reason for a claim if the alternative product used was of a listed manufacturer. And actually, I could see they also have a claim if they used a non-listed "or equal" product that would not work with the design, but was approved. To push again in the direction of NOT using BOD, the drawings should reflect a design that is capable of accepting all listed manufacturer products, because the designer should vet that the listed manufacturer products will work with the design. Or, for an open "or equal" (again, NON-BOD) specification, the drawings should be schematic enough that any other product satisfying the salient characteristic requirements could be used. Michael Heinsdorf, P.E. Senior Member Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe Post Number: 14 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 04:49 pm:    There are some products for which there is no way to come up with a one size fits all design for that type of product. Windows, doors, hardware, luminaires - they are pretty universal and typically can be accommodated quite easily. Elevators, chillers, traffic control devices, a curtain wall that is blast rated and is protected by a wet sprinkler system - in my opinion, schematic designs for those types of products ensure that some fairly important elements of the design get overlooked. a (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 06:16 pm:    Your examples of elevators, chillers, traffic control devices, and curtain walls are good ones. But, let’s stop for a second. I take back the word "schematic." Couldn't one just use the single, listed manufacturer in their drawings? And make sure alternate products will work? Let's take the pop up vehicle barrier earlier mentioned. Say one were to spec X. The designer has also confirmed Y and Z could work. The designer draws X, and lists Y and Z as other acceptable manufacturers (vs. opening it up with “or approved equals"). The contractor then proposes Y. Here's where I could use some help. So, Y has different height, width, and depth dimensions than X, but it meets the K-12 rating and duty cycling. • If these are the “important elements of the design,” shouldn’t the designer vet that Y and Z meet them before listing them? • If there other elements, shouldn’t they be listed as “salient characteristics” as well? • Even if the spec is open beyond acceptable manufacturers to any “or approved equal,” shouldn’t these elements be checked again before being approved (provided one uses "approved equal")? I could sure use some help from anyone that can provide me with more detailed explanations that argue a basis ;-) for using basis of design Michael Heinsdorf, P.E. Senior Member Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe Post Number: 15 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2014 - 09:38 am:    Since you have asked a question that is answered by your original proposal, I'm going to conclude my participation in this discussion with the following: 20 minutes of research into vehicle barriers (look up Delta Scientific, B&B Armr, and Smith and Wesson - all K-12 rated, all completely different installation requirements), automatic transfer switches (Eaton and Cutler-Hammer), or chillers will answer the majority of your questions. For many products, there are not "one-size-fits-all" solutions. Not proposing a solution to the client, typically BOD with approved equals, is an excellent way to get fired. username (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 03:42 pm:    Hello all, I have a quick question Im sure you can help with! Basis of design only lists a single manufacturer (for a transformer harmonic suppression filter). I know I can most likely get another manufacturer approved through the substitution process, but my question - is it against any laws to hold the contractor to the basis of design when only 1 manufacturer is listed? Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 215 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 05:06 pm:    I am not an attorney, but it is my understanding that if the project is for a private client (Not public: local, state or federal) then an AE or an Owner can specify only one manufacturer if they wish. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 695 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 05:16 pm:    I am assuming you are talking about public work, not private work. In private work, you can do whatever you want. It would be difficult to hold the basis of design is it is a thinly cloaked proprietary specification that can only be met by one company. It is problematic whether it would be a good idea to attempt to do so. If the contractor proposes a truly comparable/equivalent product, then why would it not be acceptable? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 630 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 05:28 pm:    On December 14, 1974, the Federal 1st Circuit Court affirmed a very important decision handed down by the United States District Court, Massachusetts in the case of Whitten Corp. vs. Paddock, Inc. (4/12/74). The U.S. Supreme Court rejected further appeal and further review, thus supporting the final decision of the Federal Circuit Court. The opinion contained four major judgements regarding specifications: 1. A proprietary specification (one "name" only) is not a violation of anti-trust law. The court stated that trained professionals - specifiers - make informed judgements on the products which best serve their clients' needs. Summary: If the specifier decides to limit his/her specification to one source he/she has the authority to do so and to enforce it. 2. The court ruled that other suppliers can qualify as "or equal" only when the specifier chooses to waive specifications or permits the supplier to also bid. Summary: Only the specifier can decide that another supplier is "equal" to the brand specified. The specifier is charged with this responsibility. 3. The court stated that the specifier only has the right to . . . "waive specifications in order to obtain a better product for his client . . ." Summary: Only the specifier (from start to finish - in the construction process) can ultimately decide that a better product is available and change the specification. 4. The court concluded . . . "The burden is on the supplier (manufacturer) who has not been specified to convince (the specifier) that his product is equal for the purposes of particular project . . . Summary: Informed specification writing and professional salesmanship rule! Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 729 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 05:34 pm:    Reps drag that out a every so often, but what does it mean in practice? Perhaps the decision applies only to private sector work. If the Great State of California requires three "equal" products, what if there is only one that will do what the architect wants? Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1771 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 05:38 pm:    Wow. I feel like the "S" in "CSI" should stand for "SUPER" J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 696 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 06:54 pm:    It should be noted that this would not necessarily apply in other jurisdictions (including various state courts). The Fifth Circuit here in Texas might have a diffrent take. The fact the "Supremes" declined to review the decision would carry some weight, but does not necessarily make it applicable to all jurisdictions. Sheryl Dodd-Hansen, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI, SCIP Senior Member Username: sheryldh Post Number: 31 Registered: 09-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 07:24 pm:    Sheldon, California does not require three "equal" products. California Public Contract Code, Section 3400 (b) (2), states that specifications may not call "for a designated material, product, thing, or service by specific brand or trade name unless the specification is followed by the words "or equal" so that bidders may furnish any equal material, product, thing, or service." If the specifier knows of an equal product, they shall name it; if they don't, obviously they can list one, with "or equal". Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 235 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 07:53 pm:    While there may sometimes be only one product that fits the need, more often there are a few that are just not identical so it eludes the decision-makers to put them side-by-side in a spec but it certainly can be done, with the proper awareness. I'm afraid that far more often though, there are several products that would work fine and people just haven't researched what is available and what complies, let alone establishing the criteria for their project. (That can be performance, a range of aesthetics, or both. Still, it is not rocket science.) People forget that properly written competitive specs ADD VALUE for the project Owners. They just want to get the design finished. To "a (Unregistered Guest)": If the specifications do not list the salient attributes the design professional had in mind it weakens the rationale for rejecting a product PARTICULARLY if they listed the manufacturer of some other submitted product, AND this manufacturer does not offer any other products that comply with the wording stated in the spec. In order to really answer, we would need to know if it was a scenario such as that. I'm just going out on a limb. It happens too easily when you have non-specifiers editing specs from a long list of manufacturers they don't know. Again though, the specific documents of the project and the law of the land in that area matter way more than conjecture on a specifying forum. So don't believe anything we say without doing your own research - we can just point you in several directions and hopefully one of them is right. More than likely you are dealing with one or more conflicts and the documents will say refer to the Architect for a decision. If that is how architects are mostly doing it these days (non-specifiers specifying, regardless of how good your spec software and library is, or SHOULD be except for garbage-in-garbage out and untrained people operating power tools), has that mess become the new "standard of care"? I don't know, there's that word "prudent". So to continue how it would play out, unless the Owner or AHJ cries foul play somewhere then that decision is final. But if they do, it could go through a legal process and end up just like the case Wayne cited, or depending on the strictness of competitive bidding rules for the project type and the locality, maybe not. To "username (Unregistered Guest)": I'm a little unclear about your role in the process. You could be with a design firm or you could be a product rep wanting to get a mfr you represent through the substitution process? Also don't know what stage in the process we are at - design or bidding hopefully, but maybe construction? You need to know what the important (salient) attributes are and evaluate accordingly. Also, the law varies on this depending on where you are at, who the AHJ is, and what type of project it is. I've practiced in areas where it is sacred that you'd better always have 3+ primary source mfrs for each product type or a sole-source approval request explaining why product X is in the Agency/Owner's best interest. Common with public school, university, and government projects. Consider that the theory behind competitive specs and substitutions is that it can save the project Owner money (and sometimes that is taxpayers - usually that is where it becomes the law). In some other areas I've practiced, competition is required and looked upon as a good thing but there is no sole source approval requirement and unfortunately no one is checking. My take on it in those cases is spec it right anyway, it will add value to the Owner, and it will sure improve your office master specifications. Means hunting down products when designers think they are done (you were lucky to get even the BoD product from them!) and then running those by them for review - it is a design decision. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 236 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 08:33 pm:    Meant to also mention, Basis-of-Design CAN be used on public projects when it is done right. (I can't speak for exact wording requirements of every jurisdiction everywhere, of course). Basically you just have to set criteria so all listed manufacturers can meet each stated minimum requirement (or maximum, as the case may be). Here's the rub, designers, yes it means you have to take time to know more about the products. But be encouraged my friends! That is part of design. You are creating a building, forming space, and providing for human needs by using products, materials, and systems. The more you know about those items that make up a building, and how they go together, the better a designer you are. Another way to properly use BoD specs, quite easier for those highly aesthetic products, is list each product and its salient requirements, then the next allowable competing product and its requirements, and so on. Oh, and PLEASE please DON'T throw the BoD terminology around when only listing one product. In effect you just have an open spec that anyone can try to bid but will end up just getting rejected. Not worth the time and money, not adding value to the Owner either. That is usually a case of mostly #3 and a smattering of #2, referring back to the original posting. Many facility Owners do know the difference between a set of documents where this has been figured out, and one where it has not. In the next decade the architectural profession will be led by firms that offer excellent aesthetic design and excellent documents in spite of the very real challenges firms face because of the long recovery from the recession. It is time well spent and a very short payback to have designed during design development, and documented during construction documents, paving the way to efficient CA through bid and construction, and retaining more clients as a result of successful projects. Keep at it long enough and win more work by your solid reputation for delivering projects and having a fee structure that does not include re-re-redesigning all through CD, bid, and construction. In the short term, it means more late nights, maybe changing firms a couple times, maybe starting your own. Or....do like everyone else seems to and slap a BoD on it and go home. To conclude, use Basis-of-Design when you did really design, inclusive of product research that is part of design. Otherwise, what is the basis you are calling it? If you just want to pick one storefront profile for your details and you're sure nobody gives a rats behind then don't use Basis-of-Design, use "Acceptable products include, but are not limited to..." and make sure your Division 00 & 01 documents include the principle of Complimentary Documents, substitution procedures, and product requirements - you are probably good, and communicating better to the bidders. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 730 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 11:39 pm:    Sorry, Sheryl, I thought it was someone from your neck of the woods who was complaining about government agencies that require three equals, or something to that effect. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 238 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 02:22 pm:    With regard to the original post - "when should you" do something. There is when it is required by law, and there is when your client paid you to do something, what is that something that you owe them? (I'm not a lawyer so I'm just speaking from good business sense.) A lot of people are happy to go with "Product X or equal" and leave it at that. Some AHJ's or clients may mandate the term "or equal." OK, essentially the same as "acceptable products include but are not limited to" and then naming only one product. I might as well call them both the "or equal" or equal method. I like to add in who is doing the approving, so the subbidders don't show up on the jobsite with the wrong stuff and try to say well somebody who works for the GC told me it would be OK, that is my approval, or my boss approved it. Ideally Division 01 protects against this also. The "or equal" or equal method may fly when there is not a law requiring 3 to be named and when your client has not negotiated with you to include multiple competing manufacturers. Still, it adds to the cost of construction in hidden ways. Bidders are disadvantaged to compete if they don't really know what the architect wants. Architects will likely have to manage wonky substitution requests and may inadvertently approve something not suitable. It is better for the Owner if all possible products that fit their needs can be listed in the specifications to begin with. This adds to the design costs. If the design project is negotiated with that as part of the deal, great for everyone. Jurisdictions and Owners who enforce it have that as part of the deal for all of their work. (Except if someone produces phony specs that have latent internal conflicts just to name 3 products.) username (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 02:29 pm:    Thanks for the responses...I work for the GC, for a DCS project State Of CT. @CSI - I agree BOD can be a great tool for both designer and contractor, personally it makes my job (GC) easier. Typically, Ill use the first listed manufacturer or most commonly used manufacturer. But until now Ive never seen a single manufacturer listed without the "or equal" for public work. @Wayne... The cases you pulled up are exactly what I was looking for. Although, not the answer I was hoping for. HAHA. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 03:04 pm:    There are instances where a single manufacturer can be listed without "or equal" if you have an instance where an institutional standard is being maintained (even on public work). The ruling Wayne mentioned is an example of legal justification for this type of practice. We do a great deal of institutional public work and it is not uncommon that we will single source a product for a small project if it is maintaining a standard. Do you really serve the taxpayer if you have an institution with 1,200 LCN 4040 closers and now has one Norton 1600 closer that saved them 12 dollars? Of course what you can and should do depends on where you practice and who your clients are. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 701 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 05:13 pm:    I believe the most common example is the use of Best locks, and I believe the law supports sole sourcing in the instance where a standard is being maintained for the Owner's convenience. Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, March 10, 2014 - 12:46 pm:    For state work in Virginia, Basis of Design is limited to drawing details. When a particular manufacturer’s product is indicated as the basis for design and detail, the following statement shall be placed on the drawing with appropriate noting/references: “The design [detail] [section] shown is based on [manufacturer and model] equipment and is intended only to show the general size, configuration, location, connections and support for equipment or systems specified with relation to the other building systems. See specification Section [xxx] for technical requirements pertaining to the equipment.” If a Contractor wants to use a piece of equipment by another manufacturer, he is responsible for making necessary adjustments, such as rerouting the piping, modifying the supports, etc. The A/E is still responsible for making sure the sizing of detailed piping, wiring, supports, etc. are adequate for the 3 or more manufacturers & model numbers listed in the specs for that piece of equipment . Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 172 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 12:49 pm:    Lorman Education is giving a webinar on this topic April 30th. Mark Kalin is the presenter. Mark Kailn New member Username: mark_kalin Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2013 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 01:23 pm:    Yes, there's a Lorman Seminar on 'Basis-of-Design Specs' - Glad to share the powerpoint after the session is given. In public bidding, a user agency can ask for a proprietary product if they have an acceptable reason. Some architects included BOD as they have an obligation to find at least one product that meets code and performance requirements. One architect rejected their own BOD spec indicating that the BOD product was only intended for pricing, not that it would always be acceptable. Where are the spec police when you need them? David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 66 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2014 - 03:35 pm:    Mark, Well said. Those spec police are on every corner when my metaphors are weaving, but they're never there when the contractor side-swipes me and I end up in the ditch.