Lessons learned - good and bad

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

Author Message Bruce Konschuh Senior Member Username: brucek Post Number: 21 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 06:23 pm:    We have a group of interns in the office this week, and we are putting together a list of projects where specs played a "prominent" role in the success and "non-success" for a project. I have a few horror stories, and a few stories on how correct specs saved the day. Do you have any quick stories where spec items were omitted, or a typo caused a problem, or just throwing in a place-holder spec that got used and the architect made out okay. No names or locations of course. thanks. Ruppert Rangel, AIA CCS Senior Member Username: rangel Post Number: 32 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 06:45 pm:    I have a similar opportunity and am curious if members are aware of significant or interesting law suits specifically related to specifications...to emphasize the saying "plans are read in the plan room and specifications are read in the court room"? Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 314 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 06:47 pm:    For Government work the specifications usually govern over the drawings. If there is a conflict, and the designer changed the “basis of design” product on the drawings but never get the section updated, there can be a real impact on the project. Also, added products on the drawings with no spec produced usually ends poorly. George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 859 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 06:59 pm:    Here's a story about a note on a site plan caused problems because it did not follow CSI principles: http://stlouiscsi.org/blog/id/14 Anonymous (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 06:42 pm:    How much time do you have? Your criteria of the specs playing a prominent role in the success or non-success of a project describes just about every project I've worked on. Bruce Konschuh Senior Member Username: brucek Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 07:30 pm:    I have enough time to read at least one of your (short) stories... Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 318 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 08:42 am:    Bruce, I saw a director of a medium-sized client firm recently. She said that the younger Architects who read and understand the project manual have more successful projects, with regards to fewer problems during construction, especially fewer cost increases. She describes them as the smart employees who are worth keeping. You could tell your interns that. - Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 824 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 09:55 am:    George, Thanks you for the link to the article. I find "to be removed" ALL the time in notes, along with "any". I was specifier for a large civic project in Calgary AB that was victim of the same "to be" consequences. "PRECAST TO BE REMOVED" $25,000 later it was removed. This note rears it ugly head in demo drawings and is usually co-mingled with the proper imperative notes. I will stop writing specs when the BIM model includes Parts 1 and 3 of CSI Section Format. Just before Hell freezes over. Interns (and seasoned vets) that read and understand substitution requirements are also worth keeping. The cream rises to the top. It never ceases to amaze me. I agree with Lisa. The young interns she speaks of are rare and far between. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1080 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 10:24 am:    The old classic of the project in the 1960's where the Drawings said "Sheetrock" everywhere and the specs called for 5/8 inch Gypsum Board. The Contractor provide 1/2 inch USG Sheetrock, including Type X at fire-rated partitions. When confronted the Contractor's reply was that there was no gypsum board on the Project, just "Sheetrock". Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 193 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 11:09 am:    Many many years ago, a memo came around the office to the effect that henceforth, when insulation was was drawn in wall sections, it should be shown continuously, all the way up (not just at the top and bottom of a cavity, and "vignetted out" in the middle). Seems a contractor had pointed out that the specs said to provide it "where shown on drawings"... Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 294 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 01:47 pm:    Architectural drawings showed cast in place concrete structure. Engineering drawings showed precast concrete structure. After bidding, the contractor demanded more money because he based bid on the cheaper system; whichever the architect selected, the contractor said he based bid on the other. It was resolved when head of the architectural firm demanded that the contractor supply both. Since the architect was the meanest one at the table, the contractor capitulated. While this seemed like a successful resolution, it indicated the culture of the A/E firm to give little respect to the accuracy of the construction documents since everything could be worked out by arm twisting. Until, that is, the architect was convicted of purjury related to lying about attempts to bribe public officials. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru 818-219-4937 Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 970 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 03:35 pm:    The specs didn't save the day in this one, but it's interesting. A landscaping consultant used tree stamps to show the location of large trees. Unlike shrubberies, large trees are countable, so the drawings showed how many trees were required. The consultant also included a plant schedule in the specs and another on the drawings. I'm sure you know what happened - there were three different quantities. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2017 - 05:02 pm:    This one falls under "you can lead a horse to water..." category. YUGE project, hundreds of flush wood doors. Interior designer establishes door finish as PLAM-X with associated product/color/finish in early set of specifications (pre-bidding). Specifier alerts design team that PLAM-X is described/marked up in spec as reconstituted wood veneer, and is not, in fact, PLAM. Interior designer rejects specifier's instruction that "PLAM" should not be used to describe wood veneer. Project is bid, construction begins. In flush wood door submittal, architect informed that all flush wood doors will get PLAM, not reconstituted wood veneer, Owner will have to pay considerably more for wood veneer. Owner goes with faux wood veneer PLAM. Interior designer quite upset... Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 319 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 09:11 am:    Anon, I like that one. Sometimes design firms get so far into the design-speak that it seems like a foreign language to me, the specifier. You can't call it one thing, but expect to get another. Bidders and contractors see things as black and white, as they are drawn/written in the Contract Documents. - Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2119 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 09:37 am:    In a similar story to Anon's, years ago I had a terrible time trying to convince a designer that he really DIDN'T want a "natural maple" veneer on the doors. It didn't work until he saw a sample; he finally realized that what I had been saying was right - he wanted "select white maple" with a natural finish. Sigh. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 228 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 09:45 am:    Lynn, yours is a great example of why it's good for us to try our best to communicate with others in their own "language." So many designers are so heavily visual - words don't mean much, but pictures sure do. We specifiers can potentially save ourselves, and the people we work with, lots of time by meeting them where they are - on a visual plane - instead of with lots of written words. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1082 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 10:06 am:    Agreed Liz, but it's still a double-edged sword. I remember one designer who kept giving me wood grain plam samples saying he wanted our wood veneer doors to match the plam exactly. I tried explaining that wood doesn't come that way, that he'd have to pick out flitches of what he wants or settle for something reasonably close based on standards. I even had the VT rep come in with samples and a PowerPoint. No go. I finally specified plam. I guess he never looked at the edges because he never came back to complain. You can't buy this type of entertainment. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 826 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 12:12 pm:    Amen. It is so. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 229 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 12:16 pm:    Ken, good point. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 192 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 01:19 pm:    Liz, You make an excellent point about communication. The great photographer, Diane Arbus, wrote about the difference between intention and effect. We may never reduce that difference to a negligible gap, but we will improve the situation as long as we remain aware of it. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 08:38 pm:    Another ambiguous term. For a wallcovering, I'm being told it's "C.O.M.". What does that exactly mean? Customer Ordered Material, Customer's Own Material, or what? In any case, it doesn't say who pays for the material nor does it say if Contractor has to pay (either reimburse Owner or pay manufacturer/distributor/source). Oh, and BTW, along with being told C.O.M., I'm given manufacturer's name, product name, pattern name, color name/number, etc. What am I supposed to think...and specify? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 971 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 09:08 pm:    I'm missing something in Anon's story. If the stuff was specified by product, color, and finish, what difference does it make what it's called? I grant there might be some initial confusion, but if the basis of design product is stated and defined as reconstituted wood veneer, bidding real plam would require prior approval or a substitution request. I'm not defending anyone here, just not sure how it worked out that way. Unless the specifications said only "PLAM"... Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1462 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, June 30, 2017 - 09:08 pm:    COM just means that you're not using the manufacturer's own materials--it applies to many other products and not just wall coverings (e.g., fabric-wrapped or stretched-fabric panels, operable partitions, etc.). I had the COM issue many years ago and learned after that. Now I just specify the material the architect or interior designer selects, whether or not it's the manufacturer's own fabric. The manufacturer will know if the fabric is not theirs and, if it isn't, will expect the contractor to provide it. If the specification doesn't use the confusing "COM" term, then there is no argument that the contractor is to provide the specified fabric under the contract. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com