A new type of specification?

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

Author Message David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1587 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, August 04, 2017 - 05:23 pm:    I received a rather unusual request from a client. ***** "We have a developer client who self-preforms and is looking for something a little different in the specification than a typical outside bid contractor would want. In a nutshell they want help creating a spec that relies more heavily on manufacturer recommendations and the schedules that are put together by interior designer, building envelope, etc. In their mind they are thinking of it as a performance spec but really it’s something a little different from that, they want to eliminate the proprietary information form the spec itself but not throw the selection wide open." ***** Can you help me figure out what the developer wants? David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 829 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, August 04, 2017 - 05:33 pm:    Ask for a sample for format and content. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 64 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Friday, August 04, 2017 - 05:42 pm:    I am not sure what "self-preforms" means, but from the description of the process it seems to me that this might not need to be a new type of specification - it could be a Preliminary Project Description based on UniFormat. The basic building blocks of this specification would be elements (systems and assemblies) described in terms of simple description (including Basis of Design product if established), performance requirements and a list of components. Tables of entities such as exterior wall types and fenestration types, and a generic interior finish schedule could summarize how the elements are combined to form major assemblies in the building. I prepare this type of documentation frequently for projects during SD and DD phases. It can serve as documentation of how project goals will be met, as a good basis for an early estimate, and as a handy checklist for generating CD-level documentation. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1588 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, August 04, 2017 - 05:47 pm:    Wayne, I have asked for a sample specification. My guess is that they do not know what they want other than a specification that has less of those pesky words. Greta, "Self perform" means the developer will act as general contractor. I too have done PPDs for the early stages of projects. My clients was describing what the developer wants as final contract documents. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 65 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Friday, August 04, 2017 - 05:56 pm:    I was actually suggesting that the PPD could be edited with sufficient detail to serve as a final contract document, based on the thought that the self-performing Owner may not need the level of detailed instruction that is typically covered in MasterFormat sections. Of course, another possibility is outline specifications according to MasterFormat but with abbreviated content. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, NCARB Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1778 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, August 04, 2017 - 08:42 pm:    David, is your Developer based in SO Florida? I write this shortened form of spec for Developers all the time, yes these are the same Developers who won't use specs on a condominium, but will use them on a rental. Self Performing Developers want less paper, some are crazy and actually measure the thickness of the printed project manual, some will accept shorter form specs, sort of between a standard long form spec and a short form spec. Outline specs are seldom used. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1589 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, August 07, 2017 - 12:12 pm:    As I figured, the architect and developer do not have an example of the type of specification they want. All they know is they want the specifications to be stripped down to the bare essentials. I have run into this type of thinking with developers. I had one developer insist the project manual be no more than 50 pages! David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, AIA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 160 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Monday, August 07, 2017 - 12:36 pm:    Back when I was an independent specification consultant, for projects where my architectural clients were the lead design firm, which were 99 percent of my work, I had these types of issues covered in my agreement by the inclusion of “... utilizing Ray and Associates standard specification system and format ...” It worked out quite well, as I received additional services for anything other than my “standard specification system and format.” For the projects where I had to “dumb it down” I required specific instructions on what was desired, and similar to you David, I seldom got anything of substance. Regardless, I made a very strong effort to avoided the dark side ( projects with developers.) John Hunter Senior Member Username: johnhunter Post Number: 152 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Monday, August 07, 2017 - 07:11 pm:    David - Since you're an adherent of the CSI 4 C's, aren't your specs already stripped down to the bear essentials? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 986 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 08, 2017 - 09:08 am:    Do the "bear essentials" growl at stupid contractors? J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 216 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2017 - 09:33 am:    If you remember from Disney's Jungle Book movie, Baloo the bear described the bare necessities as "fancy ants" and a pawpaw or prickly pear. It seems to me some "bare necessity" specifications could lead to a prickly situation for the architect. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, NCARB Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1781 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2017 - 09:43 am:    James, nice analogy. Bare Necessity specs is better than no specs at all, more than 50% of buildings in SO FL have no specs. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 694 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 09, 2017 - 12:43 pm:    David: I do a "shortform" spec frequently, which is inbetween a sheet spec and full spec, although some of my clients put it on their sheets. Gives the architect a place for some specifics, but relies on standards a lot. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1603 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 - 01:07 pm:    So far I have not heard back from the architect or developer on the type of specification they had in mind. My guess is they still do not know. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC