coming in after someone else...

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

Author Message Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1397 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 03:03 pm:    this is rather a delicate topic (which is why its here and not Linked in). 18 month ago, I replaced a retiring specifier who had been in the office for a long time. I'm now starting to work on some of the projects he prepared -- doing additions, or additional phases of the work -- where I'm asked to use his specs as the baseline document. I have five projects right now that are of this sort. Problem is -- some of that baseline document is terrible. Really. I've seen some sections that are obviously copied directly from a manufacturer's web site -- and the choices all left in. I have a couple of sections that show up consistently -- but they reference documents that were superceded in 1999. I have another project in a corrosive environment (the middle east) that uses field applied paint on the flashings -- and the flashings are galvanized metal. Some sections like roofing have 24 manufacturers listed and all installation options left in the spec. I don't really like to tattle -- my predecessor is retired, after all -- but I have a couple of reactions: 1) was no one in the office even reviewing the specs before they went out? 2) what does that say about how the office thinks about specs in general? (I've gotten some comments that I'm "not as fast as XXXXXX was". Well, yes... if you don't edit the documents it goes a lot faster) 3) how do I give an hourly estimate for the "addition" when I'll probably have to rewrite 50% of the specs --- and explain why? some of what I'm seeing could easily fall into the realm of negligence, not just carelessness. Some of these projects are just barely open, and still in the warranty period. Others have been open a little longer but constructed using insufficient materials. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 179 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 03:05 pm:    Sigh. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2010 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 03:18 pm:    Wow. IMO, you'll have to be direct, open, and honest, explaining that there are corrections and rewrites needing to be done. If pressed for a reason why the specs are bad, you really don't know, you just know they are. The intent may have been to go back and edit, but the chance never happened, or he forgot, or...whatever, you don't know why this happened. And probably no one did review the specs. I find it rare when that happens, and if everyone trusted him because of past performance, it might have been justified. You might have to show an example of what you're up against; I'd pick a section that doesn't look too bad, and point out where the edits will have to be made and allude to other sections that are worse. Depending on how long ago the projects were, it might be manufacturer changes, too, and you could cite that as a reason for review. Our estimate per section is in the 3 hour plus range (more depending on different factors of the project), so maybe it won't take as long as it usually does. On the other hand, reviewing specs that someone else has written will take longer than if you wrote them, so checking references and the like can eat time. I don't think you'll gain anything by pointing out what a bad job he did over all. I don't envy you this one. Let me know if you want to talk about this. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 180 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 03:18 pm:    I think you just have to explicitly explain why you have to rewrite a bunch of stuff. I feel for you. I hate this kind of inefficiency. Others have no way of knowing unless you explain (gently, if possible). Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 272 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 04:10 pm:    Anne, I feel your pain, and I think you should take this post off-line. Do call Lynn on the phone. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 789 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 04:25 pm:    Depending on how old the specs are, you can explain why using some of the rationale in this previous discussion: http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/23/6931.html (I also wonder what the specifier who replaced me is saying about my old specifications ... oh wait ... I'm seeing Steve at the CSI meeting tonight and probably having scotch with him afterwards... there's no hiding from your past when you retire in a big small town.) Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2011 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 04:34 pm:    Part of me wonders what they'll be saying about me in a couple of weeks... Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 267 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 04:38 pm:    If these projects have been constructed, What did the CA staff have to say in trying to enforce them? Were they used as the proverbial door stop in the construction trailer? In reworking (ie ditching and starting from scratch) these projects you might get some backup from them in your justifications. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 558 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 04:57 pm:    Start from scratch. Tell them you're basing your specifications on your practice knowledge, not someone else's. Tell them if they don't want it done your way, they shouldn't have had the good sense to hire you. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2012 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 05:16 pm:    Margaret and Phil - great points! (I would have used a "like button" if there was one, but maybe this is better) Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 652 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 05:18 pm:    I think you guys are forgetting who is paying for this. The Architectural fee is fixed, the specs are an in-house cost. The firm can't go back to the client asking for more money or time because their new in-house spec writer is being persnickety. Anne is in the tough spot of ethically being unable to deliver to her own standard of care within the fee/time structure she has to operate in. Suggestions to start over are simply naive. My suggestion is to Just Do What They Are Used To, and then take some time to highlight the bulk of the unedited portions that need the PM's response, and meet with the PM to show them what you are working with. The goal would be to bring the PM into being part of the solution by taking some of the responsibility for editing out the errors. This will help get it done, it will help in team building, it will help gain credibility and trust with the PM's of the firm, and it help improve the product. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 136 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 07:12 pm:    Folks, All the post have valid points, worthy of consideration. For me, I would do as Phil suggested, and generally start from scratch, while using any individual old specifications sections that I would find acceptable with minor editing. I am sure I could complete the specifications in less time than trying to fix something that is in such questionable quality. Unrelated, as an independent specification consultant, I would price myself out of business if it took me, on average, 3 hours per section to write a complete Project Manual, as Lynn stated . I log every minute I spend on a project, including performing a quality assurance review of the drawings, telephone calls, emails, travel time to meetings, and also writing the door hardware specifications. On average, I spend just over an hour per section. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 825 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 07:31 pm:    I run into this with a slightly different twist when I am given a master developed and maintained by an Owner. I say "developed and maintained" but in some cases they were developed 15 years ago and never looked at again. Where they were "maintained," the maintenance was inconsistent and sometime flat wrong. Building practice changes, codes change, and products change. The spec that you have been using for 15 years is probably 13 years out of date (it may be 17 years out of date if it wasn't done right to begin with). ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 903 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 - 08:48 pm:    Anne, I'm sorry you're experiencing this. I have similar issues on a smaller scale. My predecessors were thankfully diligent for the most part, however... I found when starting out as an independent consultant years ago, before going back to salary work, that using someone else's work takes more time regardless of whether or not it was done right. I'd rather provide a good short form spec than be forced to use someone else's spec. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 221 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2015 - 08:24 am:    Ronald - what software do you use? All - I have been with my firm for 6 months and have struggled with the limited maintenance done by my predecessor. Fortunately the firm was aware of many of the problems and has given me quite a bit of free reign to fix it. After my predecessor left, others in the firm tried to write specs for their own projects. It wasn't as bad as what Anne is dealing with, but I will say that all the architects were thrilled when I came on board full-time. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 577 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2015 - 08:51 am:    It's important that the firm's, and the individual specifier's, standard of professional care be maintained. That to me is more important than making a profit on a given project. Of course that's easy for me to say when it's not my money, but it's how my firm managed our projects and we're still in business after 33 years. The downstream cost of fixing problems resulting from faulty specifications likely will be more than any profit shortfall--not to mention professional reputation. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1398 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2015 - 12:47 pm:    In theory my firm has a master that is kept updated. We use Arcom as the basis for our specs. However, my predecessor "didn't believe in Masterspec*" so he squirreled away his own set of masters that he used for projects, and invented his own macros. My administrative assistant now has a budget for re-templating his MEP masters because at the moment they are uneditable by anyone without the secret macros. (it is truly amazing to me what a mess this stuff is) What's surprising to me is that such a large office with big projects can go so far down the rabbit hole and not really understand what's happening. *his words Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2013 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2015 - 01:00 pm:    When I first started writing specs, I worked for a local firm that had a spec writer with the same basic attitude. The firm used SpecText, and he modified the files, ignored the updates, and kept his own master that we were supposed to use. He reused sections from previous projects all the time. Being new to the whole spec writing gig, I didn't know any better. Once I passed the CDT, I did my best to change the company policy, but failed. He's still writing specs. I hear he's retiring soon. I wonder what that firm will do? And further, I wonder what the specs are like? The firm is local to Wisconsin; I don't think they do projects beyond the state borders. So perhaps that makes it easier - they'll know and will have worked with the contractors before. But still... David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 105 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2015 - 03:27 pm:    Anne, Your success in this field is due to your high standards as well as your ability to convince others that they are worth maintaining. You would not be where you are if you succumbed to mediocrity. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2015 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 14, 2015 - 03:36 pm:    Agreed, David! Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 137 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Friday, May 15, 2015 - 11:37 am:    Curt, While my choice of software (WordPerfect) has to do with the speed of editing a specification, more importantly, is an office master developed with narrow scope sections containing options that are easily identified, explained, and able to be edited with minimum keystrokes and mouse functions. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, May 18, 2015 - 12:01 pm:    I can feel for and understand your dilemma. I have also taken over for a spec writer who retired and inherited many of their projects (and by projects, I mean mistakes). Interesting that you predecessor "didn't believe in Masterspec" but included manufacturer's guide specs without modification. To me it sounds like they were on their way out and didn't care anymore. Someone else would be along to clean up their mess. You could do a lot of finger pointing and show evidence of the shortcomings of the previous specs, but in the end, someone is going to have to do the work to fix it. It might be now, as you rewrite the specs. It might be later during CA when they have to field a lot of RFIs and Change Orders. But someone will need to fix it. Normally, once someone understands that, they see the benefit in paying to get it right, internally, now before it becomes a Change Order. Good luck.