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

Author Message Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 111 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 09:45 am:    This Thursday's challenge-- 1. How do you know if your specifications are too long? 2. How do you know when to use "shortform" specifications? 3. How do you know when speficiations as drawing notes, are valid? 4. How do you, in face of client negative comments, and need for contractor convenience, do you justify full-length specifications, as opposed to foreshortened form? 5. How do you justify, 1] no front end?; 2] no Division 1?; and 3] no use of A-201 as General Conditions? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 21 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 11:19 am:    (1) Specifications are usually too long if they are unedited masters, not coordinated with the Drawings, or not coordinated with the CA effort required. You will know they weren't long enough when you get a summons to appear in court. On the other hand, specs that are too long may be a shortcut to legal action as well. (2) Shortform specs may be used on private negotiated work with clients and contractors you know who reliably use with good subcontractors. I recently did a short form spec for a small public job (it did have a 15 page long Division 1 with about 10 pages for the rest of the job). I have done fairly large projects with "Outline Specs" that had no problems related to specifications. When the client wants to bid the project with contractors you don't know, you need to be more specific(ation). (3) At a conceptual level, notes on the Drawings have the same force as a Project Manual. In my experience, Drawing notes may be replicated a number of times (as opposed to saying it once in the specs). This can not only lead to duplications, but also to conflicts when 2 or 3 notes get changed and the other 2 or 3 don't. (4) Tell 'em you will be glad to do without the specs, but you will need more drawings and you will also be increasing the CA budget so that someone from your office can be at the site full time. A decent set of specs should be cheaper than a full-time "clerk of the works." (5)1] I have (very) abbreviated documents for Bidding Requirements and Contracting Requirements that lists our assumptions (requirements based on AIA documents) that I use when clients want to use their documents without our consultation. These documents refer people to the Owner for additional information. Don't answer any questions about these items without additional service fees. (5)2] Omit Division 1 only when Owner does his/her own construction contract administration (except I always leave in the stuff on general product requirements and general execution requirements). Then don't answer any questions about this without additional service fees. (5)3] F*****g attorneys who think they know everything (but who have never had anythinng to do with construction contracts) get all the money the Owner should be spending on design fees to generate a construction contract from scratch then the Owner doesn't want to pay the Architect to coordinate the Project Manual. Notify them in writing that coordinating the specifications with a "custom" construction contract is outside your scope of work. Then stick to it. --------- If you have a reasonable Owner and a good jobsite superintendent (even if he works for a jackleg contractor), he can build the sucker from a napkin sketch and some telephone conversations for a reasonable amount of money. After all, there are lots of very good buildings that were built this way and have lasted a very long time. If you have an unreasonable Owner and an inexperienced (or just plain stupid) jobsite superintendent working for an inept, crooked contractor, the best set of Construction Documents will not keep you from over spending your CA budget and, ultimately, out of court. Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 11 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 07, 2004 - 05:16 pm:    Why do we continue to be concerned with length of specifications? Specifications should be the length necessary to be clear as to what is required. I don't think buildings can be built properly without specifications. Specifications are the documents that resolve the design into the level of detail necessary to make purchases in a timely manner to achieve construction schedules. Now granted sometimes specifications are written by a contractor on the fly after construction has begun, but I am not involved in that type of business. (Sometimes Mother Nature writes the specification: if you didn't specify a control joint she will.) If I were building a building i wouldn't give much consideration to one who was anxious over the number of pages needed for a steel door specification. If I'm going to spend money on these items I want it figured out in detail before we start the construction snowball rolling down the hill. I've noticed that developers and contractors are asking that specifications be prepared for project types that previously didn't use specifications. I think we ought to reconsider the terms we use: "shortform"; "longform"; "full length" or whatever. There's a place for this sort of terminology in masters (because they are not written for specific projects) but not in project specifications in my opinion. I would like to see specification writers writing what is necessary to accomplish the design created by their client (A/E) for the owner. Putting notes on drawings is a production nighmare. I don't recommend it at all. detailed language is much better handled in 8-1/2" x 11" with a word processor. Labels, names, tags, dimensions on drawings only. Design flows much smoother and coordination is much easier this way. Specs are detailed text. Vivian Volz Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 7 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 01:37 pm:    We have a multi-facility rollout client right now who is absolutely convinced that her projects are being bid too high because our specs are too long. Never mind that we upgraded several sections for greater durability and reliability, and that the new facilities have some time-consuming new materials and lots of proprietary finish materials the client chose. I think these changes are having a greater impact on her bids than the thickness of the spec; it remains to be seen whether she'll pay for another edit down to short form. How real is the "fear factor," in your experience, that we sometimes hear about in bidding? Is a thick spec likely to be bid higher than the same work in a thinnner form? Personally, I agree with Kenneth, that the length is far less important than describing what's needed for the job. But I'm curious if anyone has experience to the contrary. Randall L. Cox Senior Member Username: randy_cox Post Number: 8 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 01:54 pm:    I've recently returned to Architecture after working for a general contractor for the past three years, so I can clearly tell you no, maybe yes. The GC that I worked for had a diligent estimating office which read and distributed all the subcontracting work, but In my junior role, I attended a number of bid openings and heard some of our competitors claim to put together bids in a few hours based on such factors as the amount of paper in the cd set. I didn't really believe them then, and I don't believe them now. The documents identify a specific amount of work and there are reasonably clear costs for that work. Things that fatten up specifications and add costs are usually Owner requirements that have been added to protect the Owner from assorted liabilities. I had a job with 50 pages of specs and a 400 page volume of front end requirements - It was difficlult to sub out the work since the scope was too small to warrant having someone read the book of administrative requirements. Randy Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 12 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 03:16 pm:    I have received many, many comments from subs and contractors on specifications. (I remember one of my first specs; at the pre-bib meeting after long discussions on how to handle remedial sealant on the high rise, one of the grey haired GC's slammed his heavy hand down on spec book and said, "Let's see what the spec says." "That's how we'll bid it." I just sat on my hands and hoped all was written well) What we write matters. After all these years, the things that raise costs are the unknowns and how the client chooses to deal with the unknowns. Subcontractor engineering to an extreme; contractor responsible for concealed conditions; unclassified earthwork when it should be classified, and as Randy says, passing the (unknown) liability down to subs and manufacturers. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 189 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 12:05 am:    I have a project currently where the Construction Manager has objected to the bulk of the specs. Division 15 has about 25 sections of narrowscope. And the architectural specs have the expected fine detail such as found in Masterspec. The project is for a public agency and will be competitively bid to select the General Contractor. I have suggested to the Project Architect that we could achieve a 20% reduction in size of the specs if we eliminate every 5th word or every 5th letter. We could also eliminate bulk if we took out all quality assurance measures, such as tests and inspections, submittals and mock-ups. I also suggested that the Construction Manager then stamp and sign the documents, but that won't fly since the Construction Manager is not an architect and only wants to exert authority but not take responsibility. Any suggestions? Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 112 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 06:51 am:    I like your suggestion! If the CM objects, perhaps he/she should list what exactly the objections are. Merely citing "bulk" doesn't cut it-- in my eyes. Perhaps initiate an education/indoctrination/OK-"brain-washing" session for both CM and client as to the reasons for specs, what they do, and how they impact each party to the project. I guess our prevailing need is to show that these are not just frivilous documents "made up" for no good end-- but rather that they have a distinct function essential to the execution of the project. Thinking now, that may be the greatest need we have overall-- simply extending ourselves to getting everyone involved "on board". Oh yes, any instructive session you create should be MANDATORY!!!! D. Marshall Fryer Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 40 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 08:46 am:    There is another thread on this website regarding specification formatting, where there has been some discussion of double-column formatting. I have done some more experimenting with this, and find that I can realize up to a 30% increase in content per page, with no loss of legibility, using 10 point text and smaller margins. This could be a boon for a client who is only concerned with the weight of the document. Richard L. Hird P.E. CCS Senior Member Username: dick_hird Post Number: 11 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 09:24 am:    The price of goods and services are set by markets, which operate on perceived costs and competitive prices, not necessarily actual costs. Whether it is fair or not, it cannot be substantiated that "Bulky specs do not cost your Owner more than trimmed specs". Bulky specs probably do cost more, just because there are so many estimators that believe that, especially when a firm has a reputation for selectively enforcing specification requirements. On an attractive project it may be only slight. On a project that has a hard time drawing bidders it could be a lot. Anonymous   Posted on Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 11:42 am:    I would like to relate the following conversations of yesterday with an Architectural client that I have been cultivating, as an independent specifier. He has been successfully growing by catering to design build residential/commercial contractors without ever incorporating specifications: Firm Principal message on my answering machine: "Please call, I have a client that wants us to provide specifications." My return call (Principal is out of office I talk to his project Architect): "The Design Builder that hired us just wants more information than we normally put on the drawings." My subsequent phone call to the principal: I ask how to will I get product selections from him to include for the write up to the Design Builder. Principal "Just write short generic specifications. The building Owner believes specifications are required for the job. If we put drawings in the mail to you today, could you be finished on Wednesday?" Today is Friday. Gerard Sanchis (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 01:41 pm:    Ralph, Difficult question to answer. Regardless of how hard I try, my specs are always too long. Words have a life of their own and just want to come alive on paper, or the screen in our case. All kidding aside, we decide to write a full length or abbreviated project manual based on the project size and the building team; seldom at the client's request. We feel that protecting the client is our first priority and, if we know that the building team skills are questionable, we will give them as much information as we can in the written document and produce a long form spec; if one the other hand it's a small project with a reputable and experienced contractor on board, we'll edit to text to a minimum so that the desing intent is carried-out in the field. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 131 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 01:39 pm:    one way of reducing the number of spec sections, and the size of the project manual is to use more broad scope sections if it works with the project intent. I think that there is a perception out there in some markets that "the specs are too long" and I used short form sections regularly and often just combined various related sections to that the section count was shorter, and a lot of repeated information wasn't repeated so often. You can do that a lot with the specialty items in Division 10, and many floor finishes can be combined as well (all the resilient floorings together, etc.) Other than that, I would print out a table of contents and ask the client just what sections they would like to have deleted from their project... and let them see the scope of work. And... what I find regularly is that the architects in my firm who complain about the length of the specs are always the same architects who come to me later with "can you just add some language to take care of this problem?" I think the specs are only too long if you have no intention of actually using them. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 191 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 02:55 pm:    Anne: Your point about using broader scope Sections is well taken. However, one of the underlying reasons for the 6th digit in MasterFormat 04 is to allow for more narrowly-defined Sections. The reason seems to be that "pre-editted" Sections can be created that expedite spec production. For example, distinct Sections can be created for not only metal toilet partitions, plastic laminate toilet partitions, phenolic toilet partitions and solid plastic toilet partitions but, within each of these, distinct versions can be created for overhead braced and ceiling hung partitions, for example. Then, it's a matter of choosing the appropriate Section with the material and design desired. Also, it is conceivable that "master" specifications with owner-specific requirements can be created and filed using MasterFormat 04 numbers and the suffixes that have only been casually mentioned so far. Should a project have more than one type of toilet partition, then the Sections could be combined into a "broadscope" toilet partition Section. This would mean, however, that the specifier must maintain separate masters for each partition type. There would have to be a decision made whether it would be more work to maintain multiple masters or to have more comprehensive "broadscope" masters with optional text and substantial editing comments. The value of such multiple masters would probably be realized only if the specifier wrote many similar but not identical specifications each month, so the time savings would be real. As you are well aware, a program such as Linx by ARCOM that creates an editing master by querying the spec writer about product characteristics can do the same thing. But it relies upon Masterspec and I have some problems with that. Foremost is the text that is not included in Masterspec but is required by State building code or owner criteria. For example with toilet partitions, there are many unique accessibility requirements that I must address typically that are not included in Masterspec. I've chosen to use multiple "prototype" specifications -- similar to a master but requiring little or no additional editing for project-specific application. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 134 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 06:09 pm:    John- when I was consulting a lot of my clientele did fairly simple, negotiated (not bid) projects; there was a long term relationship between owner, architect and contractor so the specs did not have to be very complicated. I gave fee proposals to clients based on section count and I often could produce about 60% of the sections as some of my competitors, because I stocked more broad scope sections in my office master, and edited them instead of compiling narrow scope sections. As you know, a lot of the Part 1 and Part 3 information is repeated, especially in comparable product types, and its the deletion of that excess verbiage that makes the project manual not quite as thick. I seldom compressed or deleted any of the specific product information, but I simply didn't repeat much of the same language over and over. In that way, I felt that I was providing a document that was more easily useable by them, and not quite as intimidating. In the office I am with now, we are generally working with large contractors who are comfortable with narrow scope sections, and "fatter" specs, and I do much as you say, but I also use LINX for the bulk of our work. I would say that since the "issue" of bulky specs has been raised -- by Owner or Contractor, it is the consultant's job to address that concern. I think its addressable and still provide suitable service to the client. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 192 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 06:59 pm:    Anne: What I'm saying is to not use multiple narrowscope Sections. For example, if there are plastic laminate toilet partitions at "front of the house" locations and metal toilet partitions at "back of house" locations, or both overhead braced and ceiling hung toilet partitions, don't do multiple narrowscope Sections but combine the text (a relatively simple task with word processing software -- at least with old fashioned WordPerfect DOS) into a mediumscope or broadscope Section. Redundant and needlessly repetitious <g> text should be eliminated.