| Author |
Message |
David Axt
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2002 - 05:51 pm: |    |
It seems more and more that I end up writing structural engineering and civil engineering specification sections.
In one respect I think that the engineers produce their own drawings, so they should produce their own specifications. Drawings and Specs are complimentary and should be coordinated by the consultant.
Then I get a project where the consultant has done their own specs. These specs are written so poorly I think it would have been better if I wrote their specs.
How do you guys (gals) feel? |
Lynn
| | Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 09:38 am: | |
First of all, our Cadet Girl Scout troop decided that "guys" was generic back in the 70's, so you don't have to add "gals".
When we hire consultants, the agreement that is signed states that both the drawings and the specifications will be produced in our format, which is, of course, CSI format (with minor variations for identification purposes). I have created a sample spec which I will email (or fax) to the consultant to aid them in getting it right. Quite often, that isn't enough. What is enough is insisting that I review the specs at some point before the documents are ready to send out for bidding. And I red-line the heck out of them, editing for language as well as format. I usually leave Part 2 and 3 fairly intact, since those are where the consultant's expertise comes into play. But I'll still edit for grammar! After they get the edited specs back, that's usually when I hear from the secretary in their office, although sometimes it's the consultant, asking "what DO you want, anyway?" I patiently explain that contractually they SHALL provide me with specs the way I want them. That usually does it.
It's tougher when the writer is computer-illiterate, which still happens, and the specs are emailed and don't format correctly for my printer. And since we do ask for the documents electronically, there's not much I can do about that.
I'm stubborn enough and controlling enough, that if I have the time, the consultant will learn something and I'll get what I want. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI
| | Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 11:19 am: | |
It is my practice (and agreement with my clients) that I will provide draft specifications for civil, landscape and structural consultants to edit (mark up) and return to me for word processing. For mechanical and electrical, the agreement with my client is that these consultants will use their masters and deliver hardcopy specs ready for reproduction, conforming to the page format established for the project (typically, my standard format).
One of the first topics addressed by the Orange County (CA) Specifiers Forum was mechanical and electrical specifications. All specifiers in the group have given up on mechanical and electrical engineers and don't want anything to do with their specs. The same old issues apply: lack of coordination with Division 1, page format does not match (some are incapable of even drawing a line across the top of a page) and the content is often poorly written.
I did a presentation to HVAC and plumbing engineers a couple of years ago, titled "Specs, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll." See the Fall 1999 issue of KnowHow, at the SCIP site (www.scip.com). I talked about CSI formats ("specs"), the addiction that consulting engineers seem to have to doing specs wrong ("drugs") and what future developments are expected for specs ("rock 'n roll").
I recently had the task of reviewing mechanical specs for a project, at the direction of my client. I too bloodied the specs, and I didn't really get into the content. When I do this I usually find grossly out of date reference standards ("ASTM B ###-82"). I find references to building codes that don't apply to the project. I find embarassingly out of date products, such as the requirment in an EMCS spec that the system include an "IBM AT computer with 16 mb RAM, a 20 mb hard disk and a dot matrix printer."
There are other design consultants whose specs commonly have problems:
- Landscape irrigation system.
- Food service equipment.
- Audio/visual equipment.
- Medical equipment.
I think there should be more to CSI's effort to reach out to engineering disciplines than the Institute promoting spec awareness activities once a year at colleges and universities. Of course, the answer is for local CSI activities to accomplish the task of making engineers and other design consultants aware of the importance of complying with established construction specfications principles and practices. This probably can be done through joint monthly meetings with local chapters of engineering societies. |
Dave Metzger (Davemetzger)
| | Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 01:38 pm: | |
The biggest problem I have with specifications written by specialty consultants (elevators, food service, A/V, etc), is that they are almost invariably written as if the subcontractor performing the work of that section(s)is a standalone contractor with a direct contract with the owner, rather than a sub to the general contractor. Consequently, there is a great deal of contract conditions and Division 1 language buried in Part 1 of these sections (eg. on submittals, clean-up, sometimes even insurance).
These consultants usually are willing to remove these requirements, but it's additional(and uncompensated) work to read thru these sections and identify the offending portions. |
Richard Hird
| | Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 01:39 pm: | |
I take exception to the belief that education is the answer. Brute force is the only way to accomplish any changes when dealing with the Engineer’s mentality. As an Engineer I can vouch for the Engineer's belief that "I am smarter than anyone else". I will adjust, modify and accommodate, but never change my mind. As soon as another project starts I will revert to the proven method that has kept me out of court and profitable.
I also wish people would quit worrying about page format, and other decorative ideas. Pretty specs do not impress anyone, particularly an Engineer. If you can just force them to deal with the coordination problem, you will save the building industry real money and real time. Engineers appreciate time and money. |
Jo Drummond
| | Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2002 - 12:01 pm: | |
I do about what John Regener does;, i.e. edit civil and structural specs., and send a draft of them to the architect to give the engineers to review. (I don't work directly with the engineers as my contract is not with them). I also educate, if possible. I have recently spoken to the L.A. chapters of ASPE, plumbing engineers, and ASHRAE, air conditioning. Topic: preparing specs. that architects and owners will accept.
I also have a 3 page summary of spec. writing practices, and I give that, plus a sample section, usually access doors, that shows what and how I want the spec. to be.
I give these to the architect at the outset of the job, and ask them to deliver copies to each consultant who will be providing spec input. Some do, some don't, but I've done my job.
With respect to enforcement of the guidelines, again some do, some don't, but if the architects don't care what the spec looks like, or how it reads, why should I? At that point it becomes their problem.
Responding to Richard Hird, I agree that pretty pages are not the answer. That's why I don't enter CSI's spec competitions. They care more about prettiness (as they see it in page format et. al.) than they do about content, applicability to the job, etc. That said, many public agencies are as nit-picky as CSI is, and one has to follow the rules or one will re-do the spec. until one learns.
Private work: I suggest the above procedures to make the spec look like it all came from one place, as the contract is (usually) with one firm, but I agree, it's low man on the totem pole, well below well written, well coordinated documents. |
Richard Hird
| | Posted on Monday, February 04, 2002 - 10:05 am: | |
Sorry Jo. You are right. I got caught in one of my more frustrated moods. It is always good to work on improving what we do.
However I do believe that our collective lack of credibility is a result of CSI caring more about format than content. The industry side has to use this stuff, and if it is wrong it matters not how it looks. I once had to teach a construction management course from a text that made exactly this point. As a Spec Writer it was embarrassing because it was too true. |
Jo Drummond
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2002 - 03:38 pm: | |
Richard, maybe we can make something happen over time. An esteemed (though naive) member of our chapter (Los Angeles) recently asked why we didn't enter spec. competitions. I explained the prettiness problem - all show, no content. He is interested in trying to get CSI to change the rules. If a committee were to volunteer to review drawings and specs. for content, then we could have a real competition. Whether it's worth the effort it would take, I don't know. |
Richard Hird
| | Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2002 - 09:33 am: | |
Jo; I was a Spec Writer for a long time before I gave a hoot for CSI. I have always felt that CSI avoids taking positions on the responsibilities of specifications. It is sad that CSI can not stick its neck out, but I am sure too many toes would get stepped on. I find it even sadder that the safe standards it does promote serve only to misdirect effort.
Although I am proud of my CSI certification and awards, I still have that picture of the ISO9000 Quality Achievement sign at the Decatur Ill. Firestone factory in the back of my mind. |
J. Peter Jordan, CCS, CSI
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2002 - 02:35 am: | |
All of this sounds too familiar (back 20 years in 2 states). In some cases I have been successful in revising a consultant's specification (Flight Information Display Systems for Houston Intercontinental's Terminal C) resulting in a more accurate, compact, and readable specification. Another consultant reviewed the section and wanted to get with me to find out how to do the same thing to their section(s) (never happened, but was nice to have efforts recognized).
I am currently working in an office where the MEP consultants don't do specifications for our "bread-n-butter" projects (commercial-retail). Our local building departments will not accept project manuals for review so everything of any importance has to be on the Drawings anyway (the City of Houston recently wanted to change the langage on 'alternates'). It makes me very nervous and (according to our CA guys) does occassionally cause some problems.
A lot of this stems from the notion that "no one pays any attention to the 'spec book' anyway." In reviewing some of the project manuals produced previously by the firm, I can see why (unedited masters, missing sections, obsolete products specified, etc.). I have been educating the folks at our office, but it is a hard row to hoe. Whenever I get the architects to conform (a 2x4 is sometimes the method of choice), I may be ready to take on the engineers (or retire). Right now, I get giddy if I can get them to use the same font. |
Phil Kabza
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 07:50 am: | |
I have all the same problems with consultants cited above and have tried a few solutions with some success. I maintain a checklist of discipline-specific specification coordination items that go out to consultants ("Delete specification for Firestopping; refer to Division 7 section "Through-Penetration Firestopping") that sometimes helps. Passing on sample Division 1 packages sometimes helps, if you can get anyone to read them. I also provide masters for editing, and recently hosted a consultant's admin staff person for a free lesson in basic specification editing. Most admin staff are not trained in even basic document editing, which compounds the problems.
Beyond the prettiness factor is the content issue. Seldom do consultant specifications include proper warranty provisions, even when special manufacturer warranties for major equipment are commonly available from the industry.
The most important thing we can do is get in front of the problem. Prior to a consultant contract being issued, the negotiating principal must indicate that both drawings and specifications must meet the industry standard of professional practice - ie., the CSI Manual of Practice. This opens the consultant to the bewildering world of specifications, often for the first time. Their response is often "we'll have to raise our fees!" Our proper response is "what was it you were planning on giving us - substandard work?"
A special problem is the frequent instance of a building official dictating drawing/specification standards. This is a more serious industry issue - one that we - and CSI - need to research and address. We are often held hostage to building officials' personal preferences, in lieu of practicing our professions in accordance with standards of professional practice. There is great need to address this issue on a national organization level. |
Tracy Van Niel
New member
Username: Tracy_van_niel
Post Number: 3
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 09:58 am: | |
The question I have is this: If the structural engineer prepares their own specification sections and has submitted them to the architect via e-mail, does that mean the architectural specifier should go in and make changes to the structural engineer's specifications because the architectural project manager wants to change things? I told a project manager here that his comments needed to be communicated to the engineer so they could make the changes because I felt it was a liability issue for us to make the changes to a consultant's sections and he is now complaining that I'm not doing my job. |
Lynn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2002 - 11:32 am: | |
With lots of luck, you've received the emailed sections well before dealine and have adequate time to edit, return them to the consultant for review and get them sent back, revised.
With a normal amount of luck, you've received them in enough time to call the consultant, request permission to edit for format, grammar and spelling and hope that does it! In so doing, you might be able to make additional corrections to Part 1 and maybe even Part 3, so long as the changes do not effect the engineer's actual specifications.
But you have to get permission from the engineer to change their documents and you have to get their OK on a review of the changes. Because I think you're right, it is a liability issue. What if you transposed 2 numbers and it went from a 16 inch deep beam to a 61 inch deep beam - or vice versa? Put the shoe on the other foot - when architectural drawings are sent to the structural engineer, is it OK if the engineer moves a wall because it works better? |
|
4specs.com Home Page