Specifications have not improved. Why?

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

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message Anonymous Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 06:25 pm:    With the construction becoming more and more complex and litigious, why hasn't the role of specifications become more important? The drawings I see get better and better yet the specs seem to be the same old poorly written boilerplate crap. You would think with all the lawsuits and contractors looking to make money on change orders that specifications would have improved over the years. But they have not. Why? Marc C Chavez New member Username: Mchavez Post Number: 11 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 07:03 pm:    I would disagree. You either have: 1. not seen many specs over the past 10 to 20 years. 2. not seen the crisply drawn computer generated "crap" that I have seen from firms located across the country 3. no idea what your talking about. (My first choice) We could all improve what we do. I write specs and I draw. I have recently joined a firm to apply the knowledge I have gained to draw better drawings and coordinate them with better specs to make better buildings" What do you do besides make unsupported, untrue, generalizations. I have included my name so that anybody that has an issue with my comments knows who they are talking to, and can respond. Anonymous Posted on Wednesday, October 16, 2002 - 07:28 pm:    Mark, I am sure that your firm produces concise and well coordinated documents, but you seem to be the exception. Go down to your local plan center. Look through a few project manuals. You will then see what I am talking about. No wonder contractors and subcontractors don't read the specs. There is just too much "filler" and not enough "meat". Also there is way too many "weasel clauses" pushing the architect's responsibilities off on the contractor. If the specs were more concise they would make everyone's job easier. Doug Frank CCS New member Username: Doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 10 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 08:25 am:    You Go Mark! I'd like to think that the "Crap" to which Anonymous refers was not created by skilled and certified specifiers. Certainly we CSI members would like to believe that the specs produced by us are clear, concise, complete, and correct. However, I am aware of specs produced by many A/E firms are not. I am also aware that these specs are normally not the work of a "Specifier" but an employee of a firm who believes that specs are just a necessary evil. Perhaps CSI needs to do a little better in the PR department regarding the benefits to Owners of having Project Manuals created by Certified Construction Specifiers? Perhaps Anonymous can help improve the quality of specs by getting involved in CSI's spec competition judging; locally or nationally? Perhaps Anonymous can help by establishing a dialoge with local specifers to point out (in his opinion)the shortcomings of the specs he's reading; I know I always welcome suggestions on ways to improve the specs I produce. Perhaps Anonymous has other suggestions to improve the quality of specs? As you can see, I've included my name too. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Junior Member Username: David_axt Post Number: 64 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 01:56 pm:    I would sort of agree with our friend Anon. Specs have improved gradually over the years but not the leaps and bounds that one would expect. I have really not seen too many other firms specs, but I have seen some pretty poorly written specs from specifiers with pretty high CSI credentials. That said, The best things that CSI has ever done was creating the Manual of Practice and certification. I would also praise local chapters for doing a good job teaching the certification courses. The more we spread the "Good Word" the better off the construction industry will be. I also agree with Mark that there are some pretty looking CAD drawings that are unuseable. So the problem is not just specs but all the Construction Documents. I also REALLY like the idea of encouraging owners to use a CCS to write their specs. After all, they wouldn't want just a draftsman to produce the Drawings. (Didn't California have legislation that required a CCS on all public jobs?) I may take Anon up on his advice and go check out the competition. That way I can find out just exactly what he/she is talking about. [I too have left my name.] gerard sanchis New member Username: Gerard_sanchis Post Number: 10 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 02:17 pm:    I have to agree with anonymous. What he's seen are old specs that have been cut and pasted so many times that they do not reflect what's shown on the drawings, nor do they reflect the state of the profession. It’s called the “use the last project syndrome.” This is a result of extremely tight budgets and the architect/engineer unable or unwilling to pay for the services of an experienced specifier, either in-house or a specification consultant. As specification consultants, we are often given project manuals prepared by architectural firms - this happens when the firm asking for a proposal wants us to follow a set format, or to impress upon us how cheaply "good specs" can be. It also happens when public agencies have no set requirements for format and language and simply give us a built project that is to be matched for format. For the most part, we find these specifications lacking in uniformity, using improper language and references, and full of “fluff” which I define as language that either does not apply to the project, or could be deleted without changing the meaning and enforceability of the specifications. I would suggest that in the future if you need to have specifications written for a project you get in touch with a SCIP member. The resulting work might surprise you. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA New member Username: Bunzick Post Number: 37 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - 02:38 pm:    Interesting points, all. I wonder if anyone has seen a CCS who writes engineering specs - I'm thinking primarily of mechanical and electrical for structures. I think that the quality of engineering specs has improved over the last 5 years, but overall they seem to have improved at a much slower pace than architecturual specs, and still are often deficient. Does SCIP have any engineering spec writers? If CSI could do as good a job with the engineers, that would be a real accomplishment! Richard Hird Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 09:04 am:    As a SCIP engineer, I write specs of all 16 Divisions. With the exception of specifications for gov't agencies there is little interest in my services on the part of enginneering firms for the following reasons. Large Industrial E/A, civil infra sructure and ME utility engineering firms are big enough they can do their own specs, their own way with or without concern for CSI practice. Smaller engineering consultants, that serve Architects seldom get a fee that deserves more than a "canned" spec, if any spec at all. Recently I have seen some pressure from Architects on Engineeers to use "MasterSpec" which only results in an even larger "canned spec". Although I watch with interest CSI's efforts to get Engineers on board, I think they are just looking to increase membership. (Evidence - the latest Master format Revisions relegating little space for "Electrical". I am told this is because they can not get an electrical engineer to "volunteer" their time. Some commitment.) The latest proposed master format changes will help. However the specification consummers, contractors and suppliers, are not complaining, and until they do there is little reason to expect change. They are the spec customers, when you get down to it. Anne Whitacre New member Username: Awhitacre Post Number: 22 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 05:53 pm:    I would agree that there are some dreadful specs out there, and I would also agree that most of them are not written by practioners who write specs regularly, or even go to CSI meetings. When I was consulting, I found that during "down" times in the economy, my competition was not some other spec writer, but the underemployed draftsman, architect or whatever... in the firm so that the firm could keep the spec fee in house. Its impossible to point out the deficiencies in those documents to the people who produce them. (I tried). I would also agree with Marc (and his name does not have a "k" in it) that there are a whole lot of drawings going out that are pretty darn useless, but better looking because they have been computer drafted. As older computer programmers used to say "garbage in, garbage out". At least we aren't producing specs using carbons and spirit masters anymore. However, and this is a big however.... there are both tools available and also knowledgeable people available to assist with both drawing and spec preparation, and if someone does not avail themselves of those resources, the lawsuit goes to them.... I would also encourage Anonymous to become non-anonymous.