| Author |
Message |
David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI
Junior Member
Username: David_axt
Post Number: 71
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 01:14 pm: |    |
How do you get consultants to follow CSI principles in their specifications?
This is increasingly becoming a problem. I don't care if their specs are not in CSI format but I do care about the content. Some problems I find are that consultants are specifying Division 01 requirements along with joint sealants and firestopping in their specifications. Some consultants also specify what trade is to do what work.
In some respects I want to modify their file, but then I would be taking on additional liability. On the other hand, if I leave their specs alone then the job will have problems and we will get change orders.
Any ideas to this dilemma? |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
New member
Username: Wpegues
Post Number: 23
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 02:47 pm: | |
David,
I require all consultants that are creating their own sections (as opposed to marking up my master) to submit in advance their sections for review. I mark them up, I send them back. I specifically look for the problems/conflicts you point out. I also use this as a review of things that are of visual importance and call those to the attention of the project manager. The major items are not a problem, its things like light switch/plug face materials/color and face plate covers, requirements for custom colors on recessed sprinkler head covers, and other things that typically are not sent to the architect for visual verification.
We work with a variety of consultants, but even when its someone that we have not worked with previously there is rarely any problem with this. Unfortunately, I have to do it every time, there is only one consultant that has ever actually sent it to us correctly.
We have had a few times when one of them has complained or actually refused. Those sections that they refused to modify, we simply did not publish and told them that we would publish them in an addendum when they complied, and that we could not accept them due to conflicts in division 1.
In those cases, they were all quickly fixed. Only 1 time did it ever result in an attempt by the consultant to go around this, and ultimately that did not work either.
We have multiple submission requirements. At about the time that the project is going for permit (about 4 to 6 weeks before the project goes final) we require all sections to be submitted and we publish a DRAFT (it is labeled DRAFT in lieu of a date on every page where the date would appear - we print it on pink paper, and there is an introductory sheet in the front that states that its purpose is for nothing other than review. That goes to all consultants and to the Owner.
I require the consultants sections to arrive no later than the morning of 4 work days prior to the draft publication. That gives them time to fix it before the draft goes out, and if there is a disagreement, then not publisihing it in the draft is not a problem. Things are resolved before final.
Again, on the final, those creating their own sections are required to have their final documents to us no later than the morning of 4 work days before publication. If there is still something unacceptable, they have adequate time to fix it.
I have not had a problem with this kind of thing since the early 80s. At the same time though as I mention above, I get the same stuff I have to mark out from the same guys on job after job. |
Doug Frank CCS
New member
Username: Doug_frank_ccs
Post Number: 13
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 03:21 pm: | |
You’re sure not alone David. Here’s how I deal with that problem, but admittedly with limited success. I always request / require a complete copy of all consultant’s specs at our 95% QC review printing. This gives me a few days to scan their sections looking for just that kind of thing. I then require them to fix the problem(s) prior to the Final printing.
Like you I see improperly specified materials and duplication of, and conflict with, Division One requirements. Perhaps the most common problem I encounter is references to incorrect section titles and numbers. For some reason I have some consultants who love to include, in their “Related Sections” article stuff like Submittals: Section 01340 and Record Documents: Section 1700 to name a few. It seems like on every job I write a note explaining that these sections numbers are incorrect and asking them to change the reference to read simply “Division 1”.
The real trick in this whole deal is to actually get their specs at our 95% milestone. Consultants that we work with regularly know this requirement and I usually don’t have to fight too hard. I’m anxious to hear what others have to say about this too.
|
Robin Treston
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 04:05 pm: | |
I am curious how anyone is able to enforce the "requirement" to receive consultants specs ahead of time in order to make reviews. The few times that I have tried, it has basically been the attitude that they "don't have a contractual relationship with me, so I can't enforce deadlines". My clients can barely enforce the deadlines! I am lucky if I can get a copy of their TOC to include on mine!
I have tried sending out a sample Table of Contents, along with a "consultant information" sheet for the consultants to use for cross referencing and coordination, but this rarely works.
Also, I don't have the fee structure to include review of consultants documents (not to mention the liability issue again), and I sincerely doubt that my clients would want to pay me more for a service most of them wouldn't understand the importance of. Heck - they barely understand the relationship between my specs and their drawings! |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
New member
Username: Wpegues
Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 04:57 pm: | |
Robin,
I am a specifier for an architectural office, not a consultant. So my requirements are under the umbrella of the general requirement that the architect has for all consultants to coordinate as required by the Architect. And if a consultant is under direct contract to the Owner, their contracts are typically similarly worded - or we instruct the Owner that their consultants are required to perform as such.
That's required for drawings, and since there is no distinction made, the project manual requirements slip in underneath that just fine.
That's how I easily get the permit draft. A long time ago, I would get a lot of resistance to getting a draft from MEP consultants at the permit time. So we told them that since specifications would definitley require revisions on their part to coordinate with our division 1, we then required them to send us a complete printout 2 weeks prior to final. Or, they could send the draft over and only have to send their final over 4 days before final.
They soon found out that it was easier to send the draft, especially after owners saw the value of the draft review and started asking why were the MEP parts missing.
Now there is not even any question from MEP consultants that we have never worked with before since there are a couple jurisdictions around here that require that the permit set be submited with a project manual - we send them the draft.
As to liability, I am reviewing specifically for division 1 conflicts and for conflicts with work specified elsewhere, and terminology conflicts - and looking for those aesthetic items that I know are never submitted to the architect to review as they should have done anyway.
Also, I don't accept electronic files from them. If any consultant is writing their own sections for anything, I require paper. Even though I am in an architect's office, I refuse to accept the burden of printing out someone elses files. It takes time and I refuse be strapped with any technical glitches they may have created. Its enough trouble to just go through their paper originals and verify that their page number count is correct. Permitting sending of electronic files also increases the tendency of lazyness by many - they know they can get it to you instantly, and if there are printing problems, its not their problem, if it does not look right blame it on the system doing the printing...all sorts of potential excuses for burdening us with what they should and need to take responsibility for.
I know that consultant specifiers have greater difficulty in setting these requirements - but its something that needs to be considered. I should certainly think that if you can't get output by certain times/dates from the architect's other consultants that something needs to be placed in any agreement that does not tie your hands. I don't think anyone should be forced to stand and wait to get dumped on by another consultant at the last minute just for their convenience so that your schedule is ruined and you look like you are performing poorlly because it hoses your deadline - or that you have to kill yourself for their convenience. |
Jo Drummond
New member
Username: Jo_drummond
Post Number: 33
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 06:49 pm: | |
I'm a consultant. I work for the architects. Some of them care, and enforce, specification requirements, some don't.
I have developed a "guidelines for engineers and consultants" which I send to the architect, together with a sample section to show the format, on every job.
I rarely get drafts of consultants specs. to review. If they send them in time, I review them, if I have time. But usually, they send their specs to me on the same day I am to deliver them to the architect.
The key as I see it, and as someone mentioned above is: if the spec. writer works for the architect as an employer, he can require whatever he wants as the engineers are under contract to them. If the spec. writer is a consultant, he has no direct relationship with the engineers and other consultants, and all the spec. writer can do is advise the architect. Again, some care, some dont. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
New member
Username: Wpegues
Post Number: 25
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 15, 2002 - 10:10 pm: | |
Jo,
I think your point speaks to more than 1 issue. This one for certain, the delima of consultant specifier who frequently has very little leverage.
The other has to do with the attitude of architects in general. Even I as an inhouse specifier see this in many other firms, the lack of care - even the lack of respect for specifications. And it makes me wonder that if there was ever a mission that CSI ought to undertake, it is this education effort.
But where is it? Where has it ever been? Why is Institute aware of the issue and doing essentially nothing about it? We the specifiers can't do much, we are not held in high regard (except in our own house - consultants among each other, in house specifiers in their own office). For sure I know our principals continually mark a major part of success to our Project Manuals, and they use it as a selling point to owners. But those firms that don't care don't seem to pick up on that. And the lack of care is growing. Frankly, there ought to be more effort at Institute in some fasion to evangalize the need for and benefit of a good specifications program (and the side effects of such a program).
There is too much "preaching to the choir", in my opinion, education seems to be more about educating the membership to the benefits of CSI. There ought to be more effort out there to go after architects in all venues with real examples of the value of specifications. Not the value of CSI - the value of specifications and a specifications program. The former comes with the later.
Maybe I should hire myself out to them as a consultant in the effort...but on the other hand, its not an effort that brings in revenue for the short term so there is probably no interest in the effort. |
Phil Kabza
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 08:45 pm: | |
I structure and QC review our firm's specifications and do some limited review of consultant specifications. I maintain a discipline checklist for consultants, a running list of those things they usually get wrong (such as making a botch of General Conditions issues, a mishmash of General Requirements issues, and duplicating and basically screwing up Roof Curbs, Firestopping, Painting, and Louvers). I require Civil, Structural, Door Hardware, and Food Service consultants to use Masterspec sections in line with our use.
PM&E consultants are another matter. Some I will review; others I have given up on and figure our Project Managers can pay the grief for having retained them in the first place. Best news was one of our larger consultants has just purchased a Masterspec license and is starting to build a new firm master - after two years of cajoling from me.
In general, we don't get the fee to do this kind of review work; I try to look for stuff that will come back on us. The rest of the stuff I just hold my nose and print. Somehow it all gets built and with surprisingly little trouble with PM&E specs despite their lack of interest in industry standards.
|
Richard Hird
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 10:07 am: | |
As one of those deviant engineering types I can assure you that the local engineering specification consumers are more familiar with your consultant's specifications than CSI practice. Frankly they prefer familiar specifications to poorly edited canned goods.
The problem comes when you strays from your local area or traditional market. If the users of your odd specifications do not understand them, you are not communicating. Conversely most specifiers can not accept that CSI is not so important to the civil portion of the work, local State Highway specifications matter. It is not just about formatting and location of subject matter, the whole procurement system is different.
If your engineering firm does not understand your market, just get one that does. Putting lipstick on a pig does not change the pig. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
New member
Username: Wpegues
Post Number: 28
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 11:17 am: | |
Interesting point of view, Richard.
But I really don’t understand where you are coming from. Just what does this mean?
>>>begins...
If the users of your odd specifications do not understand them, you are not communicating. Conversely most specifiers can not accept that CSI is not so important to the civil portion of the work, local State Highway specifications matter. It is not just about formatting and location of subject matter, the whole procurement system is different.
If your engineering firm does not understand your market, just get one that does. Putting lipstick on a pig does not change the pig.
<<<ends.
I have personally found that on those projects where we do have civil or geotechnical specifications from consultants, I have some of the least problems with what their product. It is typically clean on the first submission when they have not even had a chance to see my division 1, and typically ask the first questions about what do they need to do to customize for it.
These are the same people you say would be least likely to be familiar with it, they are often involved with non-architectural projects. Structural engineers are also very responsive. I actually have a structural master that the structural engineers edit, and I have no complaints from them. When there is some topic that requires a separate section that we don’t have, what they send over is often very close.
I, and think think this applies to most others here as well, am not talking about engineering firms unacquainted with architectural projects, or even those are new to this kind of work. For the most part, we are not even talking about those engineers involved in civil or earthwork parts of the project, but with engineers that deal with architectural projects as their common practice...mechanical, plumbing and electrical engineers.
We have a whole group of consultants that professionally I have dealt with for more than 10 years, probably about 8 or 10 different consultants total whose firms do primaryily architectural work. Only 1 of these pays attention to the specific requirements of the contract and the architect’s requirements for coodination of Division 1 and General Conditions. Year after year, job after job, its the same thing. They send over the same general sections that get the same material crossed out and sent back to them every time. They do this with every architectural firm they work with, not just us. And they all do a lot of work with various architectural firms.
They make no effort to even ask, and make no changes even if they are told in advance, of the specific requirements for coordinate general conditions and divisions 1. Some even openly say that they have no intention of changing anything unless we mark it up, and that if there are any conflicts, its our problem, not theirs.
Being that I am an in-house specifier and not a consultant myself, I have a bit more clout in making them change their documents.
And when I look around my region and speak with others here, they have the same complaints for different consultants that they work with. And when I go out of the region to other areas, again, MEP comes to the top of the list for non-compliance - actually non-caring as the most common response from that segment of the profession.
|
Richard Hird
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 01:31 pm: | |
I disagree that non compiance is non caring. Engineers are results oriented. Caring is what works.
Coordination with Division 1 is important, and I have never met an engineer that admits to not caring about that. But such things as 3 Part Specifications and whether fire protection is in Division 13 or 15. Those are things I call "lipstick". |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
New member
Username: Wpegues
Post Number: 31
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 02:20 pm: | |
Richard,
Your comments don't make much sense when the engineers of Division 15/16 work simply don't care, and specifically about the very things you state require to be cared about...
"Coordination with Division 1 is important, and I have never met an engineer that admits to not caring about that." Welcome to the real world, its true, its common if not endemic with MEP engineers. Look at posts elsewhere here on 4Specs, not just this topic.
I am not talking here about where they put things, or whether their product is written clearly. Actually, all here in my local area do use the 3 part format, some use Division 13.
Most here specifically don't care about Division 1, refuse to coordinate their requirements with it, and have done so consistenly for years and years, and their principal practice is architectural building construction.
Your original protest was that this was confined mostly to engineers whose primary practice was non-architectural construction (highways, bridges, other civil work). And I am stating that experience of 25 years that in my involvement with those type of engineers who happen to also be involved in an architectural project that they are the ones who actually take the time to coordinate and who actually do things more consistently with CSI recommendations.
Exactly the opposite of your original post.
Frankly, I have always found that in all regards, civil, geotech and structural engineers more than any other disciplines are more consciencous about their product and their coordination with others in the project.
But, if non-compliance is not non-caring, what is it?
Remember, we are not talking about the 'lipstick' as you call it. We are talking about failure to coordinate the basic requirements of the general conditions and Division 1. That's both uncaring and non-compliance.
|
|
4specs.com Home Page
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page