Spec language question

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 188 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 07:49 pm:    Which of the following examples is the preferred sentence and why? "Do not use wood screws." "Wood screws are not acceptable." "Wood screws: not accepted." Thanks. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 121 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 08:24 pm:    None of the above. I prefer "Wood screws will not be acceptable." - it immediately identifies the subject (wood screws). - it uses a verb tense that indicates a future action, which is actually the case. - it includes a negative so that those who are not strong readers get the idea that wood screws are a no-no. However, if you're being paid by the word, I suggest: "Contractor shall not under any circumstances, implicit or explicit, procure and/or utilize threaded fasteners designed and manufactured for securing products and assemblies that include wood materials, unless it's cheaper and easier to do so and the inspector is looking the other way." Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 06:56 am:    I prefer "Do not use wood screws." It is the imperative mood; less words and without implication that it is subject to some form of approval. In John's last paragraph he forgot "unless otherwise indicated on the drawings" which would work fine after explicit. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 08:02 am:    David, David, David - Is this a trick question? How about NONE OF THE ABOVE. I've always operated under the philosophy that the intent of the specifications is to state the qualitative requirements for that which IS to be provided or included in the Project. The specifications are NOT to be used as a forum to list all that is NOT to be provided. If so, then - by the example above - pop rivets, stickum, binder clips, and kotter pins are not listed as being unacceptable, therefore they are allowed?? How dangerous is that? If we start getting into the habit of listing all the items that are NOT to be provided, imagine how large the Project Manual would become! And God forbid we should inadvertently miss something. By stating the requirements of that which is to be provided, we are thereby excluding everything else. To create a listing (which would undoubtedly be incomplete) would be redundant, and sets a very dangerous precedent. Basically, if its not on the Drawings or in the Specifications, its not allowed on the Project. Period. So providing any type of fastener other than what was specified is considered nonconforming work, and should be rejected accordingly. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:04 am:    Mr. Combs, I agree with you whole-heartedly, but only idealistically. I've encountered, as probably Mr. Axt and others, the repeated substitution requests (and surreptious attempts) for providing other than what is "specified". True, realistically one shouldn't try to attempt and list ALL items "not accceptable", but be selective in those areas that tend to problematic. I don't think that in this case that an omission (of what's not acceptable) limits one ability to reject a substitution. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 189 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 01:09 pm:    The question is not a trick question. I used wood screws as an example because I happened to be working on the wood door section talking about thru bolting. I am merely asking the question of what is the best way to tell the contractor not to use something. I agree that the specifications should tell the contractor what to use and not tell the contractor what not to use. In the real world we know that certain items will be used unless we explicitly tell the contractor not to use it. We get the excuse of "Well you did not tell me that I could not use it." Many times "negative" language creeps into our specs because some contractor on a previous job botched something up. In order to ensure that this does not happen again we say don't do it. This applies to execution methods as well as materials. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 190 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 01:52 pm:    To make respond to the firstAnonymous comment. BTW is "Alcoholic" your first name? I think it is a real "weasel clause" when the specs read something like. "Do not under any circumstances use wood screws under penalty of death.......unless indicated on the Drawings." To me that language indicates the specifier has not looked at the Drawings and is trying to CYA. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 04:15 pm:    David: It is just a version of "Read my lips; NO NEW SCREWS" Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 04:55 pm:    This is the correct way to do what you are asking about: 1. Wood Screws: Not permitted. I learned early in my spec writing career - from the best spec writer in the business - that it is entirely appropriate to tell the contractor what not to do. anon John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 154 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 05:38 pm:    I also occasionally spec what not to use when it adds to clarity, and where experience has indicated confusion (or bad intent) is likely. I disagree with the "1. Wood Screws: Not permitted." format, only because of the proable context - it's not a stand alone paragraph. Hopefully, this prohibition is being used in the context of telling what is acceptable, with this qualifier added for clarity. I would use something like this, 1. Fasteners: Galvanized lag bolts. Wood screws not permitted. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 06:34 pm:    John, What the heck are you talking about? I am showing preferred, streamlined specification language! Here is the same thing, in context: 2.5 FASTENERS A. Nails, Brads, and Staples: ASTM F 1667. B. Power-Driven Fasteners: CABO NER-272. C. Wood Screws: Not permitted. anon gerard sanchis` (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 10:50 pm:    David, I would use "Thanks." Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:03 pm:    <<I learned early in my spec writing career - from the best spec writer in the business>> anon So who is this "best in the business" mystery person? Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 06:54 am:    Its me. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 09:14 am:    Me, too! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 155 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 10:21 am:    Anon, (whichever one of you it is): Calm down. We can disagree without getting cranky. I guess when one is logged in anonymously, one need not be constrained by any social graces - who's to know? Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 10:49 am:    As the 2nd anon in this thread, I feel that I can be forthcoming without any fears that my boss or fellow workers "easily" discovering my "non-productive" activities. Unfortunately, there will always be others that use the anon disguise for personal agendas. When discussions become more personal attacks is when I think Colin needs to consider removing the ability to be anon in these discussions? Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 97 Registered: 05-2000 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 10:56 am:    I have the ability to place 2 restrictions on the use of the discussion forum. 1. No anon postings - I think this is not needed for the reason just stated by the posting above. 2. Approval of all postings before adding to forum - except for registered users. I have not seen a need to do this so I have not. This discussion forum has run very cleanly with only a few off-topic postings by manufacturers or anon postings that were marginal. Approval of each message before posting will slow down the discussion as they will not be seen by the public until I or others approve them. I do not want to slow down the discussion unless needed as fast timely responses can be valuable when confronting a problem. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 07:01 pm:    With all do respect to everyone above that cares about how they write specifications, I have had a difficult time caring about the issue that started this thread. If some have chosen to be a smart aleck, and not post their name, I understand. It really does not matter how you say no. Weak enforcement of specifications is not a result of the language, it is a result of poor content, poor personnel and/or poor project management. As I have often heard, what part of "No" don't you understand. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 124 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 01:01 am:    I feel a need to jump back into the discussion ... Right now, I have projects with two project architects / project directors / project designers (whatever they're called these days) who I believe are functionally illiterate. They can hardly read. And these are people who supposedly graduated from accredited architectural schools. Looking at the construction side of the equation, the situation is even darker. I think those who actually construct buildings are very intelligent. They take ideas and turn them into tangible construction. But they are not as skilled when it comes to reading complex documents. Then there are those who intentionally misconstrue specified requirements, believing there is financial advantage in fouling up the contract documents. That's why David Axt's question is one to take seriously, although I couldn't resist a little humor. I have a cousin who worked for a high-tech electronics company. He has two masters degrees and worked with PhD's. He received many appreciative remarks from the very well educated PhD's about how clearly his memos were written. He never told them that he used the Grammatik grammar checking program with his ol' WordPerfect 5.1 software to bring his writing style down to 8th grade level! The challenge ... and this is directed to me as much as anyone ... is to write simply ... and clearly and concisely. This is a simple challenge but certainly not easy. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 156 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 08:47 am:    I think John has very good points. If the language is clear, then the job of doing what Richard is appropriately suggesting is much easier. I have both written a lot of specs, and done a lot of construction administration. It's an interesting - and sometimes humbling - experience to enforce one's own specs on a project! It's a good education, though! David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 191 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 04:07 pm:    "Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword." - Edward Bulwer-Lytton Any lawyer would agree. Many times worrying about words may seem very anal, but language is very important. Again, ask any lawyer....or insurance agent. Right now the WTC lawyers are arguing with their property insurance company that 9/11 was two seperate attacks not one. The buildings don't have enough coverage if considered one attack. Right now our firm is involved with a big mess because the Owner's Division 1 section used the word "Contractor" instead the of "contractor". The first means the GC the second term means any contractor. Words are important! That's why we agonize over them. My whole intent of the question was to understand the best language for telling a contractor not to do something. I imagine that there is a difference between noting that something is "not accepted" versus "not approved" versus "don't use". Someone please explain. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 232 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2003 - 09:45 pm:    David, Of course there are differences in not accepted, not approved and don't use. However, the intent of all 3 is the same - you are conveying that you don't want the item on the project, or at least, not in this particular part of the work you are specifying. The problem with words is of course, never what we intend, but what others take them to mean. I could easily see that not approved could simply mean that they could be used, but will not get your approval. Not accepted could be somewhat similar. Don't use - that's more specific. I think the earlier comments about 'don't use negatives' is a good general rule - but like all rules, there are notable exceptions. Its true, if its not in the project manual then its not permitted. However, there are those tried and true, and unfortunately legally approved, 'standard methods of practice'. What if this is an assembly where you don't want wood screws used, but where the standard methods of practice of have the items commonly assembled with them, as well as other options. If its something you don't really want, its fine to limit them. Especially as realates to anchors, attachments, etc., unless you specifically provide some guidance, the contractor may presume what are the standards of the practice in assembly. This is even more true in areas where you may have been quoting a standard of some kind and that standard may offer several methods of assembly. It is perfectly logical for you to limit the contractors options if its something you specifically wish to control. My personal example relatees to ceramic wall tile. There are very few items I use a negative prohibition, but in the types of work that we do, I don't want to use adhesives. My spec does list a latex modified thin set system for attachment to drywall. Time after time I would get submittals of wall adhesive - and the response to its rejection was always that they had thought that we had overlooked it since it was a common method of applying tile to walls. I gave up and wrote in the prohibition. Now I don't get the presumtive submission for its use - but I do still get requests for substitutions. The kinds of language with 'will' in it is a correct way to address the intentions of the design team side of things. The contractor shall (or use imperative language), the owner, or architect, will. Will is not imperative. More importantly though to understanding its correct use is that the legal interpretation of the word 'will' is that it leaves open that the issuer of the phrase may change his mine. Will does not lock you in - it expresses an intention that may be changed. So - what it actually invites in a case like this is a contractor proposing a substitution to convince you to change your mind. Rather than use a phrase that indicates anything about the intentions of the architect or owner, it would seem preferable to make the terms address what the contractor should or should not do. Thus, the 'not accepted' and 'not approved' fall into the category of an action by the architect. Forget that - direct the contractor, use the equivalent of 'don't use'. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 157 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 10:48 am:    Good discussion, William. Interestingly, I have repeatedly had the exact same problem with the organic tile adhesives that you describe. Even after rejecting the submittal, I find buckets of it on the job, which of course results in my notifying them that if they don't immediately stop using it, I'll reject the tile work, make them remove it and start over. That usually gets their attention. Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 19 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 01:38 pm:    It is hard to write a specification for some item of work in performance mode without saying a dozen times in 50 statements what the work result is NOT to be / do. If the need for "not"s and "don't"s is true with performance specifying, then why is it not at least allowable for specifying in the prescriptive mode? Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 20 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 01:42 pm:    It is hard to write a specification for some item of work in performance mode without saying a dozen times in 50 statements what the work result is NOT to be / do. If the need for "not"s and "don't"s is true with performance specifying, then why is it not at least allowable for specifying in the prescriptive mode?