The Attack is on - Specifications are...

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 130 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 03:10 pm:    Now we am being told by several architect clients that the word 'specifications' is bad and they would like us to find another way to label our work - 'Specifications are bad they say, what else can we call them?' let's change the name 'Project Manual'to "Control Book', they say, it is getting ridiculous, specifications are being attacked, at least in private sector work - so anyone else having this problem, lessons learned, strategies to combat this attack would be appreciated - architects it seems support specifications, but it is their clients instigated by lawyers and contractors who seem to be priming the cannons for this new attack, and some architects are giving in - will specifications and specwriters survive? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 422 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 03:18 pm:    Jeez, Jerome, you sure do get some of the most bizzare situations. I have never heard of this. You need to move your place of business and let that area just drift away in a big storm or continental drift or something appropriate to the geography. Move first though! William Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 202 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 03:25 pm:    This in my view, Mr. Lazar, is an attempt at a major cultural change, for very minimal and questionable reasons. Specifications are deeply engrained in the entire documentation process, including the widely used AIA and NSPE documents, among others. There seems to be a weird need [???] for change, mainly for some unspokeb agenda. We had one client who wanted to discard specs entirely in favor of their corporate standards. My hunch is this is all part of a "reduce the bottom line" syndrome, pursued with little knowledge and less wisdom-- they simply don't understand! A good healthy, nasty, massive award lawsuit may be of help in "orienting them"!!! Just take care you're not involved! Seems like a GREAT place for CSI to get involved, supporting the professionals, and "educating" clients. Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 26 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 03:39 pm:    I agree with william. I used to give specification presentations. One of my slides had a quotation on it: "Who makes the decision and when?" Detailed decisions regarding products, materials, and systems are best made as early on in the process as reasonable, thus, detailed specifications. My list of "who" might make these decisions and when, includes: The Owner, before design (program); Design professional, during design phases; Bidders during bidding; Contractor/subcontractor during construction. Last on the list is Mother Nature during occupancy. (Example: Not enough control joints specified/detailed?; OK Mother will supply them where they are needed post construction. Owner still pays.) Please note, it gets more expensive down the decision road. Without going into a great deal of detail here, there are many interests served by delaying the specification of products and materials. I maintain the underlying philosophy that design is best made, in the interest of the Owner and general public, early and during design phases to thoroughly resolve the design. Those who wish to delay detailed decision making have something to gain. I even hold the "extreme" position that performance specifying is too much abused. Move away from there! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 131 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 03:43 pm:    Well William what fun would I have if I did not have these idiot clients - still have not heard back from the one who wanted us to rewrite the specs to eliminate all standards - we answered with a simple NO, 4 months later, they have yet to respond - this board helped in my decision on that one - just looking for more perspectives - but whoa there, you are attacking my beloved Florida - where the sun is always shining, and it is always way too hot, where we fear for our lives 4 months of the year during hurricane season - up goes the shutters, down comes the shutters, where the humidity is always high and uncomfortable - why would I ever consider working in DC - ya do get snow and it does get cold - not my favorite, not to mention George Bush - also not a favorite, but I am working on several projects in your neck of the woods, so we will see how those jobs go - me thinks this attack is not just Florida based, we'll see. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 55 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 04:52 pm:    Jerome - Are all these attacks on specs coming from your multi-family residential market that I think you specialize in or are other project types/clients involved? PS - We have a lot of sun and warmth in sunny New Mexico without the humidity or the huricanes! William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 423 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 05:01 pm:    Jerome, That's it, its way to much sun - tell those guys to start wearing hats and quit drinking out in the sun and they will start to see your point of view. Seriously though, even in the hot multi-family residential market here in the DC area, I have not heard of these kinds of requests. I still think its drinking in the sun without a hat. William Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 132 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 05:19 pm:    Well William, you may be on to something as I just returned from 8 days in St John VI - lots of sun and a little drinking too - but seriously upon my return, not one, but three architect clients asking about eliminating, or renaming, or reinventing specifications - not just on multi-family residential but also on hospitality and commercial projects - hmmm, I still think we are being attacked...on a pleasant note, had a great vacation. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CDT, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 54 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 05:20 pm:    Why don't we just call them "Installation Instructions" like they give you when you buy a bike at Toy-R-Us. We could buy buildings there too! Jeezle-peets. We could just hire Korea to write them for us, since they do so well on the bikes. "Insert Tab A into Slot B", or better, "Insert Screw A into left brain, turn clockwise til colors appear", etc. What a drag! If buildings were so easy to build, everyone would be doing it. Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 18 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 05:52 pm:    Is it possible your clients are talking to each other, and concluding that if someone else likes the idea it must be a good one? then trying it out on you to see what will happen? Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 42 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2005 - 05:59 pm:    Brett, that reminds me of one of the more memorable lines from the novel "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance": One of the characters, asked to assemble a Japanese bicycle for a young relative's Christmas present, starts by reading the instructions(!), which begin with the admonition, "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind..." John McGrann Senior Member Username: jmcgrann Post Number: 52 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 07:44 am:    Hmmm - Susan might be on target. This does make one wonder if the people who brought you the con-struction risk mitigation service (or whatever they called themselves) are now out on the Florida seminar circuit trying to make a living that way. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 112 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 07:47 am:    Renaming the Specifications / Project Manual: How about; "Work Results Book"? "Manual of Work Results"? "An Instruction Manual to Ensure the Results of the Work are as Intended"? "The big book that holds drawings down in the wind"? seems like "A rose by any other name" applies here. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 43 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:10 am:    How about "Supplementary Notes to the Drawings" or simply "Supplementary Plan Notes"? These would position the text as part of the drawings (or better yet, "the plans") -- back where it started. Full circle. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 99 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:24 am:    Is there something in the water? Too much flouride? Too much 'gator droppings? Seriously; no, I can't be too serious-- it's just way too ludicrous! It's not just tradition and custom; it's not just standard forms' it's not just a good idea; it's a matter of more than 100 years of case law that recognizes Drawings and Specifications as an integral part of the construction contract with all the responsibilities, duties, and rights that go along with contract law. Although torts and fraud do enter occassionally into the discussion, it is common and case law on contracts that is applicable to the interpretation of the Specifications and Drawings. It really seems like these parties want to take the Specifications out of the contract without understanding what that means. In "A Man For All Seasons", a young man declares to Sir Thomas More that he would tear down all the laws in England to get at the Devil. Thomas then asks what he would then hide behind when the Devil turned on him. Contracts (especially construction contracts) are like that. They (including the specifications) tend to get in the way of getting what you want; but they also can protect you when someone comes looking for you (not in a good way). In my view, this also applies to the myriad of other ancillary subcontracts, material contracts, and purchase orders that are generated by the general construction contract. Drawings and Specifications document a "virtual" object (the vision of a physical object). They document a set of decisions and commitments made not only by a team design professionals, but also by a client team. A good set of Drawings and Specifications in the hands of a good Contractor will still contain a few inconsistencies, errors, and conflicts, and will still generate a number of RFIs. These are the inherent nature of a human team attempting to describe in detail a virtual object so that another human team can construct a phisical object that is reasonably close to the virtual object. When the virtual object is incompletely conceived and poorly planned and described, the descriptions (Drawings and Specifications) will get in the way--"No, we wanted a 5-story building 214 feet long, not a 214 story building 5 feet long! I know that's what we said we wanted, but you should have known better!" In my experience, people who avoid the committment of executing a contract for a complex undertaking are generally going to avoid making decisions and committments (and signing checks) throughout the life of the project. They are generally lacking experience in the serious world of commerce. They will ultimately fail, usually in an undertaking of sufficient magnitude to adversely affect a number of people. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 52 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:39 am:    This seems to be the natural progression of where architects have been headed for the past 30 years - losing parts of their "traditional" services to design-builders until they are completely superfluous to the construction process. Eventually, we all will be working for builders or finding another line of work. Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 177 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:35 am:    Absolutely bizarre! Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 203 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:47 am:    Small ray of hope-- if specs go; and we go, so will the attorneys, who will no longer have the words to fight over! At least they'll have to move to other areas of law [may not be all that bad, overall] Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 122 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:57 am:    Richard is right! so long "Master Builder." We are SO risk averse that we are willing to let anybody have any part of the building process so long as they take the risk. BUT please leave us in charge of aesthetics only. (Oh! Stop me before I rant off topic) Back to names for the big book, I have had several requests for “specifications” in lieu of "Project Manual", based upon an assumption that if no bid instructions are included that it’s “just a spec” I refuse. Why. Because I AM the spec writer and closer to the right hand of God than any mere architect! J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 100 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 12:25 pm:    Although; God does like to play Architect on his day off. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 479 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 12:55 pm:    'Control Book' Yeah now that sounds good! Architects don't 'approve' submittals but we do have 'control'! Control book sounds too much like an HVAC operations and maintenance manual. The maintenance people may get confused. The 'specifications' or 'spec book' is actually called a 'project manual'. Those words have been used for what thousands or maybe millions of projects? No problem so far. What is there problem? Jerome, tell you clients to quit muddling and let you do your job! BTW, If you do change the word 'specifications' to 'control' then you will have to reprint your business cards to read 'control book writer' instead of 'specifications writer' or 'controller' instead of 'specifier'. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 44 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 02:31 pm:    If "Specifications" are written by "Specifiers," are "Project Manuals" written by "Project Manualiers"? Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 204 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 03:18 pm:    You know if we go back to Mr. Lazar's original problem, we might apply some code administration techniques [used when dealing with a code offical making seemingly unfounded demands]-- Ask those "suggesting" the need for the change in name, to offer/present/give-over some solid substaniating information, case law or other documentation that addresses the issue, or presents the issue. If, however, they are playing out a "fad", the pox on them for alarmism-- and the answer to that is simply, "NO"! Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 43 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 03:29 pm:    Ralph, that is an excellent suggestion! Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 30 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 05:18 pm:    This is an interesting thread. I recently came across The Performance Based Studies Research Group (PBSRG)developed by Dr. Dean Kashiwagi in 1994 at Arizona State University's Del E. Webb School of Construction. The PBSRG is a non-profit research group that has done extensive research on: Best-value procurement and performance contracting Decision-making support systems using artificial intelligence models Risk management / risk minimization processes Information-based systems Collecting and implementing Past Performance Information (PPI) Supply Chain management Increasing company efficiency /productivity URL: www.pbsrg.com Also http://www.eas.asu.edu/pbsrg/overview/overview.htm There is a book in the subject titled: Best Value Procurement by Dean T. Kashiwagi Best Value Procurement focuses on the source of poor performance in the construction industry, and how the Information Measurement Theory (IMT) and the Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS) can help minimize and solve these problems. I quote the following from the web site: "This book answers many industry questions, including: How to identify the “best value” How to compare price and performance How to collect, store, and use past performance information How to implement the PIPS process How to sustain a best-value process in the construction industry How to increase performance by minimizing management How to increase quality without spending more How to minimize litigation and increase partnering with very little management Assisted by case studies, “Best Value Procurement” presents more than fifteen years of research results on how to maximize performance in a seemingly unstable industry." What does all this have to do with Jerome's comments? The University of Hawaii tested this procurement process on a variety of painting projects using minimum documentation. The results are encouraging. After recognizing the increase in performance that the State of Hawaii PWD was procuring, the University of Hawaii (UH) decided to implement PIPS in 2000. The university wanted to increase the quality of painting and roofing projects, shift construction risk to contractors, and make the UH more efficient. Current users are: City of Peoria, FAA, Harvard University, International Rectifier, Raytheon Missles Systems, US Army MEDCOM, US Coast Guard. Past users are: Dallas Independent School District, State of HI, U of Hawaii, State of Utah, and United Airlines. I am currently working on a specification that, at our clients request, has morphed from a CSI 3-part section format into a CSI outline specification format (Figure FF/OS-4). Our client is the developer and the GC/CM. Our spec sections have become a "Record Document" section of the products agreed to between GC/CM and subtrade. Our original specificaitons where basis-of-design with a list of approved comparables. The final sections are proprietary product heavy and reference standards light. Also light in what would be Parts 1 and 3. The chosen product is not always our product of choice. That said, one of our "Guiding Attitudes" is Understand the Clients Perspective. Wayne Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 21 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 06:10 pm:    This is interesting about "minimum documentation" -- I'd like to hear more. But your example seems to be different -- the "audience" and purpose of the document are completely different. As you say, it's to record what the two parties have agreed upon, rather than for one party to instruct the other. This concept of "audience" is, in my opinion, the driving one in all our documentation. Who are we speaking to and why? Put another way, the documents could be considered primarily to forestall mistakes and cheating. If the contractor knows enough to guess right and is ethical enough to do that, then you don't have to tell him anything (see: 1867 spec in related thread called "Specs Book"). I'm mystified by Jerome's architect clients who don't seem to understand that all they have to do is ask their client "do you trust this guy to do it right without a contract describing exactly what he's supposed to do?" or "how will you feel when you find out that you paid more than what you got is worth because you didn't tell him what to do?" Obviously, it's more complicated when the owner is the constructor or the owner really doesn't care about quality or even complying with codes. And who is telling them that specifications are bad, and why? Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 205 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 07:15 am:    To me, the suggestions [???] to Mr. Lazar are symptomcatic of professionals undereducated about practice, and the instruments of practice-- bet their great designers! It shows, clearly, not only their lack of the courage of their convictions, but understanding and strength of their convictions [if indeed, there are convictions]. Do these folks also tell their attorneys that what they produce cannot be "briefs" but should be called "limited fantasies", or maybe "underwear". Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 178 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:36 am:    I'm fairly certain that I met Dr. Dean Kashiwagi at CSI Convention some years ago. He may have been a presenter. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 101 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:50 am:    A little over 10 years ago, there was a PBS television series called "Skyscraper." I never say the televised series, but it received excellent reviews from a number of sources (both personal and public). I did, however, read the book. In the author's Forward, he talked about the real heroes being those people who actually constructed the building and stated that anyone could design a building. He went on to suggest that his 8-year child's drawing of a building would almost be enough to get that building constructed (it indicated proportions, openings, and even, to a limited extent, style). Later on the in book, however, he talks about the wind testing of the curtain wall. Many of you know the drill; a full-size mockup built at a lab site in Florida, an aircraft engine to blow rain onto it, an all-hands meeting over several days to see how it performed and what needed to be changed. The Architects couldn't make it until the very end of the first day. That day had been spent in a series of tests which had resulted in failure and a great deal of finger-pointing among consultants and specialty subcontractors (it's not the frame, it's the sealant; it's not the sealant, it's the stone; it's not ... you've heard the conversation). The Architects were briefed after his arrival and every one retired to their respective corners at the end of the day. After a brief discussion among themselves, one of the Architects suggested what the problem might be and how it might be resolved. After reconvening the next morning, the Architects' suggested some changes which resulted in the mockup passing the test. I took this as a very interesting parable about (1) the perceived value of architectural design and (2) the real value of architects. Architects tend to take a more general and integrative view of such issues. PE consultants, subcontractors, and manufacturers tend to be highly focused and specialized. (Contractors should be more general, but many of them tend to be brokers, not integrative problem-solvers; their "big-picture" view is usually limited to cost and schedule issues.) In my experience it is the Architect who are better at resolving problems where different products and systems must interface than any other member of the building procurement team; better at integrating a variety of products and systems not only into a coherent visual whole, but, functionally into a whole system instead of a pile of systems. It is interesting that in the UofHawaii's experience cited above, the emphasis is on single specialized systems, not on whole buildings. In my experience, Contractors who make the attempt to "design" major portions of a building wind up failing to properly integrate all of the components required, or fail to integrate major building systems with each other. Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 180 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 12:21 pm:    Skyscraper! A NOVA Special This 80-minute NOVA pledge special chronicles the building of the Worldwide Plaza, 47-story office tower in midtown Manhattan, from a hole in the ground to a 770-foot skyscraper. Original broadcast date: 12/10/91 Topic: technology/engineering PBS Building Big: Skyscrapers http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/skyscraper/index.html This PBS Web site explores the world's greatest skyscrapers. The interactive Loads Lab provides hands-on explanations of how big buildings withstand the forces that act on them. Related NOVA Resources http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/overviews/0000_bbskyscr.html Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 181 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 12:25 pm:    Skyscraper! A NOVA Special The complete series is available on Ebay's Half.com for $250: http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=1972768&pr=3169392 Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 222 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 01:50 pm:    when I consulted, I used to remind my clients that I was not writing specifications as a hobby and that if they were not going to open the project manual during construction, that we could put a cover on a ream of paper and I could send them a bill. That usually got their attention. However, in Jerome's current issue, what I would do is make a sealed record copy of the project manual prepared the way he thinks he should be prepared, and then give an editable copy to his client, and invite them to make any and all changes that they see fit, including taking out the word "specifications". He is providing a document as an instrument of their service, after all. I would also decline any interpretive responsibility during construction, and send them a bill immediately. Some clients will do any fool thing to the documents, and that is their privilege; but a disclaimer and hold harmless would be in order. Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 206 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 02:36 pm:    "Sealed"-- as enclosed in a wrapper or locked into a read-only file? or "Sealed"-- as in having a professional registration seal impression applied? Advise strongly against the latter! Cost a bundle just to achieve a demurr out of the lawsuit! [and one is almost guarnteed] Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 182 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 03:01 pm:    On first glance, I read "an editable copy" as "an edible copy!" Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 44 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 03:33 pm:    We use Adobe PDFs to provide record copies of our documents (unofficially known around the office as the "I told you so" set). Our public sector clients want to make their own edits. We set up Acrobat to print to a file, then "print" each section and write to a CD. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 31 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 04:57 pm:    To Susan McClendon, Please foward your e-mail address and I will send you the newsletters I have on file talking about "Best Value Procurement" My e-mail address is wyancey@morrisonhershfield.com Wayne Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 223 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 07:43 pm:    by "sealed" I used to actually get a set of diskettes sealed into air-tight bags with a date marker on the seal -- it became a record set that I kept in case the client did something weird to the content, so that I could demonstrate what the document was when it left my office. That set got me out of a bunch of potential problems. I'm not an architect, so I can't professionally seal them. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 45 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 07:48 pm:    If you send them an edible copy, be sure to mark it prominently with a "Best if used by" date...