"not approved" terms

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 506 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 01:14 pm:    Which are the most appropriate terms to use in specification to disqualify a product/procedure/material: "not approved", "not accepted", "not allowed", or "not permitted"? For example: "Masonry Cement: Not approved." "Grouting of Door Frames: Not accepted." "Galvanized Fasteners: Not allowed." "Field Mixing: Not permitted." Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 118 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 01:35 pm:    Oh Boy David,,, I'll bet you just opened another can of worms. It probably depends upon whether you're not approving / dis-allowing a "System" or an "Assembly" <grin>. Seriously, maybe it does? If left up to me, I would use "not permitted" when talking about construction activities like Grouting or Mixing. I'd use “not accepted" when talking about a product like Masonry Cement. Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 29 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 01:36 pm:    David, SpecLink uses "Not permitted". William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 463 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 01:40 pm:    I personnally use 'not permitted'. I think 'not allowed' is acceptable, but that is how I would rank their use in my opinion. 'Not approved' seems out of cycle. Approval relates to the submittal process. Its not that it is incorrect, it is just that its using the term of one cycle of the process in an differnent cycle. In the body of the specification you should not be trying to tell the contractor what you will no approve, but what you don't want him to consider doing before it gets to the approval process. The same is the way I look at 'not accepted'. Accepting, approving...connected to a submittal process which you want to avoid getting that far. As to whether you 'allow' (or not) an activity and 'permit' (or not) a product or item - I don't go that far down the root of the word. Plus, I personally like seeing the exact same phrase used for all situations consistently throughout the project manual. William (ps - if there seem to be typos in the above, my office has gotten very cold for some reason and my fingers are stiff -grin! I tried to fix as many as I noticed.) John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 396 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 01:41 pm:    I would use "not permitted", or perhaps a construction such as: "Do not grout door frames". Nathan Woods, CCCA Junior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 2 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 02:02 pm:    I fully agree with William Pegues comments regarding the terms "Not approved", "Not Accepted", etc.. for the same reasons. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CDT, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 59 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 02:06 pm:    How about "Not Acceptable"? Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 14 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 02:07 pm:    I prefer to just tell the Contractor to do or not do, use or not use such and such. I like to use “permit” otherwise. I think any of the words are fine. Intuitively, however, I think “approve” and “accept “ imply that there was a process or will be a process of approval or acceptance. Contractors might see it as an excuse to try to argue for approval or acceptance of something else. The word “permit” seems to imply that the issue is out of our hands because of some code, a government mandate, or unchangeable requirement by the owner. For that reason, it is stronger than the other words, which I suspect is why I like to use it. “Allow” has a snobbish aspect to it. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 51 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 02:32 pm:    David, Just thinking. Why not specify only what you want. Why specify what you do not want? If it is not in the spec it is "not permitted" unless your specs are so vague and ambigous that you turn over the choice or option to the contractor. If your steel metal frame spec does not specify grouted frames in parts 2 or 3 why bring up the subject? Wayne William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 464 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 02:43 pm:    Wayne, you have a good point. However, the reason that I do it is that there are a few specific items that just keep coming around that I have to drive a stake into them up front. For instance, in our practice, we don't want to see tile adhesively applied to walls, we want a latex modified set - even to drywall. In the mid 80s, I started seeing it show up on submittals. Even though it was never specified ever, and the application for walls gave the specific products we wanted. We kept getting back lame excuses that 'well, you did not say we couldn't use it'. Dumb response yes - its a menu, if its not on the menu its not avaiable to you. But it did not matter, it kept coming back. And then owner's kept getting into conflicts with the contractors because their response was then, 'well, it was priced based on tile adhesives so this is an extra.' That was always shot down, but its a hassle I did not want our owners to deal with, and so I started putting in "Tile adhesive: Not permitted" in part 2. And somewhat redundantly, in part 3 I have a paragraph that reads, "Adhesive application of tile to walls will not be permitted". Sometimes you need 2 stakes to kill the vampire. There are very very few items that we do this with. I can probably count them on 1 hand. Masonry cement is another, and in conjunction with our structural engineers batch plant on site for concrete is not permitted except on those jobs where they permit it. As I think of it, those may be the only 3 times I do have this phrase in the spec....oh - and under coordination drawings and shop drawings it states that reproductions of contractor documents will not be permitted to be used. There, that's it. The only exclusions. I am sure that others in specific other regions may have a different set, and I am sure its probably fairly limited and due to a similar situation. William William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 465 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 02:46 pm:    oh - make that '...reproductions of CONTRACT drawings...'. My hands are still freezing and sluggish. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 63 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 02:57 pm:    And then there is Murphy's Law. Hey William, I could have used some of that cold down here last weekend! Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 132 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 02:59 pm:    We had several contractors who told us that they wanted to use masking tape when taping gypsum board seams (and there was one contractor that had already started to do so until our CA guy found it), even though we identify the product as paper reinforcing tape ... so our master now specifically says that masking tape is not acceptable. I would have to think that every firm has something similar based on their past project history. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 57 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 03:09 pm:    David, I'm still trying to absorb all the assembly/system comments, but here goes... Approve submittals, accept substitutions. Or reject them. I'd keep all three verbs out of the product/execution spec. They seem more suited to CA functions. I prefer "not permitted" over "not allowed". Or use "prohibited". In theory, I agree with Wayne that you only specify what you want, but in reality there are probably limited times you want to exclude. I agree with William that these instances should be very limited. Seems to me there was another thread about this topic, right? "Unacceptable Manufacturers"??? Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 88 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 03:14 pm:    Try 'okay' and 'no'. (I am smiling when I suggest this) Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 64 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 04:32 pm:    I tend to write, "Organic adhesives shall not be used" (since one could conceivably argue that anything used to adhere tile, including thinset mortar, is an adhesive.) For some reason, even though I usually eschew "shelby-style" specs, I prefer this wording to the more straightforward, "Do not use organic adhesives" or "Organic adhesives are not permitted." Two other things often specifically proscribed are knock-down HM frames and vinyl base (as opposed to vulcanized rubber). David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 507 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 04:47 pm:    I like to take the Nancy Regan approach and just say no. That way there is no argument over whether a product is allowed because you specifically did not say to not use it (double negative = positive). No means no. End of story. Sometimes we run into a situation where something is allowed by building code (lowest common demominator) yet we still don't want it. (For example with the UBC we specifically prohibited wire glass even though it was allowed by Code.) Other instances occur when you are doing a design-build or performance spec. You may not get too nitty gritty about the details but have in mind what you don't want on the project. I don't see how it could be possible to write a project manual without telling the contactor what you don't want to see on the project. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 151 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 05:02 pm:    how about a stamp: thumbs up for yeah, thumbs down for neay! You know, I think I had a set of stamps like that around here some where...but where could it be? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 52 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 05:12 pm:    David and others, I sometimes wear my ski instructors hat when it comes to some issues. It is not good to tell athletes what not to do. I puts negative thoughts into their brains when learning something new. Negative reinforcment. As I said, I was just thinking and I spawned 8 responses. I also use the phrase "not permitted" for all of the above lessons learned. I particulary like the masking tape (blue or tan?) for gypsum board taping and the stakes through the heart. I love to check the "NOT APPROVED" box in the Request for Substitutions form. William the Vampire Slayer, I am thinking of becoming Wayne the Imapler. Walliam, do you threaten back charges to the contractor that regurgitates your own details back at you as his/her shop dwg submittal? Wayne the Impaler William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 466 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 05:21 pm:    But Wayne, the Impaler was a Vampire - be careful, or do we have to figure out how all this relates to Buffy and Angle and those tv series -grin! No, we don't threaten back charges - we just return them unreviewed. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 58 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 05:25 pm:    <<<I don't see how it could be possible to write a project manual without telling the contactor what you don't want to see on the project.>>> ...but that is because the contractor KNOWS better than you, right? He's always put wire glass in those stairway doors, so you have to tell him NOT to do it, because he is probably not reading your specs carefully enough, if at all. Example from the past: years ago I did a small project converting a single family house to a group home. My drawings showed the new front door swinging out. Got to the jobsite one day, and sure enough the door swung into the house. Dumb architect, I shoulda known that ALL residential doors swing in, especially when the contractor buys them from the local retail building supply store. I could have avoided the argument at the jobsite with a huge plan note: "Don’t swing this door in. It REALLY DOES swing out just like I have it shown. I’m NOT kidding." In principle, I don’t like the idea of contract documents containing “thou shalt nots”. But I guess when we get burned enough, a few “don’ts” can save time and money later. Still, it is the bidder/contractor’s responsibility to read the documents and to understand their intent. Our list of don’ts might be better served as a topic for pre-bid/pre-construction meetings, where my facetious plan note above might have taken the form of “Please note that this project involves a change of use. Those of you used to traditional residential construction should note the following….” David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 508 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 06:26 pm:    Okay, all of you that are against "negative" specifying will have to remove the words "Not Used" next to the Part or Division number. Just leave it blank or empty. The contractor will just infer that there are no sections under the listed Division or no spec information under the Part. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 91 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 06:34 pm:    We use ' - '. So there. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 510 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 07:23 pm:    If you don't tell the contractor what you specifically don't want, you can get stuck endlessly reviewing substitution requests and wasting everyone's time. A simple sentence would have put the subject to bed once and for all. "No that is not what we are looking for." "Nope that's not it." "No that's not that it either." "No but keep trying." "No, but you are so close." "You are getting warmer." "Oooh, you almost had it this time." John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 224 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:10 am:    I prefer "not acceptable." There are many projects where the design professional's involvement during construction is nil. Sometimes it's because the construction manager/owner's representative/contracting officer doesn't want the design professional around. Sometimes the design professional doesn't want to be on the jobsite but prefers to be back in the office doing "architecture" or "engineering." (Personally, with a few decades of construction contract administration experience, I think it's irresponsible if not unethical for a design professional to not be very actively involved during construction.) In such a passive situation, "not acceptable" expresses the design intent of the architect or engineer, in the form of a contractually-enforceable requirement. It also puts the quality assurance and quality control personnel in a position to reject non-conforming work as being contrary to the specifications which are the basis of the construction contract and the building permit. I think it also makes it clear that non-conforming construction is not the design that the architect or engineer has produced, under the seal and signature (license) of the responsible design professional. I think the alternative terms --- such as will not be permitted/approved --- imply that the architect or engineer will be actively involved during construction and will act as an enforcer of the requirements of the contract documents. As author of the specifications, I think it would be difficult for an architect or engineer to argue that they do not control construction, when terms such as "permit" or "approve" are used. And the little ideas of "permit" or "approve" expose the architect or engineer to a whole lot of risk regarding jobsite safety. ("How can you claim that you had no responsibility for means, methods, techniques and sequences of construction when your specifications indicate that you would approve the way the work was performed?") Trying to come up with more and more words to prevent errors and deviations is not productive. You can't make drawings and specifications foolproof. Fools are too innovative. They'll beat us rational types everytime. Somehow we must specify construction in affirmative terms and minimize negatives. I don't think negatives can be completely avoided, however. It's how we express the negatives that's the challenge. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 154 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:33 am:    If the contractor submits information for a product that does not comply with the specifications, it can and should be rejected. Contractors may argue, but they have nothing to stand on. If you rely on "not permitted", you must have an exhaustive list, or you will keep adding to it. You may start with "Adhesive not permitted" but what about rubber cement? A few steps down the line, you're at "Rubber cement not permitted. White glue not permitted. Saliva not permitted..." When you get done listing all the things that are not permitted, you'll realize that a shorter way to say it is "Nothing else is permitted" which is where you started - specifying what you do want. Which is, after all, the whole point of specifications. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 467 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:44 am:    Sheldon, That's the obvious logic. However, i think you can see that many here have specific situations that are very few for any given office and that using the phrase seems to solve the problem. Yes, its a menu from which you must choose from only what is there. We have found that our extremely limited use of this phrase has solved the problem and killed thsoe issues. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 65 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:56 am:    Remember, even some restaurant menus say "No substitutions"! J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 117 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:10 pm:    Whenever I see a very specific requirement in a specification, an employee handbook, or a college catalog, I always wonder "What kind of bozo did something to elicit this response?" Unless someone does some radical housecleaning every so often, the "rule book" becomes so cluttered with very specific prohibitions that it is unmanageable. I would suggest not overreacting to a single situation (although I can well imagine a set of circumstances arising to which almost no no action would be seen as overreaction). When you begin to see a trend, stick something in, but review it in a few years to see if it is still needed. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 93 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:17 pm:    I agree with Mr. J. Peter. Reactive behavior produces a lot of the weirdness (ie: non-common-sensical situations) we see in construction. Somebody get me a thesaurus. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 511 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:41 pm:    Okay let me take another approach. Let's talk about another type of specification. How many of you have rented a house/apartment or rented one out? Why do standard lease agreements say the following? "Pets: Not permitted." Shouldn't the leasee be able to reasonably infer that since pets were not mentioned in the body of lease they are not allowed? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 512 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 12:53 pm:    Here's another one. "Smoking and use of tobacco products on job site: Not permitted." Are you going to try to convince the contractor that he/she can not smoke or chew tobacco on the job site because you did not give him/her permission to do so in the specifications? Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 42 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 01:25 pm:    Ah! The subtle difference between a rule and a requirement. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 53 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 04:10 pm:    David, If smokless tobacco is OK on the job site, be sure to include the requirement for the GC to provide "spitoons" (solid brass or colored plastic) in Division 01 to collect the brown byproduct for use as a construction adhesive, unless you have specified "NOT PERMITTED" somewhere in the spec that "Spitoon Adhesive: Not permitted." Wayne Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 155 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 04:15 pm:    When you specify a product, you are specifying what you want. When you prohibit smoking or pets, you are still specifying what you want - the absence of a specified thing. Both describe the intended result in the most efficient manner. To prevent smoking, you would not specify "On site activities: Walking, talking, breathing, eating, thinking, etc., etc." and list everything except smoking, any more than you should prohibit the use of everything except the product you want. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 66 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 04:21 pm:    A school district in this area requires that specs specifically prohibit loud music and "boom boxes" on the job site (as well as other no-nos such as smoking). David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 513 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 04:41 pm:    Here is another one. How do you specify "Substititions: Not allowed."? Do you just say nothing in the specs and just hope that the contractor does not submit any substition requests? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 118 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 05:06 pm:    I believe that it is unreasonable to specify "no substitutions." There are always circumstances beyond the control of anyone related to the project that require the use of substitutions. such as product no longer being offered or product no longer comply with current regulations. If the specification is proprietary, the product could have been discontinued or the manufacturer gone out of business. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 469 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 05:09 pm:    Not only that, Peter, but you can't block substitutions anyway. The contractor can always go directly to the Owner with anythng. Then if you have failed to specify how a substitution is handled, documented, and how the criteria is match with the specified items, then you get to deal with it however the contractor presents it. Substitutions are not a good example. William Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 54 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 05:36 pm:    William, You are so right. When the GC does an end around the A/E to the Owner with attractive $$$ saving, the process is compromised. How many times have you provided indisputable technical reasons to the Owner to not take the risk? First cost invariably trumps risk. Not always, but enough to make us cynical curmudgeons. You have done your due diligence and your duty on bahalf of your client. Wayne George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 59 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 05:46 pm:    Okay, here is a question.... is there a fundamental difference between not allowing a product and not allowing an action? "No smoking" (an action) seems different to me than "No Acme Locksets". It makes sense in many cases to prohibit an activity - no explosives in demolition - because as Sheldon says, you are specifying one thing, even in the negative, instead of a positive listing of a lot of things that are permitted. With products, you positively list what is permitted, because the list of things you want is shorter than what you don't want. Maybe the core issue is not negative vs. positive, but concise finite lists vs. long potentially infitine ones? And re: Wayne's spitoon comment, I am sure there is a LEED credit somewhere for recycled tobacco spittle. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 515 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 05:58 pm:    No substitutions? Huh? What? Have I wandered into the wrong forum? So what do I do about my University Owner that has the same brand cylinders for all locks on every building on campus and an entire locksmith shop devoted to maintaining those locks? They only want Medeco cylinders.....no subsitutions. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 470 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 06:03 pm:    The contractor is always free to propose anything he wants to propose. The owner is the only one that can give him an emphatic no. In the case of the locks, the owner has a very good reason that he may be willing to pay more. You can say no, but you can't prevent the contractor for proposing a substitution to the owner. William Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 94 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 06:27 pm:    David, That's technically a 'limited source waiver', and hasn't really got anything to do with 'substitution'. The contractor is to comply with the waiver the client has produced. The client has to produce this (in Washington state) in concert with statutory requirements. You'll know if you have one because it's a pain in the @$$. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 43 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 06:30 pm:    There is a difference between mandating materials and quality to go into the construction and communicating the Owner's wishes for a properly controlled and behaved project site. Things versus actions. There are some actions taken by some contractors that can get an Owner in trouble. Oogling women, loud music in residential areas, fire hazards caused by burning debris in 55 gal containers, etc. The contractor must be told that these behaviors are unacceptable. Whether that occurs in Division 1, the Supplementary Conditions or the Contract is certainly debatable, but the bottom line is the Contractor must be told "NO". However, with regard to "things", materials and products to be used in the building, limiting the negatives is absolutely necessary. As stated before, where do you stop? The documents say what is acceptable, the rest is construction administration. The "Not alloweds" should be kept to a minimum and usually for situations that occurred and caused problems. But, as stated before, these have to be reviewed periodically. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 128 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 06:54 pm:    Another reason for limiting the use of negatives for "things", is that if the use of negatives is extensive, the lack of a negative could imply that "anything goes". Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 67 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 06:54 pm:    I don't recall hearing of a "limited source waiver" (the laws here in Texas may not be as explicit as in Washington, Massachusetts, etc.), but we do on occasion include the words "No Substitutions" in specs. Hardware consultants often put it in all caps, especially when it's an owner-mandated requirement, such as a proprietary cylinder core. Come to think of it, most of the "No Substitutions" instances I can think of have been owner-driven, including such things as brand-name coating systems, a specific brick (to match existing), etc. Might it be instructive to come up with a list of frequently-proscribed activities and products? We've already got a good start... Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 68 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 07:26 pm:    Things often "prohibited" or "not permitted": Smoking, tobacco, alcohol & illegal drug use Loud music and boom boxes Burning trash and debris on site Blasting/explosives Storage, display and sale of salvaged items on site Copying contract drawings for use as shop drawings Products containing asbestos, lead, mercury, dioxin, biphenyls, etc. Fly ash Masonry cement Galvanized flashing/fasteners Knock-down frames Vinyl base Organic adhesives What's next? Masking tape (drywall)? Wire glass? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 198 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 11:10 am:    For those who attended the CSI show and heard Gerald Katz give the presentation on "How the Courts Interpret Specifications"(he'll be giving a similar presentation at the Construction Specifications Academy), you'll recall that one of the key points was "specifics control general." The material/product requirements, which establish the salient characteristics, would be considered the "general." Whereas, any exclusions (i.e. "not approved," "not acceptable," "not permitted," etc.) would be considered the "specific." From what I'm reading, most of these "not permitted" items probably wouldn't have met the requirements of the specifications in the first place, supporting Sheldon's position. As I see it, the specific should be an extension of the general. For example, the specifics, or "not permitted" items, should only be listed if they do meet the requirements but are not acceptable for reasons of poor past performance, high maintenance experience, etc. If the product/material doesn't meet the specifications, reject it...period.