Design Development Specs?

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 659 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:28 pm:    How do you guys write DD specs? As is stands now we put together a spec that consists mainly of Part 2. Then we have to reinvent the wheel by re-editing the final CD spec. Unlike drawings, specifying is a subtractive process. I also have a big issue with going from UniFormat on my PPD to MasterFormat on my DD and CD specs. I am not a big fan of SpecLink but can see a definite advantage in this instance. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 328 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:37 pm:    David: I do full length sections and produce about a 65% spec for DD. I think concentrating on part 2 is the wrong approach: in our business, the DD spec is often used for pricing and many of the things that cost money are in parts 1 and 3: testing, samples, mockups, in place testing, inspections and the degree of refinement required in the installation. I've been doing 3-part DD specs for 20 years because of how they are used. The contractor will get more paper than they are used to, but in many cases, we can avoid the "well, I didn't know that you were going to do THAT" response once we get into CDs. I think also that a "full" DD spec also forces people in the office to consider what they are actually doing on the project, and provides them with additional information. when I produce the spec, I use the full length MasterSpec sections, visibly leave in the unmade choices so that everyone knows that a particular issue is not resolved but that it IS is the project. I produce a DD spec that allows for the highest possible cost and then refine it from there for the final documents. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 337 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 01:39 pm:    I agree with Anne; I'm often told to "only edit Part 2" for DD's, but for the reasons Anne stated, that's not a good idea. I try to look at everything that will have an impact on the price. I usually try to make the DD spec as close to CD's as is possible with the information I have. And where I guess, I guess expensive (custom colors and the like) since DD's are often the base for GMP, whether I like it or not. I also have a problem going from PPD (I assume you mean schematic design, for which we use a narrative approach, similar to Uniformat) as there is little or no direct correlation. But the narrative is easier for both the architect and the client to comprehend, so I guess it's here to stay. We're working on converting to something very close to Uniformat, but that's a long time coming. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 51 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 02:21 pm:    Don't forget, in MS Word you can use the outline view to collapse a long form spec down to any level you want, and then if so desired expand back up to long form. This way a long form spec can be turned into a short form or an outline spec. Must be quite proficient with style formats though. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 201 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 02:33 pm:    In my experience, full specs at DD are a waste of time and paper. I agree with Anne's arguments, but in nearly all cases the response - if it comes at all - indicates the owners' only concern is correct spelling of their names. Contractors don't respond at all, and we still get the "I didn't know..." when they submit their final bid, or worse, during construction. As CDs develop, I usually end up rewriting many of the sections anyway, add things that weren't there at DD, and delete sections that are no longer needed (and add them back later when it is decided we really did need them). I prefer a Part 2 approach, though I do include requirements for mockups and testing, as they are significant cost items. I list products with plain-language descriptions (no ASTMs, no performance criteria), and specific manufacturer and model when we have a good idea what it will be. The response to this approach has been much better. It's shorter, therefore more likely to be read; the owner has at least a chance of reading and understanding it; and the contractors like to be able to price a specific product rather than try to guess what we're thinking about. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 329 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 03:06 pm:    Sheldon: we know the contractor doesn't fully read the specs, but having all that language in there has really saved us in some budget discussions further along in the project, especially with the niggly things that get overlooked: the wallboard finishing standard, the recessed setting bed for the floor tile; the mockup (always with the mockup). usually at about 90% the contractor is pushing for reductions in scope because of cost, and we usually have enough things in the spec that their argument doesn't hold water. They can't admit that they didn't see it in the specs (at least not in front of the owner) and end up having to provide somewhat close to what we intended. I'm not saying its a good strategy, but when our drawings are so un-developed, having a beefier spec has been our only salvation. Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 53 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 03:19 pm:    I sense that previous posts have been from differing points of view. When it is certain that a GMP is to be based on DD documents, a 100 percent spec (or as close as possible) is desirable if not necessary. As Anne said, to compensate for incompleteness of drawings -- because the DD documents are defacto contract documents no matter what else the contract says. On the other hand, if DD is just for the owner and estimators (i.e. no contractor on board yet), then Sheldon's model is more appropriate. As with many other spec issues, it's essential to understand the contractual conditions, especially if a fixed price is involved. In my mind, it comes down to "who is talking to whom?" and "where's the money?" Situations in between those extremes need to take the same two questions into consideration. What's the document for and how bad would it be if something got left out (or was overspecified)? (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:23 pm:    Russell - How does using MS Word in Outline View contribute in any way toward a streamlined, DD, document?? I can look at any full blown section in outline view, but the content is the same, just different in appearance. I am not understanding how using outline view reduces or in any other way helps to go from CD to DD, or the other way around, which is what your email seems to be suggesting. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 76 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 04:53 pm:    I have tried almost every permutation suggested above and I have decided I will do DD specs the way that they serve me best. We do a mix of government and private work, some with CMs giving a GMP and some where we are responsible for estimates at several stages in the process. We only do DD specs when it is a deliverable under our contract. In many cases, we do just a table of contents to show what we intend to produce. More and more, we publish to our FTP site instead of printing to share documents with other team members. I don't like doing work that gets thrown away as I move to the next phase. My preferred approach is to do the DD as an unfinished version of my final spec. I don't leave out the options until I have ruled them out, and I don't turn off parts. I want anyone who wants to look at them to see the choices that we still need to make. Does it waste paper? Perhaps, but it saves time, which is much more valuable. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 67 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 11:52 pm:    Unless specifically directed by the Owner to provide an Outline Spec, I will produce as full a spec as possible on the first shot. I agree with Anne that the "full" spec has saved us with pricing issues that CM's want to ignore when they give the Owner their "Guaranteed Maximum Price". Also, if I create a full spec, usually at least 75% of it is reuseable for the final. The outline gets trashed. As far as wasting paper is concerned, PDF files do not waste paper. PDF is how we are trying to issue all of our specs from now on. Faster production, no paper, no boxes, and no storage shelving. phil babinec Senior Member Username: pbabinec Post Number: 9 Registered: 09-2004 Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 04:13 pm:    As already discussed, there are a lot of versions and uses of a DD Spec. I find them helpful on a majority of projects. When doing a final budget analaysis, I don't spend anymore time on a project that used a DD Spec, and in the end, my final is probably a better coordinated version with the Drawings. I utilize DD to ask as many questions as it answers. It serves as a checklist during the CD Phase. PRM has a brief discussion concerning recommended Articles. I try to include is a brief system description that gets more indepth than the final but for a DD, often explains all that is required at that point. Part three is typically minimum, but I will list items that would affect cost, i.e. Level of Gypsum Finish or include a brief description again. In general I try to include items related to cost or quality particular to that project. Another tip I find useful is to include cutsheets of recommended or selected products. Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA Advanced Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 5 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 01:31 pm:    We use a narrative spec approach for Schematic Design. We are in the process of creating a very detailed "Basis of Design" narrative "Master" that can be edited by deletion. It covers the items for pricing that are very specific to our office design approach so that we can cover ourselves for "we didn't have that included" budget comments from the CM's. For DD, we are from the school that I see in some of the other comments, that we do not feel that it is effecient to develop full DD specs. What we advocate is providing a Table of Contents of the Sections that we expect to write and full Sections for items that are considered very critical/unique to the particular design or to particular Owner criteria/concerns - may be 4 to 6 architectural Sections or more depending on the project. T.J. Simons, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tsimons Post Number: 7 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 07:09 pm:    I have used a number of different approaches for DD level specs over the years, and I have settled on what's largely an Outline specification, with full-scope Sections for critical or complex building elements. This usually means full-scope Sections for roofing, curtain wall/storefront, wall systems such as GFRC, precast, EIFS, etc.,and conveying systems, with Outline Specification Sections for nearly everything else. For outline Sections requiring a specific product selection, we include cut sheets of the specified product or system bound in immediately following the particular Section. Thanks to the Internet, you can build a library of PDF cutsheets on products you specify frequently, and use it as a resource for future projects; very handy if you do a lot of the same building type. Our current structural consultant isn't tooled up to do Outline Specifications; I always get 3-part Sections from them at DD. I have yet to work with an MEP firm which does true outline specs; I usually don't want what they offer as a "DD spec", since it's typically an un-edited office master. I find that many of them are quite good at writing a systems narrative; that,along with cut sheets for major equipment and light fixtures, will usually suffice. A number of our Interior Design consultants use a similar approach. There is a lot of value in doing a full spec of some kind at DD; it forces some decisions that people would otherwise put off, and serves as a record of what we selected during that phase. Now, if I could just get everyone to read it...... Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 75 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 01:58 am:    A perspective from a Structural consultant; At DD we typically provide Part 2 with maybe a few additional items. During CD we then have to start editing from our master anew because it is not feasible to continue working with our DD documents since we would need to add back much of what was deleted.. The issues are time, training of staff, and lack of perceived problems. If a client is insistent that they want an Outline Spec we will attempt to do better. First since we do not have a DD master it can take considerable time to edit down our Master to an outline spec. It takes considerable less time to edit down to Part 2. Training of our staff is an issue since it is often the Project Engineer that edits this DD document. We do not have a dedicated specification writer. It would require significant time and effort to get our project engineers to the point where they could edit an Outline specification. Finally it is not clear how our current approach is causing problems. We never get feedback positive or negative regarding the DD specification. If the goal is to cover our selves then we should be including a version of the full section. In my opinion the amount of Detail in the DD specification is related to where you see the risks. The fact that the consultant often sees this differently often contributes to the difference in approach. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 166 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 27, 2006 - 11:16 pm:    It's interesting that we specifiers frequently cite the lack of owner review comments on DD specifications, implying that the specifier is not a participant in review presentations to the project team, while those who prepare drawings are more likely to participate in design review meetings. DD outline specs are valuable because they present proposed material selections and quality levels in a format that lends itself to brief but organized review. However, just pushing a document out there is seldom enough. A scheduled outline specification review meeting with stakeholders is necessary; if the team doesn't want to give it the time, maybe don't bother with the document. To determine what information should be in the DD outline spec, work backwards from the information needs of those who are using it. Talk to the estimator about the level of detail that is appropriate to their estimating methods. A full 10 page CD spec section may not provide any more cost estimating data than an outline spec can. Just issuing Part 2 fails to address some obvious cost issues thereby making that type of DD outline spec less than adequate for its intended purpose. Any special Part 1 and Part 3 items that affect cost should be included in the DD spec. I think it's useful to utilize a DD outline spec as a process document - not just as a "deliverable." Its preparation implies engaging the specifier and the project designer in an ongoing dialogue that is integral to the design process. If team members just think of a DD outline spec as something to be "typed up" once the designer has made all of the decisions, then the team loses the advantage of organizing and documenting the material selection process as the design evolves. The end result of devalueing the contribution of the specifier and the DD spec is often poorly coordinated CD documents. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 131 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 05:32 am:    For a great number of our projects and clients, the DD level documents are in fact used for pricing. In many instances, some clients insist on having their contractor commit to a GMP at DD level. More and more, we are seeing the owner's and contractor's expectations raised, and they now want a "final" spec at DD level. What no one seems to realize or account for is this: All the design decisions that are normally made, from early DD all the way to the time the CDs are complete, are accelerated and compressed into the relatively short DD Phase. And instead of taking two weeks, for example, to do a decent DD spec, the specifier would now really need maybe four weeks to do a final spec. Unfortunately, the design team is never given that extra time in the schedule, and what little time the specifier does have is spent managing what we call the total "document (or decision) dump" from the design team. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 204 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, April 28, 2006 - 04:30 pm:    In the words of a forensic engineer who spoke at a CSI convention a few years ago, when discussing most firms' adherence to the neat divisions between SD, DD, and CD: "Design stops at Substantial Completion."