Specifications are not necessary for ...

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

Author Message Frustrated (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 04:17 pm:    Did you know that a principal-in-charge is required? Did you know that a lead project architect is required? Did you know that a project architect is required? Did you know that an interior designer is required? a construction administrator is required? a civil consultant is required? a structural engineer is required? an audio/visual, acoustical consultant is required? a landscape consultant is required? a food service consultant is required? an MEP engineer is required? a general contractor is required? a photographer? An award certificate was hung in our office on a recent project identifying all of the above. But, specifications are evidently not required for an award-winning project. We ARE the Rodney Dangerfield of the profession. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 215 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, May 05, 2006 - 11:05 pm:    Nor is the legal representative, insurer, title insurer, surveyor, etc. Frustrated, Recognition is accompanied by a whole bunch of other problems. Thankfully, there are still places in the design professions where good people can do good work with fewer people-problems, good pay, healthy working conditions, and plenty of options. Fisher-(people) don't write books showing maps to their best fishing holes. Please consider leaving a good thing alone. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 96 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 12:13 am:    However we fisher-folk (specifiers) do need to spread the wealth and teach younger folk where the fishing holes are (about specifications writing) or that knowledge will be lost or corrupted. Face it we are a graying population, and need to train those coming behind us. Even if we aren't always appreciated in public. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 168 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Saturday, May 06, 2006 - 04:55 pm:    We also need to let firm leadership know that we expect the same professional respect and recognition extended to other members of the design team. If it isn't forthcoming, ask the admins for some empty boxes. There are other opportunities offering specifiers more than just warm feelings. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 371 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 06:55 am:    Neither the drawings, nor the specs, alone, can produce projects: it is the inseparable, coordinated combination that does produce projects. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 373 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 07:46 am:    Frustrated UG, I am not sure what your true source of frustration may be, but your hypothesis is wrong, I feel-- NONE of the people you noted "are required"!!!! You can "draw a plan" on your kitchen table with a ruler and pencil and with enough information get a building permit and build the project. The problem is that process is fraught with pitfalls, from technical to legal problems to insurance, lending and safety issues. I've attached a piece that may not shed muich light but it does serve to show that, while quite frustatred, specification writers muddle on, professionally dedicated and driven to produce good documents for their projects, IN SPITE of even all others [even some in their own office]. Come the day of true reckoning, in a court room, it is the specs that will be reached for, FIRST and FOREMOST. No specs?---- Big Risk!!! Read on FORGET THE SPECS ! by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Cincinnati, OH Two very divergent groups like to use this phrase when addressing the Contract Documents for a construction project. One group is the homebuilders. In reality the vast majority of houses are not designed by an Architect or other professional, but are selected from a vast store of “house plans”, available through magazines or from home pre-fabrication plants, lumber yards, or home centers. Mainly the documents are “stock “ plans, which require re-working to make them specific to a given site, and possibly some minor interior re-work to adapt to the new owners wishes. With the drawings there may or may not be a basic materials list or a bill of materials. Neither approaches a specification, per se, but rather merely indicate what material was in mind when the drawings were done, and/or what quantity of materials is required to build the house. This is very helpful in estimating the cost. Home building for other than the up-scale, unique and quite expensive house is usually accomplished through a very unusual arrangement. The new owners enter into a contract with the homebuilder, and literally place themselves totally in the hands of the builder. All too often the ideas and agenda of the two do not match and the owners move into a new house that does not meet their desires and for which they decry the money paid-- i.e., we didn’t get what we wanted and contracted for. In every place where the home owners are shutout of making decisions about both material and workmanship, the control of the project lies totally with the builder, who is quite free to do as he or she pleases. Decisions that really should be made by the new owners are made instead by the builder. So, in essence, the final project is the contractor’s, and not the owner’s. This is an on-going, often hidden, and much-maligned situation. In this situation, because there usually is no set of specifications, fairly straightforward work like bricklaying can use the right brick [that selected by the owner], but can be accomplished with no guidance, paymasters or requirements for the quality of the work, the appearance or durability. Words like “level", "plumb", "square", "true-to-plane", and "true-to-line", do not exist and hence are not operable on the project. Although the owner gets the brick desired, there is a good chance it is not as correct or appealing to the eye as expected. The owner then has no recourse. With no specifications, and no measure of the work, the owner is usually “stuck” with a take-it-or-leave-it situation, or is given the most common explanation of “that’s the way we do it all he time”. And "they" do it wrong or badly ALL the time! The second group is a wide-ranging one from fairly modest clients to large corporations. They share a collective thought that specifications are needless documents, serve no real purpose on the project, and merely are an added and unnecessary cost in the fee paid to the professional for their production. This perspective of cost-cutting is so instilled that the counter arguments that point out the loss of control over the work, the loss of legal recourse, and the lack of definitive information necessary for the faithful and correct construction of the project are marginalized, ignored, or simply overlooked. Too often the view is taken that the vast minutia of the project requirements can be enforced by sheer force of will, status or prestige of the owner. Such a view, since it operates outside contractual bounds, leads directly—and frequently—to conflict, confrontation, claims, and disputes, up to and eventually including litigation. And all that may be forestalled by having well-founded and well-coordinated documents in effect. In large part, this group does not understand or tends to minimize the concept of supplementary and complementary documents-- the common relationship of Contract Drawings and Specifications. There is a lack of regard for, or a misunderstanding of the premise that some things are better written out than depicted, and vice versa. Some companies and corporations instruct their outside professionals to use the “standards” the corporation has in effect. Here, in this age where central engineering functions have been abandoned [for cost cutting measures] these standards often are obsolete, out of date, or needlessly parochial. Further, they are, more times than not, not in specification format or language, and at best can be used [in part] as input to Part 2 of specification Sections. They usually lack the general and execution aspects of the work. So, again, while the materials selected may be valid [for the sake of plant or system wide use] and for products the client is quite specific about, there is no background, or back-up to ensure proper, correct and quality use of those products. The result is that the client/owner is left exposed and without real recourse in handling the smallest of items, much less the horrors of litigation [where things get far out of hand]. Perhaps the perception is that the situations are easily resolved if enough money is thrown at them, and, in the case of large corporations, the money amount is inconsequentially small. Construction, though, should not be allowed to degenerate into a “push-and shove" contest, where the might of one party is pitted against others. A relatively small subcontractor should not be exposed to ridicule, and less than full payments of extremes of opinions about the work, when in fact, there is no specific indicator or information about the work, the processing of it, or the results required/intended. No result in construction should be left open-ended and so undefined that only a clash of opinions becomes the sole source of resolution! While these two groups have a similar perspective, in regard to specifications, the lack of those documents “plays” quite differently for the groups. Homebuilding is a two-party situation-- the builder and the new homeowner. In effect the builder is creating a new “product” which the owner has agreed to purchase. Just as with any product manufacturer, the builder has direct control over materials used, methodology, etc., with the client/owner only looking at a finished product. The owner has virtually no control over the project or the progression of work. The vast majority of single-family houses are not professionally designed, and so there is no third party oversight or measures over the project. An owner may not like some work that occurs but has little if any standing to complain-- the builder has the sole responsibility to create the “product” as he/she sees fit. The owner has a very small part in this process, via selection of some materials, some colors, some features, but nothing that comes anywhere close to the project control exercised by non-residential owners. Faced with too many owner complaints, the builder will merely offer to “buy the house back”, as a remedy to the situation. Homebuilders, in all fairness to their clientele really need to provide more information about the products to be used, and the quality of workmanship to be utilized in their work. The problem comes in the fact that the builders have no onus on them to meet any quality control-- what they propose to the new owners can be delivered without any scrutiny, so long as it is not “falling down” faulty. For example, many houses use brick veneer facing on the exterior walls. The brick is non-structural and is really only a cosmetic facing. So does it really make any difference it is not well executed [out of plumb and level; random joint widths; irregular in alignment, etc] ? Owners may not like it and may complain, but the builders may well justify it as “the way it is always done”. The only document relating to the brickwork, that the owner may receive from the builder, is a note on a bill of materials that says, “Brick selected by Owner, maximum $200/thousand”. Nothing in regard to workmanship or quality. This is a serious and continual source of irritation to new owners [who unfortunately expect “perfection”] in their newly acquire residence. There is no impetus or attempt to bring these issues closer together, much less to fully resolve them. Builders in addition “flirt” too often with the building and other construction codes. They, in most cases, do not like to be controlled at all, much less regulated even at a minimal safety level, although even in their self-proclaimed success they do not always meet their clients expectations. Many builders try hard to make the remedial changes and approach full satisfaction, but too many builders choose other methods. Within the second group of major commercial and industrial owners, the perception of major cost reductions by eliminating specifications needs to be addressed as highly risky myth. While difficult to quantify, the value and benefit of specifications can be linked to insurance information, risk management, quality control, and value given for dollar spent. There is a distinct and unresolvable gap on construction projects where even the most prestigious client will spend far too much money to solve a situation that could easily have been avoided via good specifications. Design professionals need to discuss their deliverables with their clients and attempt to gain full understanding and confidence in what they produce as being fully in the very best interest of the client—big “hitter” or not. Specs are not some type of mystical process or writings, but rather are directly linked ancillary documents to the drawings-- literally one cannot do the job without the other!! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 355 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 08:59 am:    I'm involved in creating a set of "Master" specifications for a client right now. They want them for use on all future projects as they remodel spaces and areas of their buildings. The process began with 2 very small remodelings, for which the client chose not to have specifications, against the suggestion of our Project Architect. The ensuing chaos and shoddy work, which, because there were no specifications, left the client/Owner with no recourse, convinced them that subsequent projects would have specifications. We are now on our 6th and 7th projects with more in the future. These all have specs and we are building the Master as we go, which includes the Owner's standards for materials and finishes. Nothing teaches like experience. Joseph Berchenko Senior Member Username: josephberchenko Post Number: 8 Registered: 08-2003 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 12:53 pm:    I contend that all new commercial building projects come with a project manual...it may not be well-written, but other than for a single-family-residence, all the architectural offices with which I am familiar produce some sort of project manual for their projects. Even the one or two person offices try to get something on paper. Is this true in your area of the country? I have been told I'm way over-estimating the number of projects that have project manuals. What would you say is the percentage of new commercial projects in your area that come with a project manual? Let's say only those new projects big enough to require a professional seal. I'm guessing it's still 95 percent... Niki Koplowitz Senior Member Username: nikitk Post Number: 10 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 01:52 pm:    My aunt recently experienced the joys of residential homebuilding. She actually had an architect; however, there were no specifications - and a great many problems. By the time I had a chance to give any advice, the house was half-erected and it was rather late to do much, besides advise them to have the contractor store the structural lumber somewhere other than directly on the wet, marshy ground... hmmm, I guess that Part I section on Storage and Handling does have a use after all... I think part of the problem was that the contractor was recommended by the architect. Is this a normal practice? It seemed rather suspect to me. I'm not sure it constitutes a direct conflict of interest, but... anyone? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 515 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 02:34 pm:    Our office does various small renovations projects for private commercial clients. They often use drawings notes that fit on a single sheet that substitute for specs. These are more or less product listings with some minimal elaboration. This would be limited to projects costing under $500K. This is as close as we get to no specs. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 665 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 02:45 pm:    I wish I could find the exact quote from Mahatama Gandhi but it went something like this: "There are two types of people in the world; those that do the work and those that get the credit. Of the two groups, try to be in the first group because there is a lot less competition." Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 250 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 02:50 pm:    Mark Twain: "There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded." Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 357 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 03:01 pm:    My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there. Indira Gandhi (1917 - 1984) Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 374 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, May 08, 2006 - 03:09 pm:    I sense increasing constructive unrest in the first group! Hooray!!! Jim Brittell Senior Member Username: jwbrittell Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 09, 2006 - 02:51 pm:    Niki, In my past I worked for a small firm that did custom residential work. We provided recommendations on contractors when asked by the client. The GCs we recommended were firms that we knew had done good work in the past. In these cases, the owner will typically ask the GC for references and check them out. Since the owner has a separate agreement with the contractor, there really isn't any conflict of interest - its more like an informal prequalification process.