Government specs

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

Author Message Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 111 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 11:14 am:    Has anyone used SpecsIntact? What problems did you encounter? What caveats or warnings can you share? David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 33 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 06:24 pm:    Lynn, The new Windows XML version is much better than the previous Dos version, but the entire concept of how SpecsIntact works is still somewhat abstract. My advice is to print out all the instruction manuals and Quick Start Guides, and read them thoroughly. Then call for support for further questions. I had most of my problems setting up the system. It was difficult to decide where to locate the files, and how they were related to each other. I had to start over several times until I got them where I wanted them. Then, if you don't find two critical sections automatically placed in the SpecsIntact folder, you haven't set it up correctly, and have to start over again. I haven't tried to create any reports or reconciliations yet, but that may prove to be another backbreaker if the original UFGS files were not properly prepared by the government. Another problem I haven't faced yet is creating new sections when they don't exist in UFGS. You have to tag every paragraph and special feature with XML tags. I think it will take a bit of a learning curve. Remember that you cannot print out a complete Table of Contents until all sections are in place. Also, everytime you print a file, it creates a PRN file and wipes out all previous PRN files. It helps to have a fast computer. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 13 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 08:03 am:    I used SpecsIntact several years ago on one project for a client. The frustration level resulted in me telling that client that I would not be doing anymore projects with them involving that system. I still work with the client, and they struggle on their own for their Corps of Engineers projects. Yeah, I know I am picky and lazy, lol Glad to hear it has improved. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 11:18 am:    Lynn: I think you will find the folks at NASA are very helpful in working through the problems. They do provide good support so call down there and ask a few questions so you get to know them. If you are a Windows user you have to get use to the idea of using codes. I found the DOS version provided adequate views of the codes. I am not sure how the Windows version works. It is very important that you begin and end codes in the proper manner. It is too easy to look at it as just word processing. So turn on the codes and look carefully at how they are set up in the master and what functions they provide. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 11:25 am:    There is at least one private company that will train in SpecsIntact. Some COE districts have additional instructional documents, albeit some that is specific to their district's requirements. If you are familiar with XML tagging, you'll better understand how to fix the editing/inputting errors (which you undoubtedbly will have); otherwise, like David says the learning curve is a little more steep. One word of advice when editing SI sections, is save after every little edit...at least in the beginning; that way you can narrow down errors to a short list. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 112 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 12:00 pm:    Thanks so much, you guys. Your insight has been very helpful. I attended the session at the convention on Government specs, and the one tip I wrote down on SpecsIntact was to double the fee. I'm beginning to see why. Unfortunately, there was no hand-out for that session, so all I have are my notes. And since I didn't know that I would be needing more information about SpecsIntact, I didn't take extensive notes nor did I ask questions about it. This information will be valuable when we put together our proposal. ("guys", by the way, is bi-gender - our girl scout troop decided that back in the '70's) Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 95 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 02:25 pm:    Lynn: my experience with SpecsIntact is several years old, and is not the XML version, but I have several observations, one of which that when I hired on to the firm I work with now, I put in my employement contract that I would never do a SpecsIntact project again. My last job using that software, I actually LOST fee --- and I had a doubled fee to begin with. The most frustrating thing from my perspective is that that correction process was not predictable: I would make changes, and some would "take" and some would not. I did call to Florida for help, regularly -- and from the west coast, that meant I had about a 2 hour window each day that was useable. There were some files that were so unusable that I would send them complete to Florida (the help desk) and have them untangle the files... and even they had problems. When I complained about SpecsIntact to my contracting officer, he said "oh we never use that thing-- its too complicated." However, that did not relieve me from my contractually obligated responsibility to use it. If there is a person in your area who is experienced in using SpecsIntact I would recommend subcontracting with them to do your word processing for you and running the reports -- I finally ended up doing that and it was well worth the fee I paid her to do that for me -- the learning curve on one project is simply too high to be absorbed into one project fee. on the other hand, if you plan on doing this a lot... well, just be assured that you will probably not make money on the first job, but might make it up on future projects. If you don't anticipate doing more SpecsIntact projects, I would advise you to hire someone to help with the production and you spend your time doing the actual technical spec writing stuff. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 34 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 07:48 pm:    In the last three years, as an "in-house" specifier, I have used SpecsIntact for a dozen or so Army and Navy jobs in four states, and can vouch for the accuracy of most of the comments above. Though the (old) User's Guide is awful (definitely not user-friendly, perhaps even counter-productive; don't bother), the newer "QuickStart" manual is pretty helpful. Yes, it's not an easy program to learn (initial setup can be particularly frustrating), though it may be easier for someone familiar with the embedded tags or codes of HTML or WordPerfect, which seem to work in a similar way. However, when used correctly, it's a pretty good program, with some unique quality control checks built in through the embedded tags that give its sections their "built-in intelligence," and it works quite well. And, since the master sections are developed by the government, they are pre-edited for appropriateness to a substantial degree. Both the software and the master sections and regular updates are downloadable free of charge, and the technical support is expert, patient, helpful and free as well (though not toll-free, except via e-mail). The support staff will gladly walk you through initial set-up; call for help after you give up, or just ask for it in the first place... Some of our engineering consultants are still struggling with it, and may well be for a long time, possibly because they rely on manual markup, appearing to know and care virtually nothing about how the program really works, and relegating the processing on the computer to a "secretarial" function. Though SpecsIntact actually lends itself to on-screen hands-on editing by experienced architects, engineers and other specifiers, those who use it have to know what they're doing, and, as has been noted, the learning curve is fairly long and steep. (Disclosure: I do SpecsIntact (and SpecLink) specs on a consulting basis, through my employer, for other firms. If anyone is interested in outsourcing SpecsIntact, I would be glad to discuss that off-forum.) Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 57 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 07:30 pm:    I just stumbled onto this thread. I use SpecsIntact a lot now for our federal projects studio. The software continues to improve. 2 things I do that help a LOT: 1. Turn on tags when editing (turn OFF the distracting mess when reading though) 2. Save often (anon from 6/23/04 is right!), or or check validity. To check without saving, press Alt, T, V. This way you have the option of tossing a few changes since the last save if you get several validation errors, and you remember what you changed and just want to turn back the clock a bit. The UFGS is really on top of things with easy software and master updates now. And they've made MF04 the standard, so you have to actually convert backwards for projects still using the old numbers. Wendel Chamberlin (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 18, 2011 - 11:01 am:    I am searching the SI and UFGS and Curt Norton reminded me of this old thread. See discussion in SCIP discussion group on LinkedIn Regards, WC LinkedIn Curtis Norton, CSI, CCS has sent you a message. Date: 4/10/2011 Subject: RE: SpecsIntact/WBDG Wendel, I know that Ron Lindow at Flad knows it. There is an old post from 4specs with some dicussion that identifies a few users too. http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/430/1107.html sheri miller (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 23, 2016 - 01:44 am:    I've worked with specsintact for several years. Just wanted to say if the .sec files are converted to word files, Engineers are able to utilize word and edit w/tracking turned on. They can hand over to processor to complete edits in .sec files, run reports and complete job with less effort. I have recently been laid off work so am available to do SI work and am highly skilled with this software. I have been thru 2 different training sessions throughout the yrars.