Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1200
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 06:55 am: |    |
100616
ARE SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE?
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Cincinnati, OH
Contrary to the thoughts of all too many people, the answer is a resounding-- NO!!!
In a way, it is far too mysterious to almost unfathomable, why specifications have continued to be the step-child of the contract documents. Why this is left to continue is equally perplexing-- perhaps it simply exhaustion from trying to rectify this thinking, or the fact that no one really, truly cares.
When the widely used AIA contract documents-- and most other contracts for construction-- utilize a phrase such as, “..........in accordance with drawings AND specifications.....” [ed. emphasis] how does one get away with anything from strictly ignoring to simple pooh-poohing the specs? The contractual obligations lie in compliance with both the drawings and specifications, so how do you literally remove one of the documents that are identified and legally included as one of the primary parameters of the contract and work required? The answer is; there is no penalty for such action!
It is not a misdemeanor, or a felony [until there is damage and injury, or violation of building/construction law]. Hence, the “battle” stridently prevails, project by project, for making the effort to have specifications not only given respect [you have to “earn” that, don’t you?] but also given full and proper utilization and observation.
If there is any cloud of non-compliance, is there a lack of enforcement that tacitly “allows” the specs to become irrelevant? Compliance many times comes only through enforcement, but so much in the mode of, “Ah ha, I caught you”!, as in the identification of some honest oversight, or work variation. In this, it behooves the contractor, and creates an onus to be fully aware of what is required-- and to ensure that such information always filters down to the hands-on trade workers.
The owner has placed confidence in both the design professional and the contractor to deliver the project according to the approved design [as expressed in the “drawings and specifications”]. The owner understands that payment is due for work that so complies and for the completed project meeting that criteria. Variations due to ignorance of provisions, or oversights are not permissible, but do need observation and remedy. Simply the owner can and does expect the project as designed and documented-- period! And the owners want what they must pay for!
As with any group of people, there is a vast array and range of abilities, skills, agendas, attitudes, practices, intentions and work ethics among contractors and their associated work force. Various influence and pressures also abound, since the work force must adjust its production and product to the contractors and their scheme of business. The point, here, is that this plethora of variations must be focused, directed and controlled specifically to the demands of each project and construction contract. Part of the control is seated in the drawings, the specifications, and the enforcement thereof.
Enter CSI! Instead of merely changing the name, why don’t we look further and make other changes?
First, let’s ask-- why is there no Construction Drawings Institute that is a parallel and direct counterpart of CSI? Second, doesn’t CSI have several drawing related documents in its collection? Uh….what if these, the related expertise and efforts are combined?
Despite the fact that there are a zillion standard details available [actually collection from professional offices, manufacturers, etc.], the process of producing drawings for a project is still a matter of using drafting skill [in any of many medias] to create various depictions of the specific project work situations. There is nothing, or at least far less, that can be carried from project to project-- unlike material, implement and equipment specifications.
But the fact that “making drawings” is not subject to any semblance of regimen like speculations [i.e., the CSI MasterFormat] does not make drawings a loose cannon-- even with a CAD Standard and procedure/standards manuals in almost every office]. Neither is it license to free-lance the work. So why are drawings followed-- fairly well-- and not ignored too?
The problem lies in the fact that many people within the construction industry have some training and background in drawing, drafting, and “blueprint reading”-- hence that are far more “graphics literate” than they are “specifications literate”. Combine that with the perceived threat from specifications [based on fear of words, and the added perception that specs are written to trip up and punish the users] and you have the basic cause for the easy dismissal of them. But without them and understanding of them and their content, we come to the often contentious [but needless!] situation we have on all too many projects today.
However, the individual act of disregarding or minimizing them, even if widely done by many people, does not create any basis for the concept of mutual exclusion-- i.e., if it's construction, forget the specs! The roots of specifications are too deep, too legally bound, too compelling, too mandatory, and far too valuable to be anything from merely [and summarily] ignored to pointedly excluded!
In fact, mutual INCLUSION is most appropriate-- like making this part of the “Construction Documents Institute”? Why not? Seems there are similar thoughts on the CSI- Construction Specifications Institute blog! |
4specs.com Home Page