Archive through June 19, 2006

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

Author Message Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 52 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 02:52 pm:    I recently attended an AIA convention in Los Angeles. At one of the seminars, it just so happened that the following question was asked: Who has read a set of specifications recently? I would guess less than 5 hands out of 100 went up (there were a few hundred present). This was asked during a presentation about automation, which made the question more grating on my nerves. This is nonsense and an embarrasment for the profession. Every project has specifications from the first pyramids to the most advanced space station construction. (maybe pyramids are more advanced than space stations, I don't know.) Every project has physical characteristics, options, and performance requirements. The question is not "Who reads specifications?" it should be, Who creates specifications?" (or selects specifications) and, "When are they written?" It is not my purpose to whine and moan (again) about "architects" who don't read specifications, but rather to ask a serious question: What can CSI do to address the other professional associations regarding the importance and proper creation of project specifications? Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 64 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 03:00 pm:    Refer to the article by Hans Meier entitled "Hiring a Spec Consultant" in Architecture Business & Economics magazine around July or Aug. 03 edition. This article covers your questions. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 401 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 03:05 pm:    Mr. Crocco, please refer to the Instiute Disscussion folder below, and the posting called CSI Forward. While this paper is an overview, parts of the programs anticipated there ares exactly the directions you desire. The effort, started last year, is continuing with renewed vigor, and the group that wrote the paper is gearing up for many programs to promote specifications, in every aspect and in old and new venues. Any input to any of the members listed is highly encouraged. Really appreciate your post and information-- adds fire to the now small [but growing] flame! William Wagner Senior Member Username: bill_black Post Number: 22 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 03:46 pm:    Ken- If it is any consolation, I read the specs you have done for me... -Will Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 402 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 - 04:21 pm:    Solace- What is the difference between a plan room and a court room? In the court room, they read the specs! Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 45 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 09:58 am:    SPECIFICATIONS, FUNDAMENTALLY by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Cincinnati, OH The most dismaying and damning aspect of specifications is the lack of fundamental understanding, and proper utilization of them in practice. It is a shameful commentary that at the 2006 convention of the AIA, in one group when asked who read specifications 5% of the hands were raised. Now this could be attributed to the fact that AIA attendees are upper echelon principals, designers, marketers, or others in the phases of practice away from mainstream documentation and construction [and not the grunts in document production and the field]. Of course, a specification writer would be a rare participant in this venue, as would a designer at the CSI convention! Specifications seem to be much like the building codes, "baffling, frustrating and a dull business" in the eyes of all too many architects, and engineers, too. Perhaps not to excuse this situation but to explain it, it is widely held that English is not the most popular topic in high school or college classes. Using words is often conflicted and difficult, and then too, what you write is lasting, and can come back to or at you strongly and often. Whereas the spoken word is heard for a moment and then lost. Here is where so many are "misquoted" when their words are remembered differently by various parties-but can never really be firmly re-established [unlike the written word, in full black and white!] All too many professional schools in large part are direct contributors to this malaise. Their penchant to teach limited areas of professional practice-design for example-at the shameful exclusion of a full range of at least introductory level instruction about the whole of practice, leaves specifications as an untold story. This produces graduates who do not know what specifications are, what they look like, how they are formulated and written, nor how they are utilized in actual practice on real projects. Any one who has taught in such programs knows well the difficulty in establishing any type of real-world practice instruction. Either time and/or budget do not permit it; it can be an elective [avoided by most who don't understand what the intent and content are]; and at the surging disdain of the other more theoretical faculty. Many programs proclaim that "it is not their job to train students for practice"-what????] Construction personnel are so heaped with technical and administrative work that they dismiss specifications as avoidable necessary evils, fully lacking the rudimentary understanding in that the specifications are direct communications from the owner via the design professionals. And the information in them is crucial to the work required, and in the best interest of all contractual parties. Oddly enough, the one group that both understands and uses specifications is attorneys. In any legal proceeding, the first document reached for are the specifications. Being word oriented, the attorneys look immediately to the unavoidable written word, where every-- and that means EVERY-- nuance or glitch can be challenged, twisted or interpreted. Suddenly the drawings are all but irrelevant and the "specs" become the battle ground. Attorneys for the most part are confounded by drawings, having no training in their reading or development. But give them "words", and they shine! Herein is an obvious, deeply challenging direction for the CSI-- NO !, it's a clanging gong, or a clarion call! Although with a rather stellar background in information location, specifications writing procedures, and associated programs, there is a crying need for CSI to come out strongly with a program of fundamental discussion of specifications from the layperson level, throughout academia, up to and throughout all design and construction personnel and organizations. This is not necessarily to give legitimacy to specifications, but rather to provide "Dick and Jane" information that shows the basic premise of project specifications-- their concept, their composition, their use and their massive contribution to communication and legal status needed by projects. CSI with its basic charge, its direction and dedicated path cannot ignore this situation any longer. Although the trigger came from outside and may even be deemed meager, it is nonetheless al too obvious that the linkage between contract drawings and contract specifications is at high risk simply due to lack of information, and rudimentary instruction. CSI needs, NOW, a series of efforts for the student professionals up to and including all associated organizations, and even the general public that explains, fully, clearly and unequivocally what specifications are; how they are developed; what they contain; how they function; and how they are fully co-equal partners with the drawings in all construction projects [this might even extend to people buildings new homes]. Neither the drawings, nor the specs, alone, can produce projects: it is the inseparable, coordinated combination that does produce projects. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 164 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 11:14 am:    Colin and Ralph, Thank you! Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 181 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2006 - 07:05 pm:    I've attended a series of preinstallation conferences for projects locally over the past several years where the contractor's general superintendent led the construction team on a walk through the specification section applying to that portion of the work, confirming that requirements were understood, submittals process completed, examination completed, project conditions acceptable, and source and field quality requirements in order. Good specs. Good contractors. Good projects. So, even if the firm principals who are funded to attend the AIA convention don't read specifications, some people who are very important to their clients' projects do. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 65 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 09:10 am:    When I was an Architectural Project Manager, I always (had to) read the specs. The specs are half the documents. Without knowing the specs, how else could I administer the Bid & C.A.? Now I’m a Spec Writer. And based on the calls and emails I get from clients, they probably don’t read the specs much. But I’m always amazed how the builders are able to recite the spec sections, song and verse, when it benefits them in a dispute or C.O. request. Then the Owner, A/E, etc. all play catch up and then we all end up reading the specs over and over again. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 607 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 09:17 am:    Russell, Where you say, "But I’m always amazed how the builders are able to recite the spec sections, song and verse, when it benefits them in a dispute or C.O. request. " I think its just a timely and selective reading, not something that they do typically. Otherwise, we would not get those truly dumb RFIs where you can tell they did not even get through the table of contents. William Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 66 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 09:41 am:    William, I currently have the rare opportunity to be taking a Project Management Training class given by Turner Construction. The very first thing Turner teaches their new PMs is how to find and file Change Orders. Coincidence...I don't thing so. That's why builders own big yachts called "Change Order". Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 404 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 10:08 am:    Mr. Wood's experience is a good example of why we need to aggressive [not confrontationally!] give new light, credence and direction to those around us, so they come to both understand and respect why the specifications exist, and what they contain. I'm sure we will never change the mentality "to find Change Orders"[too firmly entrenched and overused] but on the other hand a stronger approach at enforcement on our part will close the gap, and level the playing field, to some degree. At least "they'll" know that we know which may tend to change some attitudes. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 227 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 01:33 pm:    Every SpecWriter and Architect should own a copy of Andrew M. Civitello Jr.'s 'Contractor's Guide to Change Orders" - Chapter 7 especially should be read by all. Jo Drummond, FCSI Senior Member Username: jod Post Number: 6 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Friday, June 16, 2006 - 07:49 pm:    Possibly if architects were more respectful of "what goes where", i.e, generic product descriptions on drawings, size, shape, locations, etc., and stopped putting spec. notes on the drawings, the contractor would read the specs., because he had to to find out the particulars. If the trade name, size, manufacturer and color are all on the drawings, why read the specs? Maybe to find out what the installation tolerances are, but the contractor doesn't want to be reminded of those. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 407 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 10:30 am:    Ms. Drummond makes a very good point! If the construction information is contained on the drawings and it is perceived that "there is nothing else in the specs", and there is no impetue for subsequent spec reviews, then the contractors also will not look at the information in the Project Manual, ahead of the specifications. So what seems to be an "accommodation" or "convenience" for the contractors [i.e., all requisite info on the drawings] is self-defeating to our attempt to have them read the boiler plate. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 355 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, June 19, 2006 - 01:30 pm:    I was at an office technical retreat last week, and one of the principals urged the staff there to read the specs -- his words were "the contractor doesn't read the specs, and the more you know what's in them, the better they can work for you". probably the first time a principal in any firm I've worked for has said that. however, he's also told me privately that in meetings with the contractor, the contractor has said "don't tell me to read that *$#* spec book again! everything you want is in there, and I always end up having to do it your way!" that particular PM says "I'm the general, and the specs are my private army."