A few minor questions.

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

Author Message Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 46 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 08:59 pm:    I just have a few trivial little questions I wanted to throw out to the specifying masses. 1) Is it necessary to use two periods at the end of sentences that end with abbreviations like etc., ft., in., or inc.? 2) Is it necessary to keep requirements in the specs for situations that could occur, but that do not often occur? For example, it has been know to snow before in parts of Arizona. Would you still require concrete workers to remove ice and snow from excavations before pouring concrete on the off chance that it snows the day they pour the concrete? Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 260 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Saturday, June 09, 2007 - 09:08 pm:    1. No. 2. Yes. It's easier to have the requirement there than it is to argue about it if it happens. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 184 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Sunday, June 10, 2007 - 03:12 am:    A similar question has to do with weather you put directions in the specifications for common screwups by the contractor. My position is not to address common fixes. Reasons include the desire to be informed of problems, the belief that there are often special circumstances which would point us to another fix, and if the fix is not in the specs we will be paid to develop a fix as part of an add service. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 593 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 09:42 am:    I live in Wisconsin and leave both cold weather and hot weather requirements in place. My thought is that I have no control over these things; not the weather, and not when the work actually gets done. It may be planned to occur in September and really occur in December (it could snow in either month, though). My point is that when you don't know and don't have control, leave it in, especially if it's something that is unlikely. The contractor may not have had to deal with the unlikely! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 566 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 12:35 pm:    I think there's a fine line there. I have taken out the "ice and snow " requirements for construction in Miami, since there appears to be only one recorded snowfall in Miami in the past 100 years. but I do think you need to be careful -- if you leave in something that is clearly superfluous, I think you run the possibility of calling all your specs into question. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 596 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 12:51 pm:    Agreed; you have to weigh the unlikeliness of the occurrence against the possibility of the "100 year flood" happening two years in a row. Anne's absolutely right about leaving in something superfluous. You'll be accused of publishing your masters for a project. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 734 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, June 11, 2007 - 04:09 pm:    Then again, a contractor may very will have a legitimate claim for a 100-year event that adversely affected the project, regardless of what the contract says. Leaving in requirements that are unlikely to occur just makes the designer look like they just include "boiler plate" without regard to the actual project.