What are Boilerplate Specifications?

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 487 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 06:00 pm:    Need a definition a client would understand, please. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 272 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 06:28 pm:    Well I’d start with ASTM A 516 Grade 70 steel, thickness as needed but no less than ¼ inch Oh! You mean boiler plate specs I found this online in a dictionary boilerplate n., adj. slang for provisions in a contract, form or legal pleading which are apparently routine and often preprinted. The term comes from an old method of printing. Today "boilerplate" is commonly stored in computer memory to be retrieved and copied when needed. A layperson should beware that the party supplying the boilerplate form usually has developed supposedly "standard" terms (some of which may not apply to every situation) to favor and/or protect the provider. From Merriam Webster 2 a: standardized text b: formulaic or hackneyed language <bureaucratic boilerplate> From answers.com “A phrase or body of text used verbatim in different documents such as a signature at the end of a letter. Boilerplate is widely used in the legal profession as many paragraphs are used over and over in agreements with little modification or no modification. Boilerplate is stored by the word processor on disk and copied into the document as needed. The function that inserts boilerplate in Microsoft Word is called "AutoText," and Word can be the default editor for writing Outlook e-mail. In the Eudora e-mail program, boilerplate is called "stationery."” In the spec world they are paragraphs with standard choices (or choices between paragraphs) that the spec writer selects (or writes in a new choice.) David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 972 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 06:36 pm:    Division 01 Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 775 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 06:39 am:    The "ground rule"-type of language and provisions put in place to establish the overall working of the project, and protect the Owner and the various parties and their mutual relationships, and to the project, for use primarily when needed to resolve issues. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 210 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 08:20 am:    I personally despise the word “Boilerplate”. As Marc quoted, the word implies text that is used verbatim or with little or no modification. When people refer to the “Front End” of the specs (Divisions 00 and 01) as boilerplate, they imply that I don’t have to do any project-specific editing and that’s just not the case at all. I probably spend more time (hours per section) on the front end specs than I do on typical technical sections. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 261 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 09:15 am:    Jerome, How about this: ------------------------------------------- Dear Mr./Ms. Owner: In response for your request for a definition of "boilerplate," simply put – none exists. Essentially, this is not an industry-defined term, but instead, a mere outdated colloquialism that - in my professional experience - has long since fallen out of favor throughout the design and construction community. In addition, for a variety of very valid reasons, its use has been outright discouraged for what seems like decades now. There once was a time (way back when) when “boilerplate” was used to refer to the Bidding and Contracting Requirements, also known as Division 0, or the “front end” documents. Some owners, design professionals, and contractors also sought to include the Division 01 specifications into that category. As you can well imagine, this had the net result of causing much confusion among the various players on the project team. The lack of an industry consensus, the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of what was included and what was not, and the (misleading) implication and connotation that these Documents and Specifications were “canned” and required little or no editing is probably the leading factor that has led to the term’s demise. Since every project is different, every Owner is different, and every project’s design requirements need to be viewed and evaluated on their own merits (professional standard of care simply demands this), EVERY document and specification section likewise needs to be scrutinized independently, and edited accordingly. The nature of the due-diligence required for these documents and sections is no less than the effort required of any other specification section in the Project Manual. So, as best I can tell, the design and construction community, in order to facilitate better communication and convey clearer meaning and intent, has been using the long-established terms set forth in the industry publication MasterFormat (as published by the Construction Specifications Institute): • Division 00 – Procurement and Contracting Requirements (documents) • Division 01 – General Requirements (specifications) Please rest assured, by using this phraseology, any Owner will be able to accurately convey to the design and construction team exactly what they mean, and they have minimized the chance for confusion or misunderstanding. Speaking the same language really does level the playing field, to the benefit of all members of the project team. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this very important matter. -------------------------------------------- Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 243 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 09:31 am:    Taking Doug's point further, I dislike the term due to the implication that because it's more or less the same wording used on each project, that it's not important--"oh, that's just boilerplate" (and therefore I don't have to pay any attention to it). This argument is typically used when the party didn't bother to read the document and got burned. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 715 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 09:33 am:    Well written, David! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 776 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 09:43 am:    So the need then is not a definition, but rather a "re-orientation and education" of the client and a re-statement of what the provisions really are and what they do, specific to each project. Ah, ha, yet another task well done and best done by a spec writer! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 703 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 02:58 pm:    I also have a vague memory that we used "boilerplate" as a colloquialism for the contract and Division 1 because the total thickness of the paper involved was about the thickness of the steel needed in Marc's boiler construction reference above. I agree that David did a good job of describing the pieces involved and how they specifically are NOT "boilerplate". John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 834 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 03:15 pm:    Here's another meaning for "boilerplate" in the context of specifications that I have heard: Text that is in a section, but pertains to nothing because the particular product or system it references is not in the project. The result, obviously, of careless or ignorant spec writing. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 223 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 03:47 pm:    Some years ago I recall hearing someone say he thought it was called "boilerplate" because of its strong, tough and protective language (or words to that effect), which seemed plausible. Another possible etymology was that the term originated in the industrial revolution, due to similarity with boiler fabrication -- that the raw material (boilerplate) was inherently broad, strong and tough, and needed only relatively simple fabrication (cutting, bending, and riveting or bolting) to become a functioning boiler, since most boilers were fairly similar and relatively simple, with few if any moving parts, compared to other machinery, which was typically more complicated or even unique. There's probably nothing to the speculation that editing it led to excessive consumption of boilermakers...