Quality

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

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 780 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 02:22 pm:    How, and where, do you address quality of work [the old "workmanship"] issue? Division 01? Section by Section? By innuendo? By sheer force of what/how you specify and enforce [is this subjective?]? Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 67 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 02:56 pm:    For me, it is section by section. I’ve always considered the entire spec manual as the enforcer of quality of work. Workers cannot comply with an instruction that has as many interpretations as there are interpreters. Quality workmanship can only be attained by telling the contractor what quality of products to use, what standards to meet, what amount of installation experience to have, what approved mockups or samples to match, and what kinds of warranties or guarantees to comply with. Beyond that we can only tell the contractor specifically what we want to see and what we do not want to see. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 719 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 03:08 pm:    I think, and have thought so for a long time, that "workmanship" is a difficult word to define, defend, and comprehend - yet everyone knows what we mean when we use it! It's somewhat archaic, since not all are "workmen" and we've changed that word to "workers" (but workersship certainly doesn't fit). It means the quality of the work that is done and we count on industry standards to some degree, to define that "standard of quality" - what can we reasonably expect given a certain set of circumstances. And so, there are qualities established by standard tests (ASTM), organizations (AWI), and others that we can cite as an attainable goal. I think Richard has it right. Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 125 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 10:02 am:    There are also fabrication issues. Two types: shop fabrication and field fabrication. paying attention to fabrication requirements can define a level of quality. standards of fabrication do exist such as the welding requirements from NAAMM and also architectural structural steel fabrication issued by AISC. Edward R. Heinen, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: edwardheinen Post Number: 10 Registered: 04-2006 Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 10:25 am:    I believe that quality in architectural projects works more like a fabric, with all members of the project team having input that affects quality. Project leaders, and especially architectural project managers, set the stage and define expectations for achieving architectural quality on a project. Quality measures in the specifications (Division 01 and Part 1 of individual sections) become the tangible tactics in an overall strategy. Unfortunately project managers and architects don’t always fully utilize these specified measures in a pro-active manner; so we specifiers need to keep bringing these tools to the foreground. I also believe that sustainable design projects generally are achieving better quality, higher-performing buildings. One question I've been pondering: Does an “integrated project delivery” process achieve better quality, and at less cost? Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 126 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 11:22 am:    Is quality always "high quality"? The level of quality is what we are trying to define. We may, by choice, specify a lower grade (read quality) or a higher grade. If this is true, a delivery process does not achieve a better quality unless the better quality is specified. Hopefully, the integrated project delivery process will deliver the appropriate quality at the expected cost. I think that is the idea of integrating project delivery. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 99 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Monday, January 28, 2008 - 11:54 am:    PRM 3.3: "Quality (3.3): The primary factors of extent, time (schedule), and cost (budget) will establish the quality of the project and its component parts." "Quality (4.5): Quality refers to the project requirements established in the contract documents." Forget high, low, and in-between. Quality is the summary value of the project. It is what it is. Michael D Chambers FAIA FCSI Senior Member Username: sbamdc Post Number: 11 Registered: 06-2006 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 01:07 pm:    David is quite correct. A specifiers duty is to ensure that the specifications document the lowest acceptable quality for the project as determined by the factors listed in PRM 3.3. The notion of quality levels is a panacea, it should be acceptable quality, nothing more. Also, I highly recommend that the word "workmanship" be never ever be used. It is undefinable in any sense of construction quality. It is a medievel term defining what workers do. Whenever I see the term I replace it with "fabrication and installation". These are easily defined construction terms. So rather than "materials and workmanship" read "materials, fabrication, and installation". Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 246 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 03:00 pm:    I fully agree with Michael; defining vague terms like "workmanship" is like the Supreme Court trying to define "obscenity"--you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. What is acceptable can only be enforced by reference to quantifiable standards, tolerances, and the use of accepted samples and mockups. And have you ever seen a project where "second-class" workmanship was acceptable? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 368 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 03:16 pm:    Dave Metzger: To answer your question about the acceptability of "second-class" workmanship, have you ever done a project for NAVFAC? I could write a book on the acceptance of shoddy construction on a NAVFAC project. Can you say "obscene workmanship"? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 369 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 03:23 pm:    Although it is grossly out of date, I have been able to connect with some older architects regarding level of quality by invoking the old Montgomery Ward merchandise quality levels: Good, Better and Best. From a design and specification point of view --- not construction contract point of view --- the designers need to select and direct the appropriate level of quality. "Best" is not always the appropriate level. I think woodworking and casework standards "Economy," "Custom," "Premium" and "Laboratory" demonstrate levels of quality and performance that are useful in understanding the range of quality we can specify. Good, Better and Best help the architect to let the spek riter know the appropriate quality level. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 615 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 03:37 pm:    That's the Navy, for ya. :-) (Sorry, Colin) by: Ronald Geren, Lt Col, USAFR (Ret.) Ellis C. Whitby, AIA, PE, CSI, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 42 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 04:45 pm:    Odd: in my experience NAVFAC was more likely to resist accepting poor quality work than USACE. I do know of exceptions though. Of course, neither are as good as working for a sophisticated Owner who is unwilling to accept anything less than what is covered in the CDs. Developers generally accept lesser quality work if it saves them money. Working for larger private institutions that want (and are willing to pay for) 50-100 year construction is best: poor quality work is usually rejected and replaced at no cost to the Owner. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 840 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 05, 2008 - 01:40 pm:    When my commercial master cannot or does not refer to a quality standard, and I feel I need to have some requirements, I add them myself. But I am specific to the product and project, describing what I want. I don't reference "good workmanship typical of the trade" or whatever, for the reasons cited above.