Specification for Public Agencies

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

Author Message Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 105 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 03:55 pm:    Do any of you write specifications for public agencies? If so how often do post a new Edition of specs? Accordingly, how often do post revised specs? Also, when you post revised specs...do you just revise and post or do you issue an accompanying summary of the revisions made? Your opinions are appreciated! David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 979 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 04:22 pm:    Russell, I'm not sure what you are asking here. A project I am working on for a public utility made us post a 60% DD spec, then 100% CD spec, but we still have comments to pick up. Sometimes they send us a list of comments that we have to answer separately. It's difficult to work with public agencies because they create so much paperwork and red tape. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 106 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 04:35 pm:    I guess I wasn't clear...I'm talking about writing master specs for a public agency as an in-house staff spec writer. Ellis C. Whitby, AIA, PE, CSI, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 41 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 - 04:39 pm:    When working is public agencies it's fairly common to have to create interim packages for during the CD phase: 35%, 65%, 95% and 100% are common. If you are asking about revisions after the bid, then we usually have to issue just the changed documents, just as we would have to do for a private client. In very rare circumstances, we have been asked to create a “comprehensive” set, which includes all the current documents (Project Manual and drawings). This is time consuming and we charge for the service, but is not too bad as long as we are just reissuing the existing documents with no modifications. This is a lot less fun when we are directed to create a separate “”comprehensive” issuance and have to change the Project Manual cover sheets and footers and change the drawing cover sheets and revision blocks to reflect a new date and title. We charge for this extra effort, but IMHO not enough: I tell our PMs that we should add “pain and suffering” costs. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 299 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 10:02 pm:    Russell, To answer your question, I would expect that your public agency master specifications or specifications documents would need to be revised as they become outdated; in this industry, a shelf life of about three years is the most you'll get. There will be notable changes in materials as well as communications technology. It's a little amusing to see an agency insisting on receiving copies of CADD drawings on diskettes. Because of the speed with which new products come to market, it's getting less useful to invest in detailed masters. Does your public agency dictate specifications content to the AEs they hire? If so, do the AEs seal the documents? We have a hospital system in the area who is still using the specifications one of our colleagues wrote for them twelve years ago. Every project has to have complete revisions to bring them into this century. But they think they're fine. Sigh. Jim Brittell Senior Member Username: jwbrittell Post Number: 49 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 11:13 am:    I work for a state university. We use MasterSpec to create prototype versions of specifications for our projects and issue them to design/build teams for final editing. Our edits include items that are required (or not allowed) by our campus standards. Being a public agency, our specs are open (we are required to use an "or equal" claus) and the design teams are free to modify the specs as they see fit as long as they conform to the requirements of the RFP. We issue the specs with the "track changes" feature on and lock them. That way we can easily see what changes have been made. There is no set schedule for issuing revised specs. We incorporate Arcom's updates, changes in products and manufacturers and standards and lessons learned from recent projects as they occur but do not issue a summary of revisions. Typically the sections are issued with the RFP. We do not post anything on our web site. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 28 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 11:58 am:    Jim Do your specifications include all common specification sections and if so do you have the expertise in-house to evaluate the changes? Do I have to explain to you why I have made changes? A caution, I have found MasterSpec to be more focused on the practices in the majority of the country and not reflecting the latest code requirements for structural steel lateral systems in high seismic regions. Unless the author of your prototype specifications is a subject matter expert and up to date I would not even create a prototype for the project. In my experience having to edit from a clients master takes much more time and I end up making compromises to the technical content. Is this what you want? Jim Brittell Senior Member Username: jwbrittell Post Number: 50 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 12:35 pm:    Mark, Our library has the sections that are typically used on our projects. Occaisionally the need arises for a new section. Sometimes I create one and sometimes the design team provides their own. We work side-by-side with the design builders, usually meeting on a weekly basis. If I am not clear on the intent of the designer's specs I ask questions and we work it out as a team. I am not a structural engineer. The university hires an independent peer reviewer for structural design. My responsibility is to review documents for conformance with the intent of the RFP, our campus standards and life safety codes. Access compliance is reviewed by the State Architect. I appreciate that using our master sections is not convenient for the design teams. It is a benefit to the university in that we have consistent requirements from project to project and it cuts down our review time considerably. Interestingly, we have not had many complaints from the designers (at least, not as far as I have heard). Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 710 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 12:46 pm:    Phil- I can beat your 12 years old spec example -- the Port of Seattle used their master specs for nearly 20 years after their "chief specifier" retired... in 1978. My first project was one of their jobs and then 20 years later, I had another POS job.. and they gave me the same masters to use. what I found interesting is that somewhere along the line, the masters had to have been converted to various word processing systems (since Word didn't exist in 1978) but they still never changed the text. (and they wonder why their projects always go over budget) A Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 29 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 01:03 pm:    Understanding your focus on the RFP, fire and life safety and access compliance I would suggest: --Do not provide protype specification sections unless they significantly impact those concerns. Thus you would not have sections for such work products such as concrete reinforcement. cast-in-place concrete, and concrete formwork as well as a host of other sections. --Do not produce protype specifications unless you have a subject matter expert who is actively involved in maintaining your master and editing your prototype specifications. At a certain point you might ask why you hire consultants if you have the expertise in-house. --Where you have concerns consider producing a document that is not a specification section but that lists the key products and issues that you want reflected in the specification section. Focus on the end result and not on the details of how you get there. If you are with the California State University system I believe I know who your structural reviewers are and I would be surprised if they had a problem with what I am proposing. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 107 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 04:36 pm:    I write master guide specs for a public agency that all of the A/Es we hire as Project Consultants must use. Even though the A/Es are supposed to customize the master specs for their individual projects, in reality, most just use my specs close to verbatim. I try to update all of our 320+ specs and post a new Edition every other year (doesn't MasterSpec take about 10 years to update all their specs?) However, unlike most of you, if I change the specs today I don't use the changed spec immediately...I hold off posting the changed specs until say the half year mark or the beginning of the new year. It's just too confusing for our Project Consultants if I post revised specs every time make a change. To make it easier for my users, I'm also considering posting a summary of changes I make to the specs...but I'm not exactly sure how to best approach it just yet...any suggestions? Jim Brittell Senior Member Username: jwbrittell Post Number: 51 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 07:38 pm:    Mark, As I said, the designers are free to edit the masters within the requirements of the RFP, our standards and applicable codes. The rest depends on their professional judgment. All of our editors/reviewers are licensed professionals as well who have 5 or more years experience working on our campus. By university policy, we are not allowed to self-perform on design even if we had enough staff to manage that. I agree that our peer reviewers would not have a problem with what you propose. On the other hand, no one is complaining about our system. There is a benefit to the design teams in that they don't have to go through their specs and clean up all the references to other projects and jurisdictions, nor do they have to comb through our campus standards to meet those requirements. We keep them relatively up to and and the formating of the documents is done for them. We maintain a consistency from project to project that benefits all of the people who use the documents in the post construction years. All in all, I think we come out ahead. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 30 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 02:16 am:    I hear the claim that the users do not complain. I would like to offer insight into the psychology of the consultant. Rule 1: You do not want to get into a disagreement with the Owner. The Project Manager at the University, who doesn’t know much if anything about specifications, tells the Architect’s PM to use these Masters. The Project Manager at the Architect, who is not focused on specifications, tells the specification consultant and the other consultants to use the provided master The project engineer in the consultant’s office is told to use the Owner’s master specification. The project engineer has no communication with the Owner's people who prepare the master. So what does he do. He remembers “Rule 1” and follows orders and makes only those changes that he absolutely has to have. He probably deals with a number of issues by placing notes on the drawings. In addition the typically minimal budgets and tight schedule the project engineer do not allow the time or budget to do a thorough job of updating your master specification. I believe that this is similar for the Architect. This process is similar to what happened with the Challenger space craft before it blew up. Now I am not implying that these practices will cause your next project to be a disaster because you impose a master specification but it sure does not help. Jim Brittell Senior Member Username: jwbrittell Post Number: 53 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 03:21 pm:    Mark, Where I work, your Rule 1 doesn't exist. In the first place, we don't hire the design consultants, we select design build teams. So the designers work for the builders. Having participated in meetings with the teams, I can assure you that the designers are not afraid to disagree with the builders and the builders are definitely not afraid to disagree with the University. We even went as far as conducting a round table discussion with construction industry representatives to make our standards more cost effective. We are always open to modifying our specs to get the best value for the University - it is addressed and encouraged in the RFP process. The use of our master sections is one of the many requirements in the RFP, so there is no arguement from anyone. The University's project managers are almost all licensed architects (one is a civil engineer, but that's diversity for you :-). Yes, they are not all focused on specs (that's my job), but then that is true throughout the industry as we all know. Before we instituted the master spec policy I had to review project specs that were prepared by design teams based on their own masters. We got specs based on products and systems that are not locally available and were not included in our campus standards, which tells me that the architects and specifiers weren't spending much time on the specs. At least by using our masters, they would be starting off in the right direction. Besides, while it may be true that the designers have a limited budget. I've been in the profession for 30 years now and only the last 6 have been on the Owner's side. So I understand the pressures on the specifiers, but that is not a valid reason for not preparing accurate coordinated specs regardless of the starting point. None of our buildings have blown up (despite the best efforts of some researchers :-0 ) and for the last 10 years the University and our design build teams have brought every project in on budget and on schedule without litigation, even during the adverse economic conditions of the past few years. I understand your concerns and I agree we do need to be on guard, but I don't feel that using master specifications is any riskier than letting the designers "do their thing." "... and that's all I've got to say about that." (Forrest Gump) Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 282 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2008 - 11:43 am:    Jim, I applaud your efforts, however of the three universities at which I have “experienced” their specs UW, and two who will remain nameless, only UW can be listed as having their sh%^ together. They even went so far as to hire a specifier to rewrite their specs for MF04 and bring them up to date. The other two were LESS than worthless. keep fighting the good fight for institutions everywhere! Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 31 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, February 03, 2008 - 11:37 pm:    Jim, You might want to modify the statement that all of your projects in the last 10 years were on time and without litigation. I performed the structural review on a California State University project (we were working for the University) in that time frame, where the project did not meet its schedule and where there was litigation. Housing was not availible at the start of the school year. I even had the pleasure of being deposed. The University position prevailed. The problems in my opinion were directly tied to its being a design build project and were not related to the content of the specifications. Jim Brittell Senior Member Username: jwbrittell Post Number: 54 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 11:05 am:    Mark, I'm referring to UC Irvine, not CSU. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 32 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 11:24 am:    My apology. I misinterpreted it when you said "state university". Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 715 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, February 04, 2008 - 01:02 pm:    Russell: Masterspec is on a more or less 3 year update cycle for its spec sections. some miscellaneous sections, such was wall fabric, might go as long as 4 or 5 years, but nothing is sitting out there 10 years before changes. In addition, Arcom now does dynamic updating at major code changes or other industry-wide updates. I was one of those people hired by an institution to update their specs, and we did use Masterspec as the basis of the new specs, since the Owner could subscribe and continue to do updating on their own. At the major update that I did, the owner had an intensive team and we had a full roster of consultants -- structural, civil and all the services engineers. This was for a major university for use across their campus. The most negligent owners that I have found are those who do just a few constuction projects a year (or fewer); have inexperienced Owner's reps, and work in small markets, such as many of the smaller college towns in the west. there's a particular academic naivete that comes into play with those owners that makes it difficult to produce good documents.