Is anyone else having this problem or...

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 519 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 01:21 pm:    It appears that my architect clients are not reading the specifications we prepare, nor for that matter are engineers...for example, we prepared specifications for a structural engineer who either did not have time to prepare them or did not know how to, said structural engineer reviewed the specs and a day later came back with a comment that they were perfect - no changes necessary. Now if this was a structural engineer we had previously worked with, we could accept that, but it was not. And to make it even more interesting we inserted some language in the specifications in some obvious locations that were blatantly inappropriate and still the engineer approved them. Of course we will remove that language before we issue the specs, but i wonder if anyone else is having this problem. We include in our agreements strong wording regarding the architect's responsibility to review the specs before they are issued, but still we are receiving so few comments these days that i wonder what's going on - i know we prepare good specs - but perfect specs, i don't think so...is anyone else having this problem or have any suggestions on how to deal with it - it scares me when a client answers my inquiry - oh we trust that you have prepared the specs correctly or we don't have time to review the specs now, maybe later...of course later never comes. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 240 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 01:59 pm:    Jerome, I started to read this post, but I got busy and it's such a long post that I never finished it. What was your question? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 816 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:03 pm:    Jerome, it may be that you are being shamelessly [but unwittingly] positioned for a court visit. If your specs goes askew on the project and your client is sued, guess whose going to court too? It's the fact that they have so little regard and understanding of specs, that they give little credence to them-- their problem! But you are in the nasty position that their negligence can become your need to be demurred out of the case, at your expense, for doing the right thing [perhaps] I'd advise doing things straight up and not inserting questionable text-- that doesn't help your case should your client "miss" them and the legals gets look at it. In my simple opinion, this is exactly an area in need of massive, strong, aggressive and very definitive effort to establish the correct and proper value and status for specs-- doesn't seem to be on any one's agenda, and the clients flatly don't understand-- or don't give a damn [your choice]. AND also makes one huge challenge to end much of this stuff by getting specs instruction early in professional careers-- say in the schools!!! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 520 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:17 pm:    Nathan I had thought about posting this anonymously, but I figured its Friday and I haven't been abused enough this week, so what the hey. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 521 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:20 pm:    Ralph Do you really think I would leave that language in a spec section? Actually in this case the language placed responsibility in the hands of the Structural PE that he really doesn't need or wants - but maybe Structural Engineers think they are architects these days?...no offense to my Structural Engineer colleagues. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 522 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:25 pm:    Ralph Interestingly enough we prepared specs on a project years ago that eventually landed in the courts and the attorneys for both sides advised us that if the Contractor and the Architect had actually read the specs there would have never been a lawsuit. Apparently these lawyers figured out by reviewing RFI's and RFI responses that none of the professionals on the project ever cracked the spec book open - we have yet to be implicated in any part of the lawsuit - fingers are kept crossed though. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 523 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:29 pm:    I know its not just me...I had a call this morning from a respected manuf rep who asked me what the he__ was going on with architects these days, apparently he had a week of questions from architects that amazed him...and this guy has been in the business for 40 years, not many things amaze him anymore. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 524 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:29 pm:    Melissa, u r right, I must need a vacation... Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 525 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:31 pm:    U know I enjoy talking to myself - its better than a therapist...well maybe not. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 817 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:31 pm:    Well, you can hope you will only deal with those insightful attorneys, in future situations, but didn't it cost you time and money for your involvement [correct as it was] in that case? There's the secret little trap-- known as "collateral damage"! Oh, knew well you would not leave spiffy quirky text in the specs, but just so conservative as to not want to risk missing it myself. But then you're so much better than I am!!! Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 241 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:32 pm:    Nathan, I had thought about posting this anonymously, but I figured its Friday and I haven't been abused enough this week, so what the hey. LOL, no worries. I was more or less pulling a Jonathan Swift on you. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 293 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:39 pm:    I once thought about putting a riddle in the specs, scattered throughout, with a bottle of scotch at the end. I still thinks it's a good idea But I've never had the legal guts to do it. Maybe I'll use it the next time I teach the CDT or a documents class. Marc PS once upon a time we put a drawing of donald ducks ass end in a brick wall and labeled it "thru wall duck" The boss stamped the drawings and was REALLY tee-ed off later when he saw the "architectural detail" that he had stamped. Ah youth! M Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 83 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:41 pm:    sorry your dealing with all this Jerome. My priorities changed again last night. Came too close for comfort last night in LR, Arkansas. We almost got hit by a tornado last night. Spent all night in downstairs pantry from 8 pm - 2am riding out the storms. Luckly we only had down trees here but a police officer about 2 miles from our house caught the tornado on his dash cam. It made national tv this morning. still we are alright! I hope you get your stuff worked out. Also, my archs and engrs do not read either. I get really impressed with the ones that do read my specs, I usually scream with excitement in the meetings, not joking and then praise them for their work. That makes them feel good! hee hee. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 163 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:43 pm:    I am an in-house writer and I am seeing the same attitude about specs from some of the new hires. I recently finished a draft spec for a major project and asked the PA to have someone look it over. He took it home overnight and started marking the spec for revisions. The last marks are next to a watermark that was probably created by a puddle of drool where the architect fell into the arms of Hesperus, only about fifty pages into the spec. When he returned the binder to me, I asked if the rest of the pages were OK and he answered that we don't have time now, so we will just fix whatever needs to be changed in an addendum. He will soon find out that this 50,000-man corporate behemoth has internal quality assurance mechanisms that will stop that from happening. The department head will not release documents until the proper reviews are done, both in redline markup and yellow highlighter back-check, and all the official paperwork signed and submitted. Obliviously, you don't work for a mega-firm with a 500-page QA/QC policy manual; and being a consultant outside the design firm drastically reduces your influence over such matters. If the proper person signs off on your work, then you must assume they are satisfied with your effort, even if you know it falls short. Begging for a more strenuous critical review seems a bit sadomasochistic. Perhaps you can charge by the hour to change what should have been done as part of your original effort. I just hope they don't hold you responsible for the inevitable deficiencies they chose to overlook. In any case, I am willing to bet your unfiltered specs are far better than what most area firms put out. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 754 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:46 pm:    Wow! We all knew that Contractors didn't read the specs [what's the difference between a plan room and a court room? they read specs in a court room], but the architects and engineers? Can you hold off release until they sign a document stating they have read them? Oops - that's what the Contractors do, isn't it. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 526 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:50 pm:    Ralph, lets not forget who the celebrated and renown author is...it ain't me jack...and no I have not yet finished reading your last book..if i make it to LV in June i promise to take it on the plane to read....in between naps. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 84 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:51 pm:    I am seeing this problem as lack of mentoring once again. In my humble opinion, firms here in my state do not get the quality mentoring from a firm senior architect that they should because said firm is too busy and life is too demanding enough to spend on helping us "younger" ones read the fine print. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 527 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:53 pm:    Melissa, thank god you are ok, we need more specwriters, can't lose anymore these days....only been through one tornado and that only lasted 10 minutes...hurricanes are no fun, but I'll take a hurricane over a tornado any day... Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 528 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:54 pm:    Richard - just curious who the heck do you work for? Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 164 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 02:55 pm:    URS Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 529 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:03 pm:    whoa!!!! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 818 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:22 pm:    Really, Jerome, what sort of being are you that can read a book that puts you to sleep, in between naps? I think that may be a double negaitve which means you will NOT read the book [at least for long]. Oh and still on the quirky side, when you talk to yourself, is that a one-way or two-way conversation? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 531 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:24 pm:    I prefer three ways of course! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 532 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:26 pm:    Ralph - I never said your book (s0 put me to sleep, I just get so little sleep these days that flying on a plane is great for a nap...for some reason i have no problem falling asleep - anywhere - could be cause i get so little these days...but back to your book, I promise i will finish reading it this year. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 533 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:28 pm:    Ralph - make sure u read my thread on Hourly rates for Independents, i mention your name. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 85 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:31 pm:    Jerome, just the other day you and William had a conversation with each other from 1am-around 3am. No wonder you don't get sleep, you are up at all hours worrying about work. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 165 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:31 pm:    Jerome - Just so you know, "three-way" to somebody from Cincinnati, such as Ralph, means chili over spaghetti, topped with shredded cheddar cheese. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 534 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:35 pm:    Richard, please do not mention food - I have yet to eat lunch and that sounds mighty appetizing...accept it would have to be a mild chili...can't do spicy anymore. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 535 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:37 pm:    Melissa, I have way more important things to worry about than work at 3am...however I do manage to get a lot of work done between 11pm and 3am - no phone calls, very few emails, peace and quiet, that's when i work on the tough jobs. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 86 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:41 pm:    I thought I was strong. I have been working from 3am-10pm most days but you take me by a long shot! I will go and do my yoga poses now. 'Ommmmmmmmm' ;) Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 71 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 03:42 pm:    I’ve found that every once in a while, I have to ask the structural engineer or civil engineer to come to our office and edit their spec sections together with me. That way we are both forced to look at every paragraph, I learn a little bit about their specifying methods, and I can teach them a few things as we go. It is probably a good thing to do with every engineer you haven’t worked with previously. Once you know how they specify things, you can be prepared next time. Some of them may need your help every time. A lot of project architects just trust us specifiers so much that they don’t think their review of the specs will be a worthwhile use of their time. Others just don’t think they know enough about specs to be of any assistance. If possible, it may be more useful to keep the architects extremely informed about the specs as you edit them. A lot of architects appreciate it when I come to them to verify things or inform them of things they might need to know. Young Architects especially need this kind of help. Many architects really do intend to read the specs, but it is a task that just keeps getting filed at the bottom of the heap and therefore doesn’t get done. I always encourage architects to set up a weekly meeting with the specs, the same way they would set up a meeting with people. They still don’t do it. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 377 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 09:37 pm:    Philosophically, as an independent specifications writer, I am in business and have sufficient work because my clients do not want to deal with construction specifications. It is that and the fact that they do indeed trust and respect both me and the other senior independent construction specifier who works for them. So, I can't complain too vigorously. At the same time, it is frustrating to continually confront the lack of knowledge --- some might call it ignorance --- about construction contracts, construction technology and product evaluation and selection. It's all in CSI's Project Resource Manual. The basics are covered in the material for the CDT exam. In my opinion, passing the CDT exam should not only be necessary for licensing but as a qualification for any responsible position on the project team. I believe I heard Chief Boyd say this over 20 years ago. And then there is the knowledge necessary to prepare construction specifications (the CCS material) and to administer a construction contract (the CCCA material). Sure, those who specialize in specifications writing and construction contract administration will be more proficient, but the basics --- what is needed to perform on small projects or occasional public construction projects --- need to be known by those who manage the project. I asked several people from the firms who publish automated specifications programs --- the basis for the BIM --- whether the user needs to know the fundamentals of construction specifications production in order to use the programs. They admitted, yes. The analogy I see is giving the keys to a new high-performance Corvette to a high school boy. Training and experience are needed for the driver in order to utilize the potential of the vehicle without crashing. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 16 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2008 - 10:28 am:    Jerome's difficulties are the result of a very real problem -- one I have watched escalate over my years of practicing as a spec consultant. The time pressure on architectural firms, in addition to the dearth of experienced staff mean that it is currently not standard practice for specs to be read thoroughly before they are issued for construction. As specifiers, we can help our clients (or PA/PM's in-house) by adjusting to this reality. I have done this in my practice by making it unnecessary for anyone but me to read the specs. All the issues, including the hundreds or thousands of decisions that must be made in developing the specs, are dealt with separately -- through checklists, email correspondence, and meetings. I assume responsibility for integrating those decisions into the specs, so we end up with a set of documents that doesn't contain anything that I haven't asked about and rec'd an answer. For the rare occasions when I do not receive a response to an issue that has been raised, I'll put in some kind of placeholder to establish a standard, and advise the client that they will have to address the issue later if a change is needed. It obviously takes a great deal of effort to set up and maintain a system that allows this approach to function well, but the payoff is substantial: Not only does it focus the decision-making process, it is a considerably more efficient use of my time and my clients' time, and avoids altogether the need to read every line of every spec section. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 263 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2008 - 11:43 am:    I agree that it's not necessary for clients/PA/PM's to read every line of every specification section. When I write section drafts, I insert questions and comments in ***BOLDED CAPITALIZED*** typeface, for where I want the reviewer to focus their attention. These items are generally not technical but rather design or administrative issues. After I have sent the drafts, I schedule a meeting to review the drafts, section by section. These meetings can last from a few hours to 2 days, depending on the size and complexity of the project, and whether they have actually read the drafts prior to our meeting. We don't review every line, only those issues with the tagged comments/questions. I've developed this method over 19 years as an independent specifications consultant. It works for me and I have found it to be a good use of our time, since questions and misunderstandings can be resolved face-to-face. The meetings are focused and intense but very worthwhile; they are not only useful to complete the specifications, but just as importantly, they facilitate drawing-specification coordination and make clients realize the value of specifications in the design and documentation process. At the beginning of the project I explain my method of working, so my clents know from the start that we will have these meetings. I have never had a project where a client has said "we don't have time for meetings, just issue the specification". Most of our work is repeat business and we have a good working relationship with our clients--they understand and appreciate what we bring to the table. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 137 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Saturday, April 05, 2008 - 05:36 pm:    What perplexes me is why architects and other design professionals sometimes overlook the fact that many DESIGN DECISIONS about aesthetic, accessories, and system options are documented in the project manual. It is an OPPORTUNITY for further expression of THEIR design. The "specs" are not just a formality; they are carefully prepared to be customized to THEIR project. This topic reminds me of the very insightful "how not to screw up" audiocast on this subject from Bryan Varner, California construction law attorney. Presented with the contractor and subs in mind, but it certainly also applies to those who have a responsibility of preparing and reviewing the design documents as well. A simple example from everyday life: One day my wife sent me to the store to buy some cheddar cheese. When I got there, I was confronted with the realization that there are many different kinds of just cheddar cheese alone - brick, slice, shredded (fine, medium, or "fancy" shredded), mild or sharp or something in between, 2, 3, or 4 "cup" packages (which by the way are actually only 1/2 cup units, for some reason the cheese industry is allowed to lie - so if my wife had said how many cups she needed, then I'd also need to know whether she meant real cups, or cheese unit cups), and finally, is there a name brand like Kraft or Sargento that we must have? Or is the store brand preferred for slightly lower cost, or is the mom & pop brand maybe preferred to help the local economy and perhaps because my wife has had the best experience with their brand? When you count all the possible combination of characteristics there are probably 30 different ways to buy cheddar cheese. Good thing I had my cell phone! It seems somewhat contradictory that she could just ask for cheddar, and then be unhappy when I cam back with something that did in fact fit within the still somewhat broad category of cheddar. Would she have been happy if I just got the first kind I saw? If I even knew what she was going to be cooking with it would have eliminated a lot of unacceptable choices. (For example, sliced cheddar is not nearly as good as shredded on Ralph's Skyline chili.) Architecture is an art and science, in a way much like cooking, and getting the right ingredients combined in the right way ought to be every bit as important to a good architect as to a talented chef. When we write specs, it is the shopping list and detailed requirements for every aspect of the project. We put it in a book simply because there are less spatial constraints. This does not make the information any less important, in fact it is not even considered at all to be separate in a courtroom, nor should it be on a jobsite. Even a basic study of the first few paragraphs of the A201 reveals the concept of complimentary documents. The specs are really THEIR specs as much as they are ours. The reason a good review of draft specs by the designer of record is so crucial is that there is not time for us to personally ask every question. Too often the voluntary information is given at the level of "we need cheese", and we may get as far as "cheddar" by asking some questions. After getting as far as we and the designers seem to have time for, we may get the cold shoulder a few times or we see the clock is running out, so we finish writing down the best that think we know. Wouldn't it be an ideal world if they went further and said 3 cup package of mild, fine shredded, oh and by the way the Aunt May's brand is really good. I'm preaching to the choir writing on this forum, so not sure how much good it does, but sharing our thoughts with each other like this may translate into more beneficial conversations from time to time with those who set up the projects. The time and budget pressure is really driven by market pressures I won't attempt to fully understand, but there is sometimes a race to do it faster or cheaper than the next firm. This is ok as long as quality doesn't continually get diminished by such market pressures. The more the firm can become recognized for quality and responsiveness to clients' needs and continually uphold that reputation, the more it can differentiate itself not based on cost alone, and the better the chances are of not being in that rat race. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 48 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2008 - 01:08 am:    I see some parallels between the discussions regarding architects and engineers failure to pay attention to specifications and discussions structural engineers have about the lack of attention architects pay to the structural related issues. We have many competing demands on our time and specifications are only one of the demands. Most architects and engineers are not knowledgeable regarding specifications and they see little reward as a result of paying attention to specifications. How many star architects are known as good specification writers? Is it any result that they want to put there efforts elsewhere? When the specification writer comes along many architects and engineers are more than happy to let them deal with the specifications. As a result the average architect or engineer spends less time on specifications and is less knowledgeable. Firms such as URS that apparently force the architects to pay attention to specifications may be an exception. This process also explains why architects know less and less about structural issues. At one time there were relatively few civil engineers involved with buildings and architects did much of the engineering. As a result architects as a rule had a basic capability. The development of structural engineering as a profession allowed architects to delegate this work to the engineers and avoid structural issues and as a result their knowledge of structural issues has deteriorated. Thus the evolution of specification consultants as a field of expertise creates conditions that allow architects to ignore specifications. We in effects become enablers of this negative behavior. The healthy way to deal with this is to require the architect or engineer to read and evaluate the specifications either as done by URS or by sitting down and going over the specification sections with them. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 31 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, April 07, 2008 - 10:40 am:    John, Well written posting. It annoys me that employers jump all over the LEED AP bandwagon but ignore the foundation for the profession of CDT, CCS, and CCCA achievement. In addition, AIA and employers do not pay particular attention to working drawing methodology. Look at the program for the AIA Convention in San Antonio last May. One education session offered in drawing methodology, expertly presented by 3 employees of RTKL. Attendance for this seminar was in the top 5 for the convention, if not the top 2. The rank and file of AIA is so hungry for a better working drawing methodology, a session at a past AIA Convention in Las Vegas drew over 1000 delegates. Wayne Anonymous   Posted on Monday, April 07, 2008 - 10:43 am:    Real quote from a new hire: "I didn't know we needed a spec writer. With all the new automated master systems, I thought you just had to push a button and it was done." HELP!!!!! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 748 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, April 07, 2008 - 01:29 pm:    I firmly believe it has to come from the partner level in a firm. if the partner values the specification effort, and enforces that to the project staff, then the project staff "gets" that message. its the biggest difference from my old firm to my new one -- I'm included in more project meetings and more questions are routed through me now. I still see a lot of naivete in the office among the younger staff. Generally after someone has gone through CA in our office though, they appreciate what the project manual does for them, and participate more fully in its review. I think if you keep people from doing CA, then they don't "get" the value of what we do. As for review of documents -- my sense has been that if a project manager isn't reviewing the specs very well, they are probably not reviewing the drawings very well either. A good one reviews them together to see how them compliment each other. not many people are good enough architects to do that.. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 138 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, April 07, 2008 - 03:03 pm:    Our firm does use a combination of some checklists, and frequently we use bracketed/annotated/flagged comments in draft specs for sit down reviews with the PA/PM, similar to what Jeffrey Wilson and Dave Metzger describe. We also use the outline spec format and sometimes UniFormat/PPD process. It depends a lot on the situation, and the experience level and individual style of each PA. We do have a strong history of PM's and principals recognizing the importance of specs, and good ties with a very good CA department as well. Some more voluntary input from teams would perhaps make it even better. Designers need to put themselves in the shoes of the person who places the order with the supplier. Then what appeared to be minutia in the spec suddenly makes a big difference. They may not need to read all our specs to grasp this concept either. They just need to picture going out to [Lowes] [CK Supply] [Grainger] <insert supplier> to buy the product that is represented by the line they are drawing, or the block they are inserting. When that triggers a thought process of a couple of decisions that need to be made, time to jot a note to talk w/ the friendly spec writer. David J. Wyatt, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 07, 2008 - 12:51 pm:    I am amazed at the endurance many of you have, but sleep deprivation exposes us to longterm health risks, not to mention liability risks as fatique erodes the quality of our writing. We need to find ways to meet deadlines while taking care of ourselves. I thought I read in a recent thread that Melissa worked 21 hours straight to meet a deadline before her vacation. That's a huge sacrifice. I hope her clients appreciate her. I am preaching to the choir and I am not the best example.