owning and familiarity with standards

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

Author Message Anonymous   Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 01:15 pm:    Three questions about standards: 1. Is it necessary for an architectural firm to own a copy of every standard that is referenced in specifications? I know it is a better to have them. At very least, it gives architects the ability to verify that materials are being installed the way they were specified to be installed. But my experience is that project architects look up the standards even less than they look at specs. It seems like an enormous cost burden to have to purchase the myriads of standards out there, knowing full well that they will rarely, if ever, be opened. 2. I have been relying on the expertise of the Arcom researchers to include standards in Masterspec that are generally relevant to the section. I expect they would let me know, in their comments, when a listed standard might not apply. I have provided specs for scores of buildings and I have never heard of a problem occurring because of a referenced standard that did not apply. Is that a bad or risky practice? Must a specifier be keenly aware of every word of every standard that is referenced in the specs or am I safe to expertise of tghe master spec providers? 3. Which standards are essential for an architect’s office to have available? Pardon my anonimity, but I will otherwise be extremely embarrassed if I am the only one that specifies standards that I haven't read. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 752 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 01:26 pm:    well, back in the olden days -- if you worked on a government job you were required to have a copy of each standard referenced in the specs in your library. we always looked at a big Navy project as the way to get the library updated and "completed", and ended up with four or five file drawers of standards. To my mind, standards really come into play during construction administration. the IBC references back to a lot of ASTMs now (rather than UBC Standards) and when we've had "issues" on the job site, someone on the project wants to look at the relevant ASTM and nit-pick through it. the ACI manual gets referenced a lot; and I have a wide variety of odd things (Materials Handling, CISCA, BIA, etc) because of questions I've been asked either during design or construction. if you're working in such a manner that no one ever asks any questions, then I guess you don't need to have any standards. the references in Arcom are correct at the time the spec section is published. However, keep in mind that some standards have choices that the specifier should be making. my "can't live without list" includes TCNA; AWI and WI; AAMA; about 80 ASTMs; NRCA manuals; ACI field manual; and SSPC standards. I probably use one of each from that list every single day. the other ones are more dependent on the type of work that you (your firm) does. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 273 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 01:27 pm:    1. Necessary? - No. Prudent? YES. You don't necessarily have to own them for the off-chance that the architect wants to open them; you should own them for that ONE instance when an attorney will. The reference standards essentially do two things (as a resource): They help you KNOW what you are specifying. And they help the construction contract administrator verify they are GETTING what was specified. 2. MasterSpec does rely on and incorporate the relevant reference standards in a particular spec section. If a standard does not pertain to a section, they neither reference it nor include it. 3. ASTM and ANSI, for starters. Add to that AWI, BHMA, NCMA, BIA, AAMA, GA, TCNA, MPI, NRCA, and SMACNA (granted, some of these are trade association references and standards). And don't be embarrassed; you are far from being the ONLY one! Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 244 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 01:30 pm:    Q1: In my experience working in architecture firms, we tend to rely on the specifier having the more obscure references, or being able to furnish them when needed. This reliance is particularly true for external specification consultants. Q2. n/a Q3. This surely varies per practice, region, and portfolio, but I personally tend to use the following quite often (often enough to think of them off the top of my head): - TCNA handbook - Gypboard Association handbook - USG rated assebmlies guide - FHA guidelines - ANSI 117.1 - ACI 302 - ACI 117 - ACI 524 (I think? - plastering is what I use) - various "Technical Information & Services Bureau" docs - The ANSI ceramic tile installation specifications - WIC - APA (engineered wood products) - ICC ES reports - Los Angeles Research Reports - SMACNA - NCRA And probably others, these are just what come to mind as I write this. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 829 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 01:46 pm:    1. Ideally, yes. In a perfect world we should have, know and understand all of our references, what they contain and what part of them may be applicable. 2. We all do! 3. Not knowing what the references contain can[???] makes us look bad and may carry [at tmes] legal ramifications-- like being asked in court why you used the reference and what it had that you wanted to utilize. ASTM in particular has lot of test data and procedures that really are not that useful or applicable, but then it also has the "juicy" parts that do. AS a code official I once bought all of the reference standards the code used [BOCA offered them as a package] Only cost $5,000+ and took about 14 lineal feet of shelf space-- and then we only HAD them, we didn't KNOW them. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 02:01 pm:    If you don't mind some day sitting before a judge and admitting that you don't know what you're specifying...go for it! Anon #2 Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 73 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 03:43 pm:    But can’t we consider Masterspec and SpecLink themselves to be standards, to a degree? It is obvious that the people at Arcom and BSD have to do extensive research to determine what should and should not be included in their master specifications. Those master specifications are used by thousands of professional specifiers throughout the country on untold millions of dollars worth of construction. They are well-respected and understood by architects throughout the industry as being reliable sources of information. Specifiers always have to rely on experts to tell them what is needed and what isn’t. BSD and Arcom are seen as experts in determining applicability of standards to various products and building systems. If they weren’t experts, their master specifications would be worthless. It is saying a lot to tell an attorney that you specified a standard because it was in Masterspec and Masterspec gave you no a reason to omit it. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 419 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 04:13 pm:    One might make the point that using MasterSpec or BSD meets the standard of care, since "everyone does it" (or most of us do). At least, it would be easier to argue that subscribing to MasterSpec and getting it updated conforms more to the standard of care than using a firm's internally prepared master that isn't often updated. I don't think that I would call MasterSpec a referenced standard, however. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 719 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, April 11, 2008 - 11:29 pm:    " At least, it would be easier to argue that subscribing to MasterSpec and getting it updated conforms more to the standard of care than using a firm's internally prepared master that isn't often updated. " Depends on the firm, and the people maintaining it. Mine is updated continually - changed as I discover things or learn of something new or changed. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 881 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Saturday, April 12, 2008 - 09:31 am:    I would argue that Masterspec does not serve as a 'standard,' nor set a standard of care. I serve on the Masterspec Architectural Review Committee, and am speaking here for myself, not the Committee nor ARCOM, the author of Masterpsec. I think that ARCOM does a terrific job of producing a top-quality commercial guide specification, but it is not a standard. Masterspec relies almost exclusively on references to other standards produced by various bodies and trade associations--it does not create any "standards" of its own. Further, it includes pretty much everything any of its customers might ever specify. Therefore, it won't exclude products just because many specifiers may not like them. If you don't know what you are specifying, what the project requires or what the applicable standard says, you can produce absolute garbage for a spec by failing to properly edit it. Using neither Masterspec, nor BSD Speclink, can save you from that. My advice, if you can't afford all the standards, is get the most critical or complex first, and slowly build up the library. Many, many standards have options, ranges of quality and the like which are impossible to choose between if you don't have the book in front of you. You can also request help from good manufacturer's reps, who can help you understand the standards relative to their products, and may even give you complimentary copies of them.