"Uneven"Specs

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

Author Message Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 09:51 am:    Funny situation for your thoughts. Repeat client known to be quite picky on casework and some finsihes, has new project. Will not pay for a full Project Manual so our interiors department has gone with drawings notes. (don't like them, but....) But to set up some leverage and enforcible provisions have gone to an "uneven" format. Casework, for example, has alphabetized listing through triple T (i.e., TTT), while other "sections" are less than 8 paragraphs in length. Some other finishes like stone tiling, and wood floors are also "oversized" In places have used "to Owner's satisfaction" as the standard. How much does this bother you-- or is there no concern? Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED®-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 146 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 10:35 am:    "to Owner's satisfaction" might sound to the sub-bidders like code language for "guess what we want" or "we will make you do whatever we say until it bankrupts you". Those who don't object will be the ones who didn't read it, didn't recognize it for what it could mean, or didn't know they had a voice in the bidding process. The Owner may be fortunate enough to end up getting a sub who will try to comply, but if lowest cost is an overriding factor in selection of the awarded sub-bidder then it seems more likely it could instead become a hot issue later. Best case scenario is it will just drive up the price of the bids because of the contingency factors bidders will build in simply because of not knowing the standard they will have to comply with. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 316 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 10:35 am:    I'm twitching just reading it. Good luck and I hope your pay is not tied to the budget of this job. AND I really hope you're not foing the CA, that poor bugger is doomed! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 786 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 10:46 am:    I'd suggest using some kind of recognized standards: AWI Premuim grade, Maple Wood Flooring Association (or whatever the name is - or the association for the wood species), or existing examples that can be viewed by Bidders prior to bids due. The bidders must have an established quality standard in order to submit an intelligent bid. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 69 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 10:54 am:    Dear Anon, I think you should be even more vague and ambiguous. Consider adding tried and true phrases such as "in a worklmanlike manner" or "what is not shown in the drawings and not specified, but could unreasonalby be expected, is included" or some such wording. Times must be tough or this client pays on time. Time to move on. Mark, what is "foing the CA" or is that a key board error? Is this the same as "shock the monkey"? Could not be you. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 10:46 am:    Repeat client??? If you know this client is "picky" and has "done this before"...why do you continue to "stick your neck out" when you know in all probability it will "get chopped off"? Seems like you're willing to accept that (relatively increased level of) risk? If so, sounds like you've done the best you can with the situation. Keep your fingers crossed, hope for the best, and expect the worst...like you've probably done for this client before. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:02 am:    Mrs. Javoroski; There are many reference standards included. Mr. Yancey; Client is also our attorney! Don't want them fooling around with any more ambiguities than places where we had trouble on their last project. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 70 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:12 am:    Dear [Mr] [Mrs] [Miss] [Ms] Anon, I was only being facetious, flippant and dicourteous. I know that law firm. Dewy Cheatem and How. They are also the lawyers for Car Talk on NPR. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 317 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:13 am:    D and F sit next to each other BUT I must say that this job could be the definition of a new word Foing \'fü-ing \ n 1: the act of performing or executing a complete $%^#ed up mess: ACTION 2 pl a: things that are done or that occur because the (insert party) is an idiot, but they write the checks b dial: social activities that result in your rethinking your career. (My apologies the cute n-g character will not show up in the pronunciation guide. Oh well back to work) Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 71 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:15 am:    Well written Marc. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:10 am:    Shouldn't an attorney know better? If they do know better, it means they don't mind taking advantage of others. If they don't know better, not much of a confidence builder. Simple use of reference standards seems appropriate when longer specifications are not wanted. What does your A/E services agreement say about specifications level of detail? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 927 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:31 am:    I have no issue with drawing notes where different sections are very different lengths. We have a sheet specs master, but we use an outline structure like a regular spec (without 1.01-type numbering). (They're edited in Word & inserted into Autocad dwg.) We worked hard to pare the sheet specs down to the most critical things for smaller projects. Our architectural woodwork sheet specs section is pretty long, too. On the other hand, the projection screen section is only a couple lines. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 283 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:35 am:    There is an old saying about architects not doing work for friends and relatives - maybe we should add one's attorney. Who is going to represent you if they sue? Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 11:44 am:    Mr. Matteo; Heaven forbid, but I would assume the firm that carries our professional E&O insurance! Anony (2 above); Have no idea what contract calls for. All this came down via PM and Dept Head. And yes, attorneys DO know better and I think an inherent part of their work is to take advantage of others. Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 254 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 12:07 pm:    Attorneys are paid to assert and attain the maximum advantage for their clients, in anticipation that other parties would do likewise in their own interests. It is not an attorney's job to be even-handed; attorneys know that's what courts and judges are for -- so attorneys can and do "push the envelope" for their clients' interests. The most one might expect is that an attorney will be "reasonable"--i.e., will limit any overreaching to the extent that is just short of incurring litigation or other costs that would substantially offset the benefit obtained. In this example, the likelihood of bid padding due to vague requirements or other contingencies is one of those likely offsetting costs to be weighed. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 438 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 12:31 pm:    I am sure the attorney/client knows the Spearin Doctrine and the theory of "defective specifications". David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1021 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 12:47 pm:    Anon, Is the client looking for a complete set of CD drawings or are they looking for more of Schematic/Design Development drawings? Do they have an experienced contractor on board? I have done a few projects where the specs were drawing notes and there really was very little Division 00/01 information. It was a small project with a negotiated contractor. Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 255 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 01:01 pm:    Is a design professional bound to meet the prevailing "standard of care" except when a client specifically requests (or demands) a "substandard" standard of care? Would a client's specific written and signed instruction to that effect get one off the hook? Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 01:40 pm:    Mr. Axt; They are getting full CDs. Project will be bid by limited list of experienced bidder/contractors. Also, we are issuing a bound booklet of the front-end and Div. 01-- full blown as with any project. Our interiors people love to do these "small" (?} projects with drawings notes and reliance on "good contractors good faith efforts" (don't get me going on that) Mr. Woodburn; I don't think our standard of care is manipuable and changed by who the client may be. Our charge via the registration laws, to me, is very straight forward. How or will "waivers" mitigate that, I don't know. My hope is that there is clear, written provision for what we have done here. Mr. Everding; Do you equate "defective" with short form or drawing note specifications? George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 439 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 02:18 pm:    I'm not a lawyer, but I would suggest that "defective" means the spec contains incorrect information, not that the spec is short or noted on drawings. The danger to the owner comes when downsizing the specification results in errors or omissions in the documents. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 72 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 02:35 pm:    Downsized specifications should not result in errors but they may result in ommissions. Downsized or "SHORT-FORM" specifications as Herman R. Hoyer, PE, FCSI, CCS practices meet the requirements of the 4 Cs. Below is what Herman has to say. For additional reading see his posting elsewhere on 4Specs discussion forum. I quote: "Creating and developing short-form specifications requires specialized knowledge and skill, and imparting this special knowledge is the purpose of this column. It also requires an appreciation of the concept that the length of specifications should be kept in realistic proportion to the cost of the project. First, let’s define short-form specifications and establish some guidelines. Short-form specifications are construction specifications reduced to the shortest length possible without reducing the effectiveness of the specifications and without sacrificing any essential ingredients. For smaller projects, short-form specifications can take the form of notes on the drawings. Creating and developing short-form specs is not a process involving abridgement or condensation of so-called long-form specifications. Instead, it is a fresh approach involving the reengineering of construction specifications. Abridgement of long-form specifications invariably leads to omitting important elements. The end product of our endeavor for this column will be “state-of-the-art specifications.”" David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1022 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 05:10 pm:    Anon, Okay let me ask the obvious here. Why does the client want to pay for a full set of CD drawings yet not want to pay for a full CD project manual? Isn't that like buying a new car but wanting to use crappy used tires.....or better yet wanting to use the 3/4 size emergency spare tires. ;-) Are you sure that your client is an attorney? Every attorney I know is verbose and believes that more words in the contract, the better protection you have. If the job is a simple tenant improvement job then just listing a bill of materials with "Install per manufacturer's instructions." could suffice. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 800 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 05:25 pm:    I've always had the feeling that if you have a good contractor, the specs are irrelevant, because they will do what the job needs no matter what you say; and if you have a bad contractor, the specs will be irrelevant because they won't read them and will do whatever they want to do. (and then you spend your fee arguing with them about the meaning of specific words). the attorney as client probably thinks that documents are irrelevant because no one would be dumb enough to do substandard work for an attorney, and they might be correct about that. I've done a lot of attorney's offices, and they never wanted full documents because they seemed to figure that we would all just read their minds and know what to do. (and Marc knows this is the case because he's married to one) if this is a client you've worked with before, and you're doing the same type of work for them that you've done before, you're going to be on site regularly, and you're working with contractors that you know, and subcontractors that are pre-selected, I think its almost more of an esthetic issue (ie, you don't want to submit those documents for an award) than anything else. if this were new client, bid project, new contractor... I would be more diligent about the documents. tony fodden (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2008 - 07:50 pm:    Anne, Marc, David, Wayne - I miss youy guys. Good discusion. Lynn, we need to get back in touch. I'm in Manitowoc. www.fodden.net. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 05:47 pm:    i recall an article in the WSJ where a landlord was exhonerated by a judge for not leasing a space to a lawyer based upon the fact the lawyer would have them in a very unfair situation - good advice is hiding in this judge's decision! John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 408 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 08:46 pm:    To be semi-serious, look at the articles by Herman Hoyer on shortform specifications in the 4specs.com archives. With Herman's permission, I used his concepts in the portion of my book regarding shortform specifications. The keys are (1) write using the proprietary method (no alternatives or substitutions) and (2) write using common reference standards. Descriptive specifying is way too wordy. Performance specifying requires substantial testing and inspection to ensure that performance criteria are met. Herman also has been a great advocate of Division 1 ("say it once") and considers it a key to enforceable/buildable specifications. Use of AIA contract documents (Agreement and General/Supplementary Conditions) is probably a non-starter with an attorney/owner. So, delegate to the attorney/owner the task of creating and incorporating bidding and construction contract documents. That is, exclude their production and implementation from the scope of architectural services and leave it up to the wisdom and audacity of the attorney/owner whether to publish these documents. A final point about shortform specifying is the use of schedules on the drawings. If finish materials, doors and frames, door hardware, colors, exterior materials, windows, louvers, etc. etc. are scheduled with products (er ... "work results") identified by proprietary nomenclature or well-known reference standards (e.g., casework construction and finishes and tile setting methods) identified in notes linked to the schedule or even drawing keynotes (but keep 'em simple), then the specifications can be radically reduced for something like interior construction. Just to let the contractor know how important it is to do a really, really good job, you might want to put an illustration of a decapitated horse head at the top of each page (reference intended to the Godfather 1 movie).