4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

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

4specs Discussion Forum » Archive - Specifications Discussions #3 » Sad Situations « Previous Next »

Author Message
Anonymous
 
Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 03:54 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

In another thread on silliest specification questions Ronald Geren reported an engineer who response was "I still need to work thru how the pavement sections will be addressed since the soils report is not considered a contract document, who is ultimately responsible for the pavement section design?"

I did not see this as silly because it apears that the engineer was trying to struggle with the issues but did not know the answer. He likely did not know the answer because it is unlikely that he has ever been taught how to write specifications.

Recently I have been dealing with another sad situation where another engineer wants to replace references to the Architect in the specifications with references to "Architect and _______ Engineer". Similarly he wants to put generic submittal requirements on the drawing sheet notes. The reasons put forth are that Architects don't do a good job of getting submittals to consultants and keeping consultants informed and also that it is difficult to have any impact on the Division 1 specifications.

This situation is sad because what is being proposed is subverts the Owner Contractor agreement and is contrary to good specification practices but also because the complaints are generally valid. All too often submittals take a long time getting from the Architect to us and in general Architects and specification writers do not welcome input into the Division 1 specification sections.
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues

Post Number: 731
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 11:57 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Being a spec writer that works inside an architectural firm, I sympathize with your position.

For our part, we do make sure that we establish the fast handoff of submittals needing consultants review, and the return review and distribution of them on their return, well in advance of the CA phase. That way, everyone knows what to expect in advance.

For the comment , "... in general Architects and specification writers do not welcome input into Division 1 specification sections." I would more likely phrase it as "... Architects who don't use specification writers ...". I don't think I even know a specification writer independent or with an architectural firm who does not want to make sure that Division 1 accommodates everyone's requirements. Most that I know have the lament that they never get any input and do the modifications by their own review of consultant's documents.

Here, we publish at Draft/Review project manual at 75%. Included in that is virtually all of Division 1 for consultants to see. And when we receive their documents we review it for compatibility marking up material that needs to be revised. We also repeat that review when we get the final package to assure that all has been coordinated and to make sure we pick up anything no one tells us about (like a sudden requirement for a mockup of some kind) to put into Division 1.

Architects who don't use specification writers including not using independent specifiers tend to try to muddle through on their own and often they are highly resistant to changing anything because they may not even understand where the information should be placed.
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 787
Registered: 07-2002
Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 12:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

As an in-house specifier, it's been my experience that consultants are reluctant to review Division 01 with respect to their sections, and seem to feel that their sections should stand alone without the "complications" of the rest of the project manual. Since I usually receive consultant specs 1-2 hours after the due time, and in PDFs, a review on my part is impossible.

William, I like the idea of at least giving them the opportunity at some point prior to final prints and am going to implement that on all my projects; whether or not they take advantage of it is their problem - at least I will have tried.
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman

Post Number: 660
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 12:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

As an independent, I don't have direct access to the architect's consultants. In some cases, I'm hired to oversee specifications coordination between the sections I prepare and the ones prepared by other consultants. I provide comments, which are sent to the architect and usually copied to the consultants.

Generally, comments include the use of references to other sections not in the project manual, specifying items in their sections that are specified elsewhere in the project manual (access panels and firestopping come to mind), and just plain improper editing of a specification master.

I provide a "Specifications Guide for Consultants" document that I ask my architect clients to pass onto their other consultants. In there, I mention coordinating with Division 01. I tell them to NOT to duplicate Division 01 requirements in their sections, and I give them submittal procedures, record documents, and O&M manuals as common problem areas.

However, primarily from MEP consultants, I get sections, such as "General Conditions for Mechanical," that essentially rewrite what's in Division 01. I comment on that, but does it get changed? No. I have no authority to mandate the change, so I just end up shrugging my shoulders, and, like Lynn, walk off knowing that I've tried.
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson

Post Number: 166
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 12:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

As another independent spec consultant (have also been inhouse in multiple other previous lives) I would ditto Ron's expereience. The first thing I draft on a new project is Division 01. I then transmit the Division 01 draft to my architect client for his and the owner's review. I also request that it be transmitted to the consultants preparing specifications for thier review and coordination (usually includes a couple of related sections like access panels and firestopping) - I can't guarantee that this is actually done. I often receive review comments from the owner. I sometimes received review comments from the Architect - not too often. I don't recall ever having received a comment from consultant on the Division 01 drafts. Again, like Ron, I see Division 01 subjects covered by MEP consultants in a section in the front of their divisions. They don't want to or they don't have the time in their budgets to do this type of specification coordination and the architects do not require them to do it. I gave up fighting it quite awhile ago. Like Ron I still do what I think is my responsibility by providing the opportunity to coordinate at the start of every project.
David J. Wyatt, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 07:28 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

My experiences, both inside firms and now as an independent, mirror Bob Johnson's.

The specs written by MEP subconsultants in Ohio are almost universally written as if the work of the disciplines will be performed under separate prime contracts. As in "The Electrical Contractor shall provide..." or "The Mechanical Contractor will...."

I have a standard letter that I issue to these subconsultants at the outset of projects that explains my position on these matters, but it rarely makes any difference.

It causes problems when the MEPs modify the scope of the Contractor with phrases like "Equipment pad by GC" or "GC to pay for testing of...." Also when they include their own excavation, concrete or painting specifications. These types of specs are so screwed up that they are hard to modify.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration