| Author |
Message |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 98
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 02:00 pm: |    |
In my experience Architects that hire independent specification consultants use the specification consultant's master specification as the basis for the current project specification. This makes it difficult to for the firm to customize their specifications to reflect their preferences and lessons learned. This problem is compounded when the firm uses more than one external specification consultant.
What am I missing?
This is one of the major objections that I have with using the Architect's or his specification consultant's master structural specification sections. |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 693
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 02:39 pm: | |
Mark, it's a two-way street.
As an independent, I don't force the structural consultant (or any consultant, for that matter) to use my masters, which are largely MASTERSPEC sections with a few modifications here and there, and some pre-editing.
I once had a potential client tell me I had to use their specification masters, which was okay, except that I added an additional fee to do so because I knew it would take me longer to edit their sections due to my unfamiliarity with them.
As for the firm not being able to incorporate their preferences and lessons learned, that is true. But, you also have to consider that an independent also has developed preferences and lessons learned. The key is communicating that information: architect-to-specifier and specifier-to-architect.
In the end, the project architect, project manager, or whoever has taken responsibility on the architect's staff to review the specifications, MUST review the specifications--whether they're prepared by an independent using the independent's masters or the architect's masters, or by the in-house specifier.
All I ask of consultants when preparing their respective sections is not to specify things that are the responsibility of the architect, coordinate requirements with other consultants (e.g. not having the civil, structural, and landscape consultants writting their own version of the "Earth Moving" section), to identify the correct section when referencing a section not prepared by themselves, and not to rewrite or modify the requirements of Division 01 in their sections.
I may cry out "why, oh why do they do this?" when I read consultant specs that begin every other paragraph with "Contractor shall.." (or, worse, "Mechanical/Electrical/Landscape/<Insert subcontractor here> Subcontractor shall..."); or include phrases such as "any and all" and "workmanlike manner"; or contain words like "hereinafter" and "aforementioned." I force myself to look past these types of specification "indiscretions." Otherwise, the project manual would never be ready by the deadline. |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 02:45 pm: | |
One way to work with this (from the architect's perspective) is that though they have different spec writers, they can use them consistently for select project types.
On schools projects, they use X, on commerical they use Y, and on residential/multifamily they use Z. Each of the spec writers work with the architectural firm to develope "their" standard spec for that firm.
I know several firms that do this currently. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 412
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 04:43 pm: | |
Mark:
What I believe you are missing is an opportunity to work with the specifications writer (in-house or out-sourced) to develop "structural" specifications tailored to YOUR professional judgment and practices. No matter whom the architect of record is, you and the specifications writer can develop specific text in specific sections that suits the typical project types, including regional construction practices and compliance with building code requirements (such as seismic or hurricane requirements), that you encounter.
In my independent practice, I work with about 5 structural engineering firms. I am working on prototypical spec sections or unique text within common sections to suit each engineering firm. Lots of work to develop? Yes, but I believe in the long run it will be less work when producing project-specific specifications.
As a consulting engineer, customized, prototypical specifications, developed with an out-sourced ("consulting") specifications writer would be applicable for your design services to several architectural firms. I think this would enhance productivity and quality for your firm. |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 99
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 07:06 pm: | |
I do try to work with the Architect's specification writer but find it frustrating when during DD I try to have a dialogue regarding several spec related issues and am told they have not hired the specification consultant yet.
At our firm we maintain our own master specification sections. We have automated the formatting conversion problem so that this is not the problem it once was. We are also responsive to requests for changes from the Architect. This is by far the most efficient way to produce structural specifications.
There seems to be an impression that Engineers need to hire a specification consultant to prepare their specifications. I believe that it is easier and more efficient for the engineer to educate himself regarding specification writing. The PRM is a good source.
Because we need to work with a number of different architectural firms I believe that in many respects we stay closer to the PRM than some architects.
I once worked on several projects with the same Architect who insisted that we use their master. They actually had different versions of the structural specificaiton sections for each of the structural consultants that they used. My impression was that this requirement had more to do with control issues rather than our ability to conform to their standards. The fact that they did not have any written standards regarding specification preparation supported this impression. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 414
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 02:36 am: | |
I encounter very conscientious consulting civil and structural engineers, some with their own specifications "masters." The results are typically unsatisfactory not in terms of technical content for the civil and structural engineering design but the lack of considerations for architectural (tolerances, finishes, colors, etc.), landscaping (paving and site structures) and mechanical and electrical designs (equipment pads, lighting standard bases, etc.) designs that rely upon these same sections.
How does an engineer become educated in writing construction specifications? |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 100
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 12:04 pm: | |
In my case I learned about specifications by:
--Reading the MOP (I have yet to fully absorb the PRM)
--Reading the Construction Specifier for 30+ years
--Studying specifications from multiple sources and comparing them to what the MOP says.
--Early on I used a 3 ring binder of specifications published by Hans Meier as a guide.
--Many years ago I took a course presented by CSI SF.
--Reading a couple of books on construction law.
--Sweating blood writing and refining structural specification sections while trying to apply what was in the MOP. This process also includes reading the relevant codes to make sure I address all of the required technical issues.
--Performing CA on my projects and learning.
This is probably a little over the top but this is how I educated myself. There are some things that I do not know but everybody has their weak areas. On the other hand I probably have a better understanding of the legal issues and the issues that are important to engineers than many specifiers.
I believe it is too simplistic to characterize the coordination problems as due to the engineer’s failings. From the engineer's perspective when the architect takes charge of the structural specifications the technical content suffers.
I will admit that there are some engineers that fit into your stereotype but there are some that do not.
Often when I see the architect’s specifications for concrete finishes I have the feeling that they are a little fuzzy but I shut up and let him do it his way. I believe that what happens is that when you are in control you will be happier with the results than if you do not feel you had control irregardless of the results. This is basic psychology.
The reality is that we have to incorporate into a single specification section, knowledge from two subject matter experts, both of which want to take the lead. What is needed is for architects as well as engineers to learn to share specification sections. This process of merging data from different subject matter experts needs to be a process whereby two equals collaborate. This is a new paradigm.
The answer is not for the Architect’s specification writer to always take the lead. The primary author of a specification section should be determined by the predominant scope of the section. Sometimes it may be appropriate to split the section into two separate sections dealing with different aspects of the same work.
In my case either I have been lucky or architects have not provided me with feedback, but I have had relatively few instances where there were tolerance problems related to specifications. One case that I remember we had referenced ACI 117 for concrete tolerances but that the architect wanted was likely unrealistic. Maybe we could have tightened up the tolerances but the architect did not appreciate the issues and wasn't prepared to familarize himself with standard industry tolerances.
To move this forward what I would like to see is:
--Markups of the structural specification sections that go beyond format and address coordination issues.
--Architects scheduling a coordination meeting where we address specification issues such as concrete finishes and tolerances. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 832
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 01:55 pm: | |
Mark-
this is mostly a scope of work issue for the consultants, including the spec consultant. when I was consulting, I always asked the question if the engineering consultants (civil, structural) were going to provide their own specs or if I was going to have to write the sections. usually that question had never crossed the architect's mind, and was never covered in their scope of work sent out to the consultants.
I would say that in your practice you need to be up-front with this, and say that as part of your scope of work, you will "provide specifications sections and coordinate with the architect's specification consultant" and then if necessary provide a list of the sections you are going to provide.
the spec consultant should have no problem with this unless they are extremely low on work, very controlling and think they know everything. you may have to coordinate formats and numbering, and also coordinate with things like primer for steel, but if you have masters you should be using them on EVERY project, and just say that your liability carrier requires you to provide both specs and drawings. (which is probably true) |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 979
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 03:56 pm: | |
I agree with Anne. You could also make the case (probably unsuccessfully, I know) that your fee is higher if you use someone else's spec since there so much more work to be done to get it to be correct. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 336
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 06:44 pm: | |
Mark: I'll recommend your SE firm to my architect clients any day. I hope your postings here and your association work will encourage other PEs to undertake specification writing and overall document coordination with the same level of professional commitment.
I willingly include editing and coordinating of civil and structural consultant specifications in our architect specification services because so many otherwise very fine consultants put all their specifications in notes on their drawings and disregard the project manual concept altogether. This practice is widespread and wildly inadequate for any project larger than a modest residence. Somehow buildings still get built. But the lack of cross-discipline coordination that results is a concern, and no set of drawing notes is adequate to serve as contract documents that protect the parties.
When we develop sections for CEs and SEs we frequently do so in web-conferencing meetings with the engineers, so that decision making responsibility lies where it should. We maintain lists of cross-discipline coordination issues to ensure we've covered the bases. |
|
4specs.com Home Page