I need a definition of a 'specificati...

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 596 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 07:18 pm:    I am having a knockdown dragout argument with another consultant regarding what constitutes a specification. They have submitted a form which is labeled "specification" and notes the product, the manufacturer, and the location of the product in the job; they insist this is their specifications and that we are wrong to expect anything else from them - its frustrating, perhaps someone with a clear head on this board can provide a definition of a three part specification that I can ram up their...no, I meant send them to review....its been a long day. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 27 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 07:24 pm:    Sounds like that age-old confusion between 'selection' and 'specification'. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 697 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 07:39 pm:    The last architectural firm I worked for, we had in the consultant agreements that specifications were to be prepared according to the architect's format. And, as the specifier, I required SectionFormat and PageFormat, of course. I never had a problem getting consultants to comply with the 3-part structure--it was with the rest of the formatting requirements I usually had problems. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 07:42 pm:    The consultant could use some historical perspective. Here's what I would offer: About the same time that Michaelangelo was painting the Sistene Chapel, Tibeten monks in Asia were developing wall frescos using drafting tools and a paint-by-number system that specified the locations of colors, for the apprentices to fill in. Before the industrial age, buildings were simple enough such that the architect or master builder could just put notes directly on drawings. Today's 21st century high-performance building facilities are much too complex, and the design and construction industry is too fluid and litigious to settle for just notes on drawings. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 597 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 08:24 pm:    Ron, my agreements always require consultants to follow standard CSI s part format, doesn't mean they do and in this case I have a consultant who is a prima donna. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 698 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 08:33 pm:    Then, it's a breach of contract and you can withhold a reasonable amount from payment on their fee until the proper documents are submitted. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 699 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 08:47 pm:    One other thought I'd like to add: if the consultant is in a profession that is regulated by a state licensing board, they may be violating their state's rules of conduct regarding the standard of care. For example, in Arizona, the rules state, "A registrant shall apply the technical knowledge and skill that would be applied by other qualified registrants who practice the same profession in the same area and at the same time." IMHO, if all other consultants are preparing specifications in the "CSI Format," then your problem consultant is not applying the same standard of care. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 145 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 09:01 pm:    If you use any variation of the MasterSpec 01100/011000 "Summary of Work" Section, it will provide a brief definition of what a specification consists of and how it is organized. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 598 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 09:12 pm:    Ron, the consultant in question is not under my control nor under control of the architect, but rather has been retained directly by the Owner...they think they are above the rest of us pions. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 599 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 09:16 pm:    Steven - where I don't see it in Masterspec? Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 210 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 09:30 pm:    specifications: A detailed, exact statement of particulars, especially a statement prescribing materials, dimensions, and quality of work for something to be built, installed, or manufactured. That said, the term "specification" is used in many different ways by different professions. For example, Interior Designers have a completely different use of the term specification. If the consultant is retained by the Owner, send the owner a quick email explaining that this is what you received from the consultant and let them know that they will have to push the consultant to provide it in 3-part format (if the Owner wants it that way). Otherwise, it's not really your problem. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 181 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 10:33 pm:    From the PRM: Definitions of Specifications: A specification is a precise statement describing the characteristics of the work. Specifications define the requirements for products, materials, and workmanship upon which the contract is based and requirements for administration and performance of the project. They are generally written for each subject as sections and organized by divisions under MasterFormat or by categories under UniFormat. Specifications define the qualitative requirements for products, materials, workmanship, and administrative requirements upon which the project is based. In contrast to the generic notes and symbols on the drawings, the specifications provide detailed requirements for the physical properties, chemical constituents, performance requirements, and standards of workmanship associated with the manufacture and installation of materials, equipment, and components. Specific written requirements for the work that are usually organized according to MasterFormat into divisions and sections. Specifications, in general, can include various types of data; however, the specifications included as a part of the contract documents are the written description of the work to be performed by the contractor and are prepared by the A/E. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 600 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 10:35 pm:    wow, thanks one and all, now I have some language to use to make my case. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 182 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 - 10:42 pm:    One more from AIA A201, 1.1.6: The specifications are that portion of the Contract Documents consisting of the written requirements for materials, equipment, systems, standards and workmanship for the Work, and performance of related services. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 101 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 01:25 am:    Since the Owner is in the middle on this issue I would focus not on the contractual issues but rather how this unconventional document would cause confusion during the CA phase and would put the Owner at risk. Unless you are dealing with a very sophisticated Owner he is not going to understand the intricacies’ of specifications. Assuming that you want to maintain the relationship with the Owner I would make every attempt to appear reasonable without being walked over. Towards this end I would suggest that you offer to assist the consultant to create a proper specification section. During this process you will have opportunities to point out why the additional information is needed. Since the Architect has more invested in the client relationship he/she should fund this additional effort. Think of this as a way to cement relationships. While this consultant may be arrogant it is likely that he/she doesn't know how to write a proper specification and is thus afraid of the process. Remember you can be right but loose the war. The more reasonable you appear the poorer he will look. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 11 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 09:27 am:    Have you considered sending them a short form master of that section? That provides a CSI framework; the consultant can insert their product information; and the process will seem less scary to everyone concerned. Think of it as an intro to specifications. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 120 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 09:57 am:    Jerome, I am going to make a wild guess that the consultant is a building enclosure/waterproofing consultant that provided a waterproofing product matrix in spreadsheet format? I have been on the serving and receiving end of this methodology. As a building enclosure consultant employee this matix was standard offering unless our client (the owner) wanted a 3-Part CSI formated spec. As the AofR specifier, I transfered the information from the spreadsheet into the technical specs which were in turn reviewed by the consultant. Wayne John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 415 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 11:34 am:    On several projects, a signage and graphics designer has been engaged by the architect. This designer produces gorgeous books describing in great detail with combined images and text the signage and graphics for the project. In no way does this document resemble traditional drawings and specifications. The signage and graphics designer is not going to redo his work to conform to what he sees is an inferior and alien format to what he has so carefully crafted. So, I used the magic of the Appendix. Although not recognized in Masterformat, Appendices are a place to put many things that don't otherwise fit in the drawings and specifications. I simply prepared a cover document for Appendix A - Signage and Graphics and put the signage and graphics documents after it. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 11:15 am:    Expanding on Robin's and Mark's responses, I'd specifically identify (to Owner) the language that is lacking and how it could affect the quality of the "end-product"...and do so in terms that the Owner can understand...eventually letting the Owner make the final decision...and then "move-on." Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 209 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 11:53 am:    Funny, I was going to guess Civil Engineer or Food Service Consultant. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 601 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:06 pm:    Wayne, Don - wrong -Landscape Architect issued "Book Sheets" of materials that were presented as specifications. Since posting this, the LA clarified their position as we did ours with the help of this forum. I will probably be including a definition of 'specification' in Section 01110 from now on, it seems that having it in my agreement is not enough. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:18 pm:    I believe that clear, concise, correct communication can be achieved without using CSI formats [as valuable as they are]. If the specialty consultant and trade contractor use the same language and conventions, then the appendix solution can be an effective one, allowing the specifier to fill in coordination gaps in her/his brief section, without generating heat. The specifier should insist on correction of errors in the consultant's document [assigning work, defining GC's, etc.] There are specifiers who press formatting issues for format's sake, and when s/he's left the meeting, the team members roll eyes and shrug. "All other things being equal, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -attributed to Mark Twain. among others. Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 82 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:20 pm:    I believe that what your consultant has provided is merely a schedule that could have easily been included in the drawings. Locations and dimensions usually are not even included in the specs since they can be indicated easily on drawings. The purpose of the spec is almost exclusively to ensure that products are of the best quality necessary and that they are installed in the best way. The only questions you really need to ask your consultant is, “Do you not care how well the products are installed. Do you care how poorly the products will look after they are installed?” If you do not care, then you are doing the owner a potentially costly disservice. If you do care, then you should be using every took available to you to push the contractor to bring about that quality. Those tools may include (as appropriate) samples, shop drawings, mockups, warrantees, certifications, appropriate delivery and storage compliance, limitations to appropriate environmental conditions, competitive pricing by specifying multiple manufacturers, compliance with appropriate industry standards, product descriptions when needed to ensure that the contractor knows the performance requirements you are seeking, fabrication requirements not covered in industry standards (such as requirements to perform as much work in factory as possible), compliance with product finish quality standards, pre-installation substrate examinations, requirements to reject defective products and work, requirements to comply with manufacturer’s installation requirements (when desired), and requirements for adjusting, cleaning and protecting installations. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 702 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:22 pm:    Don, funny you should mention civil engineers. Here in Maricopa County, Arizona, there is an organization called the Maricopa Association of Governments, or MAG. They're a group of city, county, and town public works employees that have developed standard details and specifications for everything in the the public works realm. So, I have seen a recent trend with local civil engineers where they don't provide ANY specifications and reference the MAG specifications--whether it's for public works construction or not. For example, one civil engineer has written into his "Engineer's Notes" on the drawings that MAG specifications and details are "incorporated into this plan in their entirety." That means all of the "General Conditions" requirements are included, walkway and driveway details that conflict with the architect's, handrail and chain link fencing specifications and details that conflict with the architect's, etc. I've fought each attempt when I was in a position to do so, and won only a handful--and in those cases, the paragraphs in the specifications would state something like, "Asphalt: As specified by MAG Specification Section 711." At least they narrowed the content down to what's important and applicable. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 816 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:22 pm:    And don't forget that consistency requires that you be as ignorant a year from now as you are today. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 211 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:28 pm:    Ron: I have been fighting that battle for years both here and Vegas. Unless the Architect (my client) backs me up and pushes the Civil Engineer for specs, it is a loosing battle - the Civil guys certainly aren't going to listen to me! Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 704 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:39 pm:    Robin: The ones where the architect has backed me up are the ones I've won, too. Without the architect's support, it would be like me trying to convince a hardcore Marine that the Air Force really is a military organization! Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 210 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 01:30 pm:    Ron: That's happening everywhere with the Civils. But they always seem to want to write their own 033000. Seems they think their concrete is different from ours, and it always includes sidewalks that are covered in Div 32. I've stopped trying. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 12:59 pm:    It's 'peon' ;) Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 835 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 01:48 pm:    I think there are a couple of options here: if the consultant is the owner's consultant, you really don't have any leverage with them at all unless the owner gives you the leverage. I think its worth a conversation and email with the owner stating simply that the documentation provided by this consultant isn't in conformance with the rest of the documents and may require more exhaustive construction administration. the owner then has a couple of options: 1) ignore this 2) make sure the offending consultant does their own CA on their own dime 3) ask you to make the spec conform. I've had a lot of consultant specs that looked like grocery lists to me, and they often ended up being just fine during construction -- mostly because the consultant knew the subcontractor and gave them a lot of work and everyone "knew" what was the expected outcome. this is pretty common in kitchens and medical equipment, where the "community" of specifiers and installers is very small and they all know what they need to do. if you have to re-write the spec, I would hope you get extra services for this, but I have definitely had clients who refused to pay for that work. eventually I ended up listing all consultants in my proposal and stating fees to redo their work -- a shopping list for the client from me. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 417 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 - 07:56 pm:    Under BIM et. al., what are "drawings," "specifications" and "schedules?" John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 981 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 09:16 am:    John: My take: Drawings, specifications and schedules are reports generated by the building information modeling system. Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 221 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 09:29 am:    I get really scared when I think about specifications as merely a “Report generated by the BIM system”. I’m reminded of a previous statement from John Regener I think “Don't think about CAD monkeys interacting with the Ronco Spec-O-Matic program that automagically creates speci-fictions. It is a horrifying prospect”. If an automatically generated report really is to be the future of specifications,, just shoot me now! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 837 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 12:54 pm:    oh it is not. "specifications" is still used the same way as we have been using it since forever in the AIA docs. Schedules and materials lists are still schedules and materials list. Specifications (as we all know) are more than that. the model will never have testing criteria, installation criteria (other than dimensional control); coordination criteria, and verification criteria as part of the model, and since no one knows how to append a "live" document to the model yet John can happily retire before his project manuals are outmoded. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 982 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 01:22 pm:    Never say never. Certainly for the near future, the things Anne mentions are not contemplated to be in a building model. But they could be. Maybe the future of the specifier is adding information to the model like everyone else. Why not? What's so scary about that? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 183 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 01:34 pm:    I don't think anyone knows what form "specifications" will take under a fully developed BIM yet. I have not heard of any project specifications generated from (I think it should be from not by) the model to this point in time. I have heard of some information used in the prepartion of the specifications being generated from the model, but that is only a different way of getting answers to questions. The model can only generate the intelligence that has been included in the model - it may be able to manupulate the intelligence, but it can't create it. Someone has to input the intelligence. Hopefully, someone with the proper knowledge and experience. The question becomes what form do specifications take in the fully developed BIM process? I haven't heard anyone provide the answer to this point in time. As Anne points out, it difficult to perceive how a lot of information included in the traditional project manual can relate directly to "building elements" in the model. Other examples in addition to Anne's would be procurement requirements, contracting requirements, and general requirements. This would also be true for many of the requirements in PART 1 and PART 3 of each section. Yes, some of the information currently included in the traditional Project Manual may change to be in the form of a report generated from intelligence in the model. Some may not, but as John says we don't know at this point. It still takes someone with a good specifier's knowledge and experience to provide the information and make technical determinations no matter what form the information is made available to others. I think the great opportunity for specifier types in the BIM world relates to being much more involved in the technical decisions made earlier in the project related to basic systems and assemblies. The process of determining the performance requirements for the functional elements (systems and assemblies), evaluating alternative solutions for the systems and assemblies, and then evaluating the selected solution in relation to adjacent systems and assemblies. The specifier is often not as involved in this process as could be beneficial to the project. The designer types have often done it by the seat of their pants without an analytical analysis. The formulation and analysis of the "building elements" (systems and assemblies) of the model is going to change this. Specifiers are now going to have the opportunity to become a major resource in this early design process. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 983 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 02:30 pm:    Yes, the model is only as capable as the intelligence and information put into it. This is key. But..... As more building models become 4D, to include sequencing and construction, suddenly a 'place' opens up for many of the elements Bob refers to. Maybe the model will evolve to include the owner, constructing and design entities as components of the model...? I don't find these things so hard to contemplate. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 604 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 02:51 pm:    Hey guys all I asked for was a simple definition of "specifications"...seems this forum has gone way out into another tangent, sort of like the outer limits...speaking of the outer limits I'm thinking about asking Joe the Plumber for his definition, couldn't hurt...sorry its been a bad week and last night's debate I wish I had slept through. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 03:03 pm:    Specs = woids about building stuff, thangs and how-tos!!! Joe Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 03:42 pm:    Specs from Joe the Plumber PIPING SPECIFICATIONS All pipe is to be made of a long hole, surrounded by metal centered around the hole. All pipe is to be hollow throughout the entire length. All pipe is to be of the very best quality, preferably tubular or pipular. All acid-proof pipe is to be made of acid proof metal. Outer-diameter of all pipes must exceed the inner-diameter. Otherwise, the hole will be on the outside of the pipe. All pipe is to be supplied with nothing in the hole so that water, steam, or other stuff can be put inside at a later date. All pipe is to be supplied without rust, as this can be more readily put on at the jobsites. All pipe is to be cleaned free of any covering such as mud, tar, barnacles or any form of manure before putting up, otherwise it will make lumps under the paint. All pipe over 500 feet in length must have the words "Long Pipe" clearly painted on each end so that the fitter will know that it is a long pipe. All pipe over two miles in length must also have these words painted on the middle so that the fitter will not have to walk the full length of the pipe to determine if it is long pipe or not. All pipe over six inches in diameter is to have the words "Large Pipe" painted on it, so that the fitter will not use it for small pipe. All pipe fittings are to be made of the same stuff as the pipe. All pipe closers are to be open on one end. No fittings are to be put on pipe unless specified. If you do, straight pipes become crooked pipes. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 123 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 05:10 pm:    Jerome, It is an election year and we are allowed to filibuster. Wayne Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 05:17 pm:    Specifiers are ALWAYS filibustering. 'Quick questions' to specifiers never result in quick answers. Steve Gantner, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: sgantner Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 05:24 pm:    Quick answer: The book Contractors never read and the one lawyers know by heart! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 838 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2008 - 05:27 pm:    to go back to the twilight zone: I don't think specifications will be any of those model integrated things until we change how the guys on the jobsite view the documents. Right now, when I've gone to the jobsite, they can certainly view the model -- on the computer in the trailer. out on the actual project site, in that room that is piled with stuff... it is stacks of drawings, and the project manuals that folks are referring to, not the 3D model. Until that technological leap is made, I don't think we're abandoning the separate project manual. And, we need a few more generations of computer advances as well. Currently our most complete model for an office building in Switzerland can only be opened 17% before crashing the computer. there's no value to including specification information in that model until the whole thing is more accessible. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 294 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 - 12:57 pm:    At the risk of some degree of apostasy... What constitutes an adequate specification for a project depends on the type and scale of project. A large scale public works project which will be competitively bid needs much more in the way of specification than a 5,000 sq. ft. residence which will be built by a selected contractor with whom the designer has worked on several projects. It also depends on the what is being specified. Specifications for a refrigerator can almost be reduced to a product selection while exterior glass in a hurricane zone is going to need more guts. The specifications (and the drawings) consititute an externalizing of project information resulting in the decisions made during the design process. We do this because there is so much that goes into even simple projects and we do it because those who do the construction contract administration for larger projects may have little or no contact with the design team. If an architectural firm in Chicago does a large project in Denver, it is highly likely that the design/production team will only be peripherally involved. Moreover, because of turnover, it may be that those involved in design (and even production) may no longer be working in that firm. Externalizing decisions and information into a set of construction documents means that research previously done and decisions previously made do not have to be revisited during construction. The larger and more complex the project and the more remote the project site is from the design office, the more important construction documents become. However, even small projects (especially ones in the public sector which are competitively bid) may require complete drawings and specifications. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 819 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 - 01:55 pm:    Well said; when an architect lived on the construction site for the entire time it took to build, there was little need for complete documents. Sketches could be made in the dirt or the builders could be shown by example what the design intent was. The architect sometimes had to pass on the design intent to another when the project took more than one lifetime, but again, it could be communicated right there, in real time, with actual, physical materials. The "first" specification, however, was communicated over considerable distance and there were no drawings that we are aware of. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 920 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 - 02:48 pm:    You mean--- “And God saith unto Noah "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion thou shalt make it of: the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." - Genesis 6.14 16 By-the bye, it appears compliance was NOT an issue!! Russ Hinkle, AIA, CCS Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 56 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 - 02:53 pm:    And I thought that quote was Bill Cosby . . . :-) "What's a cubit?" One of my favorite comedy routines. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 - 03:24 pm:    Seriously, "What is a cubit"????? Main Entry: cu·bit Etymology: Middle English, from Latin cubitum elbow, cubit Date: 14th century (but God knew before hand) : any of various ancient units of length based on the length of the forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger and usually equal to about 18 inches (46 centimeters) Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 820 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 - 04:40 pm:    Here's a story about someone who seemingly has figured out "what's a cubit?" (I love that Cosby routine, too - Right...) http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-04-29-netherlands-ark_N.htm Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 - 04:49 pm:    . . . and thought by some to be the origin of the insulting gesture known as "digitus impudius" (aka "flipping the bird") and the Italian gesture with similar meaning using a bent elbow. The original construction dispute resolution! ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 8 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 03:44 pm:    Getting back to the original question, I think we have all been subjected to manufacturers providing links to 'Product Specifications' on their websites or in their literature only to find, at best, a listing of descriptions and performance requirements. I would expect that most Civil Engineers understand what is expected, even if they don't understand why they can't use "Section 2" any more (Right. What's a Division?). Sounds like this one has been spending too much time hiding under that rock that would have been properly excavated if only they had specified the requirements properly. Good luck, and keep fighting the good fight!