USACE

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 647 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 05:12 pm:    We've been asked to answer an RFP to revise standard specifications by the USACE for a Combat Arms Training Facility - anyone with USACE experience care to embelish on what it is like working with the USACE? Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 735 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 06:23 pm:    The military (all services) use the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS). Are they asking in the RFP to edit these sections for a protypical facility? Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP RLGA Technical Services www.specsandcodes.com Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEEDŽ-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 182 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 06:01 am:    Increasingly they are also allowing other commercially available guide specs such as Masterspec. Check RFP for that, but if it is allowed, watch out for how they want the submittal register prepared. Also many projects are going design/build. This is a completely different way of working, and some of the GC/clients and most of the subs are not yet familiar with how that should affect review cycles - so schedule carefully and make sure the team members' input is specifically required at the right time in the schedule so that you can have a clear landing for completion yourself. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEEDŽ-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 183 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 09:19 am:    Be aware DoD specs can undergo much more scrutiny than a typical commercial or institutional project, through the DoD's review and backchecking system Dr. Checks. Also experienced GC's who know the inescapable submittal process and field scrutiny will be (or should be) much more inclined to comment on the specs themselves too, particularly in design/build scenarios. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 200 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 01:09 am:    Right now, about half my work is DoD projects using UFGS in SpecsIntact. The first project was tedious, but it gets easier each time. You may not make much money off your first job, but you will be learning the process for the next one. The SpecsIntact software has a steep learning curve, but it also has many time saving features. The more I use it, the more I like it. The RFP should give you the relevant Unified Facility Criteria (UFC) for the building type. It is essential that you read through the UFC guidelines so you are on the same page as the Corps for design expectations. Look at the RFP for the description of deliverables. They can vary quite a bit. A likely scenario is a table of contents of proposed specs for 30 percent; specs with tracked changes at 60 percent; 90 specs, which should be as close as possible to final; and final documents. You will get comments after each submission and you will need to reply to each comment. Turnaround has been pretty fast lately. I just got some comments in Dr. Checks that I have less than 24 hours to answer before the review meeting. My experience is that USACE reviewers are very thorough and have a great understanding of construction. User agency reviewers may be less helpful, especially if the facility is not undergoing a lot of construction activity. When they deal mostly with small projects, they can get bogged down with the minutia and miss some big things. Reviewers often include their phone numbers with their comments and talking with them can be helpful in understanding what they are looking for. They get paid to explain things, so think of them as assets. They are not there to tell you how to do your job; they just want to make sure the documents stand the scrutiny of public bidding. Christopher E. Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEEDŽ-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 184 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 08:25 am:    UFC 1-300-09N Design Procedures is one to be especially familiar with. Check the RFP to verify if this one is used or something else. You can find it on a Google search or through wbdg.org. Most of the time you need to show revisions from the master guide spec to whatever point you are at with each project, up until the very last design submittal. They really don't like designers using a copy and paste approach - they wan't to see all the deletions & be sure it is fully thought about. I would want designers to do the same if I were managing numerous $50M to 200M+ facilities with long-term cost as a high priority. At first it is tedious if you have not worked this way. It does facilitate better review. Pay close attention to the hidden tags in SpecsIntact (turn them on whenever you type, at least at first). If allowed to use Masterspec, try setting the deleted text color in revisions toolbar options to about 25% gray. Works beautifully. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 653 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, March 02, 2009 - 12:51 am:    Thanks Ron, Richard, & Chris for the words of wisdom, however I decided to turn down the offer, it was too difficult to meet the deadline for the RFP, maybe next time though, after doing several Marriott projects, I expect USACE specs are not much different to master, albeit a learning curve.