| Author |
Message |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 02:14 pm: |    |
The items below are specification pet peeves from distributor's(d/f/h, div 10, and more) point of view. I also worked for a GC. That experience also help shape/warp my point of view.
1. Please only specify manufacturer's that are still in business. Please update your specs. Many manufacturers merged or went out of business. Comtec, Capitol, and Santana are not three separate manufacturers. Capitol and Comtec merged about ten years ago and Comtec and Santana merged about three years ago under the name Scranton Products
2. Please do not have your buddy from the local door/frame/hardware distrbutor write a specification with only the products he sells. This distributor who writes the spec might be the only distribuor who can bid the project. This will cost the owner more money if there is no competion. It also forces the contractor to use a distributor that he may or may not want to use. Write a spec that as at least two manufacturers and allows two local distributors to bid it. Also, beware of specilaized key systems. Explain to the owner that he will have to buy this proprietary key system from that distributor or manufacturer forever!!!! You may want the owner to take care of the keying or put the cores in an allowance.
3. Please specify the type of insulation you want in your hollow metal insulated doors. Is it polyurethane or polystyrene. The R-value for the core of a polyurethane is 11 and polystyrene is 6.4. When the tested in an actual opening, the whole opening including the frame and hardware on the door for a polyurethane core drops to R-Value 3.2 and 2.8 for polystyrene.
4. If you have a pre engineered metal building on your project, please do not make many deviations from the manufacturers standard specifications. Special paint finishes, more stringent delections, and special roof systems all drive up the price. Pre engineered buildings are supposed to save the customer money compared to a conventional steel buidling.
5. Canned specs, these drive me nuts. Please edit your specs. I don't know how many time I'll see a spec with multiple options such as the following:
Mode of operations:
A. Push
B. Crank
C. Chain
D. Motor
or
Finish:
A. Anodized - Clear or Bronze
B. Prime Painted
C. Manufacturers standard paint
D. Custom Paint
6. Please do not list six manufacturers, but only zero or one of the manufactures is carried by a local distributor. Contractors do not want to buy material from a distrubutor a 1000 miles away who cannot give support. They also want a choice of who they are going to buy from.
7. Please do not list manufacturers in the specifications who does not have a product that meets the spec you just wrote. I'm never sure if the architect or specifier has approved these manufacturers if they have a similar product or if they want the spec followed exactly as it is written.
8. I've seen a manufacturer's spec copied word for word off of the manufacture's website, but the specifier adds a special criteria that's not available. Please check with the manufacturer first before you do this and let them know what job you are doing this for.
Maybe the above is all common sense for the people who follow this website, but the above happens every day in the "real" specifications world.
If you have any distibutor pet peeves, let me know. I'd like to make sure we are taking care of the specifiers/architects in the best way possible. |
Steve Gantner, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: sgantner
Post Number: 21
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 02:31 pm: | |
Wow, someone needs a little more fiber in their diet. It sounds like this has been buiding up in you for a while. Those are all valid points. When you have run across them, did you point them out to the offending specifier? I for one appreciate constructive criticism when contractors or product reps run into issues. It makes my specifications better, and I will learn from my mistakes. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 03:58 pm: | |
Most of the time I'll send in a pre-bid RFI pointing out the conflict or asking a question. Or I'll send in sub request. I don't know if my questions get to the spec writer. Maybe the project architect answers the questions without consulting the specifier.
I don't want to offend or upset the architect.
I read through about twenty division eight and ten specs a week, most of the specs I read are pretty accurate. I'd say only one or two a week are bad. (The small chain retail store specs are the worst usually)
I believe most of the architects in my area do not have a dedicated specs writer.
I'd like to hear some suggestions on how distributors can help out the specifiers. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 932
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 04:05 pm: | |
Okay.... most of the errors you've shown us are not done by people who are really "specifiers", and I admit that due diligence sometimes goes by the wayside under a tight deadline. However, the contractor side needs to take responsibility for the feed-back loop, as well. At least once or twice a year, I get some architect saying they want to build something like "XX job" that was completed last year --- only when I do some digging, the job last year was completed using some contractor-selected product or system that wasn't specified and that no one told the architect about. when there is a product in the documents that no longer exists -- the contractor should be informing the architect of that fact. This is supposed to be a collaborative process.
And sometimes, the stupid specifiying comes about because of owner insistence on a brand, manufacturer, distributor... that we know is too far away, or not convenient for the contractor.
all in all, your letter is a good paen to the idea of actually hiring a specifications writer, rather than handing off the documents to the intern who doesn't have enough work to keep busy with. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: robert_w_johnson
Post Number: 58
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 04:27 pm: | |
I would agree with Ann that most of the specs with the problems you list were probably not written by someone with specification training and experience.
Suggestions regarding distributors helping specifiers: I would suggest that when you see "bad specs" coming from an office that you call on the office and point out the problems in a constructive way and offer to do a pre-release review of the spec sections within your expertise on a future project. Also gives you the opportunity to provide information on your products and have them included in future project specs. If you are able to carry this off in a positive manner you will likely have an office that will call on you in the future for advice. Word will then spread in the A/E community that you are a helpful resource.
I think that most A/E's and specifiers welcome updated information on changes in manufactuer's status - mergers, etc. Without feedback from contractors and suppliers, they are difficult to keep up with. You often see requests for such information on a particular company in this forum. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 306
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 04:48 pm: | |
Unregistered,
Thanks for sharing you experiences. I agree with Anne, that such specifications are not written by trained professionals who take the care and attention to write C4 specs. Another classic faux pas by the inexperienced is retaining all the references found in the Part 1 Article and not coordinate with what is left in Part 2.
Sometime bad things happen to good specifiers and stuff slips through the cracks.
Sometimes stupid specifying happens because your own colleagues do not make the appropriate decisions in a timely manner.
Years ago I found a great statement regarding product selection versus specification writing. As the situation arises I share it with others in the office. Original author unknown:
"PRODUCT SELECTION VERSUS SPECIFICATION WRITING - TEAM BUILDING
When a specifier cannot produce the spec on time, the problem is not usually their ability to write specifications but the lack of decisions on products. Product selection is an entirely different task than specification writing. The specifier, however, often selects products by default when the project team does not have specific requirements. A well-maintained master specification may make product selection seem automatic, but lack of criteria or specific editing for the needs of the project will result in problems on the job site. Laser printers can produce endless editions of the specifications, but the point is accurate decisions, not volumes of paper. If the problem is product selection, the project team must support the specifier."
Todays rank and file grunt workers and project architects do not know MasterFormat. They arrive in your office with one year experience times 10 and are given WAY to much free reign without proper oversight. We might hurt there feelings and bruise their egos if we find their errors and ommissions, all in an effort to make them better at their jobs.
But they know AutoCAD!
Wayne |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 05:17 pm: | |
Well, I will confess to having made at least a few of these mistakes, more often than I'd like.
It's sometimes very hard to know what products are distributed in my area. I try to be aware of this, but do not have the time to follow up on each section. No promises here.
Unavailable options do creep in. Requests by the designer are made at the last minute, or, when looking at the drawings the day before the job goes out I see something important and try to get it into the spec. Or, other times, I just don't take as much time researching as the project demands because I just don't have enough time.
At least I'm embarrassed when this happens--I do like to have a good spec.
In our case, Wayne, today's rank-and-file know Revit, too. I'm leery of laying too much at their feet. I think senior people don't feel they have the time to teach, and younger people don't feel they can take the time to research and learn. Just get it done! |
Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rbaxter
Post Number: 106
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 - 05:42 pm: | |
Am I the only one that thinks keeping track of who distributes what this week is a bit too much to expect from a specifier? I make some effort to keep track of what manufacturers products are available in my area, but I sort of see distribution of products as a 'ways and means' thing. I really don't concern myself that much as to the way the contractor obtains the product I specified. |
Doug Frank FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: doug_frank_ccs
Post Number: 261
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - 02:09 pm: | |
As for me, I’d go Crazy even thinking about trying to consider manufacturers who are local to our projects (currently doing work from Orange County CA to Philadelphia PA and points in -between). I normally stick to the National brands when naming manufacturers because of their consistent quality and they’re available nearly everywhere. I cannot afford the time to verify that they have an office or manufacturing facility in close proximity to the project location.
Regarding the original question in this discussion, I rely heavily on input from respected and respectful contractors, sub-contractors, manufacturer’s reps, vendors, and others who let me know that I’ve got a “diffugilty” in my specs I am never “Upset or offended”. However, I do not feel responsible to verify the existence of each and every “other acceptable” product manufacturer listed in my specs before every project issue. I’ve got enough to do without reading the Wall Street Journal every morning to learn about acquisitions and mergers that may affect my specs. (Actually that’s one of the reasons we subscribe to Arcom). I am always appreciative though when I hear news about products and manufacturers from folks in the business. Of course I also “cut the cards” because there have been blatant attempts to give me incorrect information in the past.
If I have one pet peeve about distributors it’s when they don’t tell me about a problem in my specs and then try to take advantage of it after the fact.
Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate
FKP Architects, Inc.
Houston, TX |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 394
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 11, 2010 - 01:52 pm: | |
I am pretty good, but I am not perfect, only movin' on toward perfection.
I will rarely take manufacturers/distributors specs without taking them apart and really looking at them. Even then I am not always sure if I am looking as industry standard stuff that is good enough for the job or a specific proprietary thingie that may or may not be required for this particular project.
My philosopy is to give the contractor as much latitude as possible in buying out the job but to have specific and appropriate requirements to frame the final selection. I do expect the contractor to know enough to understand the spec or find someone who does. Many years ago I got a call from a contractor buying out door hardware for a federal project. He wanted me to tell hime what the BHMA/ANSI numbers meant. I told him to get a hardware consultant and don't bother me.
Regional vs. national manufacturers... I always asks reps who call on me how their stuff is distributed. It would seem to me that something made in Oregon and shipped to Texas would cost more than something made in Texas. However, scale of production, access to inexpensive materials and labor, and efficient distribution can make up for transportation cost. I see plenty of stuff in Houston that is manufactured on one coast or the other with price or quality that beats that produced by a closer manufacturer. Many products are also manufactured in any one of a number of plants strategically located around the country; however, with apologies to "Regional Materials" LEED credits, we do live in a global economy.
I like to pare down my lists of manufacturers to less than 5, but it can backfire. There are more than 3 manufacturers offering ModBit membrane roofing systems in the Houston market (more than 5). Restricting the list on this item means having an addendum item to include an omitted manufacturer who is a squeaky wheel.
I get confusion from my clients (who are architects) and their clients who sometimes don't know the difference between a product's trade name, it's generic name, or the manufacturer. I also see confusion between manufacturer, distributor, and fabricator. I will occasionally get forced into listing a distributor as a manufacturer simply because someone doesn't think I know what I am talking about.
I would always like my clients to clarify which products really have to be specified proprietarily usine a closed specification (and why), which products should have a limited open specification with attention to salient features, and which can be very generic and open, giving the contractor the greatest latitude.
Then I would like the contractor to read and understand the specification. |
Steve Taylor
Senior Member
Username: steveatwi
Post Number: 23
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 06:53 pm: | |
These problems aren't limited to sections 8 and 10. I keep seeing casework specifications that name people who's funerals I attended 20 years ago. I also see specifications that say "Installation according to section 26 of the Manual of Millwork." The last edition of the Manual that had a section 26 was published more than 20 years ago. I wonder how long I'll be seeing specifications that call for the Manual of Millwork or Quality Standards Illustrated now that both have been superseded by Architectural Woodwork Standards.
I know that those on this forum do better than that. It seems that a lot of firms keep using the same specifications over and over. I think the people who edit them are afraid to take anything out, because they don't know what it means. So they add new stuff for the project at hand without realizing that it conflicts with what's already in there. And they keep listing Walter Czerniak as an acceptable manufacturer; who's been dead these many years. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 218
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 07:22 pm: | |
Some of these problems that concern products or manufacturers who no longer exist, or fabricators that have passed away, are inevitable when you deal with large projects.
My firm specializes in generally large health care projects. I am involved with a hospital project right now that is still building out the interiors, including the casework, where I issued the "Permit Submittal Specifications" on December 22, 2002. That is not unusual, we have a lot of 10 year projects around here.
I have not encountered a client yet who would be willing to pay the architect/specification provider an on-going fee to unilaterally issue Change Order documents whenever a merger or aquisition of companies, branding re-do, or obituary notice comes to their attention that might affect the documents.
Just in the time span of the project I mentioned, no doubt some stone tile company has re-branded some floor tile product line from "French Limestone" to "Freedom Limestone" to "Parisian Eco-Green Plus Limestone". What's a fella to do?
Fixing these things is an appropriate use of the RFI process. Where I get my feathers ruffled is when it becomes the basis for a Change Order Add simply because of the words. |
|
4specs.com Home Page