Agreement to release word specs

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

Author Message Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 318 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2010 - 06:04 pm:    Independant Spec Writers - do any of you have any language you have used if/when you need to send Word files to a client? A release form? If so, anyone willing to share? Jo Drummond Senior Member Username: jo_drummond_fcsi Post Number: 46 Registered: 06-2007 Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 - 12:26 pm:    I rarely, actually only once, have given addressable electronic files to a client. When I had to, and even when I give them a .pdf, password protected, file, I use the text below. If anyone can improve it, I would be grateful: The contents of the disk (file) are my intellectual property, and are not to be used, in whole or in part, on any other project, without my express written consent. I make no assurance as to formatting, accuracy, completeness or currency of the electronic documents. The disk (file) includes only those portions of the specifications which were drafted by me. I make no representation as to the presence or absence of computer viruses, and the risk of damage to computer software or hardware is solely with the user of the disk (file). Also, a provision in my contract states that I will be paid in full prior to releasing electronic files. Frequently, I don't enforce that if what I give them is a password protected .pdf, but recently I did enforce it with a client who quite possibly would never have paid me otherwise. It was a revived, old job, and things got rather unpleasant towards the end. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 958 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 - 01:05 pm:    I have no issue with releasing electronic files in Word or any other format to a client as long as I keep a pdf copy of what was released. They are the licensed professional, not me, and I have a contract for only one project. Even a locked pdf can be unlocked, or at the very least the text scanned. what I am selling is judgment and the ability to manipulate the spec language appropriately and the spec language to me is like a box of Legos that haven't been turned into a project yet. When I was consulting ten years ago, I only had one client who ever modified the spec language and then blamed me for the result; I sent them the dated pdf, and they withdrew their complaint. Jo Drummond Senior Member Username: jo_drummond_fcsi Post Number: 47 Registered: 06-2007 Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 - 01:16 pm:    Anne, you must have more honorable clients than I have. Some of mine would pay me for one job, use it for 5, and then call me to ask why the toilet partition section was missing (when there weren't any in the job I wrote). So I try not to make it easy. Scanning requires reformatting. Typing requires proofing. Do you have a good program for breaking passwords, I'd like to try it out! Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 857 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 - 01:31 pm:    I follow the same logic as Anne. I have copies of what was distributed to the client, so if they change it, it's at their own risk--not mine. I have in my agreements language regarding a limited license to use the specifications for the project in which they were written. If the specifications are used for any other project or for any other purpose, then they release me from any liability. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 71 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 - 02:25 pm:    Ditto Anne and Ron. I have always given live word processing files to my clients. As Anne says, they are the architect (engineer) of record and they are responsbile for the documents; they can change the specs if they want and they sometimes do make minor revisions, usually discussing it first and keeping me informed of the changes. I keep a record file of what they were given. I have never had to use those record files to defend myself. I also restrict the use of the documents I prepare to that project in my agreement per Ron. As Anne says, they come to me for the service in helping them put the details of the construction of a project together and the advice I can provide them based on years of experience. The documents are just a tool to get the project constructed. They will keep coming back, even for very similar projects, as long as they keep getting that good service. If I don't have a basic trust in the integrity of someone, I really don't want them as a client. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 408 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 - 03:25 pm:    The important issue is protecting yourself. It shouldn't be hard to show that someone had modified a document after it was published; I'm surprised anyone would even attempt to do that. As Anne and Bob said, your value is your knowledge of what to include. There isn't much you can do if your clients don't realize that. Architecture and specifying are pretty much accepted plagiarism; few specifications are written from the ground up, but are assembled from pieces taken from various sources. In theory, all specifiers follow the MOP, so given the same information, all should end up with the same product. It's a good theory, anyway... Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 437 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, May 28, 2010 - 04:05 pm:    We utilize MasterSpec as the basis for our project specifications. The MasterSpec consultant user's license stipulates that MasterSpec-based word processing documents not be installed on a computer at an unlicensed site. We occasionally negotiate release of Word docs to licensed MasterSpec users; otherwise, PDFs only. When we release Word docs, we negotiate a suitable additional fee, as the client is obtaining an asset of value above and beyond the value of the project specifications. We stipulate indemnification and hold harmless and such stuff. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 959 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2010 - 02:30 pm:    My contention has been that in a down market, my "competition" is not another spec writer, but an under-employed person in a firm; a firm can certainly subscribe to Masterspec much cheaper than they can hire me, so I conclude that they just really don't want to do specs. Even when I was consulting before and I had a couple of clients who did chain stores -- mid-value restaurants and the like -- they hired me to change out titles and modify as needed for their multiple locations. they were simple jobs, and I charged a very minimal fee for the work (four hours, maybe); if I had clients who wanted my work only for the value of the specification text, this is the type of client who would have done their own modifications. As with the other guys above, my agreement states that the specs are for one project only, that I have a hold harmless if used for any other reason, and then I count on myself to make the process as easy and informative for the client so that they see my service as the real thing they are paying for, not the documents. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 08:49 pm:    That is what is nice abour using anything but WORD for word processing. People that use WORD do not want anything but WORD. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 410 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, June 04, 2010 - 09:31 pm:    And people who do not use Word want anything but Word. The word processor has nothing to do with the discussion. If you're afraid someone might edit your files, it doesn't make any difference if you use Word or Wordimperfect or Wordstar - or pdf. Once your work has been published, it can be copied and changed at will. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 419 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2010 - 10:56 am:    I try to resist providing my clients with editable copy not because I am afraid of their using it for something else (don't need that kind of client anyway). What I am afraid is that someone will try to be helpful, do a "dumb edit" (editing without understanding of templates, styles, and fields), and I have to spend extra time cleaning it up. Had that happen recently. The other thing is that since we use fields in our headers/footers to facilitate changes in "Issued for" language and dates, we find that our clients generally don't know how to do that and will invariably spend a few hours to do what should be a task lasting no more than 3 minutes. The typical result is that they don't get the fields deletect and when the information is updated when it is sent to the printer, they can't get what they want. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2010 - 06:08 pm:    How can this not be about WORD?. If it was not about WORD the requirement under discussion would be the delivery of documents in an "electronic text format". The reason to require a particular word processing system is to "facilitate" the changing or reuse of the electronic file, which is what this discussion is about, because it can not be stopped Before computers my work was copied, and I copied others, and all we had were steno pools. It took longer to copy, but no one was expected to make it easy. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 412 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2010 - 10:00 pm:    So it's only a problem for Word files? (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2010 - 11:43 pm:    It's a "problem" with "EDITABLE" files...of any sort. Even though I strictly use Word, any release/waiver clauses that I "attach" with any editable files, uses the term "editable files". There's not much "we" can do to prevent "non-intended" uses of "instruments of service"...other than foreseeing such uses and protecting ourselves as best as we can. If a firm wants to relegate specifications to some less-experienced/knowledgeable in-house "specifier", that is certainly their perogative...and risk.