Ahhh... this makes me crazy!

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

Author Message Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1009 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 01:16 pm:    Are the rest of you running into this issue? Once again, I have had a potential client ask me for "CD Services"" for specs. They want to save money by doing the 50% set themselves and then handing over to me their files to ""bring up to final"". And once again, I have to explain that they won't save any money by doing it that way. I've found that messing around with a client's various software issues, and trying to verify their content, and then add in the stuff that might be missing is a lot more time consuming than just editing masters to reflect the drawings and using their specs as a guideline for content. is this common in your area? and if so, how are you dealing with it? Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 370 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 02:51 pm:    I've never run into this Anne, in more than 21 years as an independent consultant. Not only a time-consuming issue on verifying technical content, but also industry standards and cross-references. It's a big liability issue. We have had projects where the client has done a DD outline specification, but that is a different issue, as we start the CD sections with our masters, not the DD set. If faced with this situation, I would prefer to deal with it by politely declining. Or if I took the job, I'd want an indemnification from the client for havng to use their specification. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 03:24 pm:    I have one client who does their own outline specification (wiht some stuff that is at least 10 years out of date), but I do use my own masters when starting the final. It is there as a reference, but there are always deviations. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 - 04:29 pm:    We have a few clients that insist on our using their Divisions 00 and 01 documents/sections. One client insist that we not make any modifications to their Division 01 sections. Two of our current clients' Division 00 documents contain so much duplication, that it is almost impossible to locate/coordinate changes among all documents. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 87 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 08:49 am:    Anne, We recently had a project like this. First the client asked us to add LEED language and related Division 01 sections to the specifications they had already prepared. So we gave them a fixed fee for that. And I closed my eyes to the remainder of their content and format, per our contract. Next the client decided that their specifications were really not rigorous enough to go out to bid. They asked us to improve their existing specifications for them. Mark gave them an hourly fee, based on number of sections, that far exceeded our regular fee for starting from scratch with our masters. Happily, they accepted our fee for a whole new specification from us, and the project is out to bid now. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1010 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 11:43 am:    I've never run into this either (I will work with a client's DD spec, but use my own masters to start fresh). I did one project this way and have declined all the others because they simply can't pay enough to do the job right. when I asked around, my colleagues in the Seattle area haven't heard of this either, so I must be getting the outliers.. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 471 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 10:10 am:    I think this sort of situation is going to happen more frequently as design professionals generate project specifications using one of the computer-assisted specifications programs (e-Specs and SpecLink come to mind). These programs are very powerful and are now linking to drawings (BIM) ... kinda, sort of. But I'm getting comments from my clients who are trying to use these programs that the specs aren't suitable for planchecking and bidding, especially for public projects (schools, community centers, police & fire stations) and for medical projects (highly regulated by a State agency. So, they want a spec writer to add what it takes to make the documents good enough to get a building permit and to get bid (and I guess built). The expectation is that these changes are like a matter of simply adding a few Code references and some "green" provisions. Rewriting (i.e., reviewing and revising product selections and incorporating regional products and products according to client standards) is not expected and is met with disbelief, especially after it is explained that the effort is about the same as editing the spec writer's master in the first place. The answer, I think, is for the spec writer to use the client's computer-assisted spec program but incorporate "user-defined text" to create office prototype or master specifications from which the client's staff generates the preliminary version and then the spec writer follows on to make "final" edits. This changes the role of the spec writer and I'm not so sure I'm against it. The spec writer will take on more of an advisory role (and educator role too), followed by the more traditional role of producing bidding and construction contract documents. Is anyone doing something like this? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1015 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 12:27 pm:    there's a problem with the idea -- because most of those programs (espec, speclink) have seat licences, so unless you go to their office and work on their computer, you can't just jump in part way. I have a client now with spec-link and they had to translate their sections into rtf for me and then I have to edit them as word docs. its really a mesa and I spend way more time futzing with the stupid program than I do with the incomplete content. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1016 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 12:28 pm:    actually its a "mess", not a "mesa", but I haven't had my full cup of coffee yet Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1107 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 12:33 pm:    I don't know - actually, a "plateau" might be where you are with the stupid program... (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2010 - 10:39 pm:    I recently sent a response to an architectural firm RFP for specifications consulting services. I explained why I did not use the software they wanted to use for institutional projects - that I did not consider the output from their preferred software adequate for contract administration of a publicly-bid project. A colleague inquired the next week about a similar situation - probably the RFP from the same firm. It's one thing for an AE firm to get sold on a "BIM-compatible" specification software. It's another thing to end up with a set of specifications that will actually result in a successful built project.