| Author |
Message |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 743
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 03:45 pm: |    |
One of my clients thinks that preparing MEP specs is my responsibility, have never done this, curious if any of my fellow independent specwriters are providing this service. I wear too many hats as is, not looking to add an engineer's hat now? |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 447
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 03:51 pm: | |
In my experience with writing specs for Architects, the MEP specs were always prepared by the respective engineering discipline.
Where I am now, the respective in-house engineers are marking up their own sections.
I think your clients needs to talk with his MEP consultants. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 744
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 03:59 pm: | |
Richard, this is a new client based in Ohio, wanted to make sure this wasn't a regional change. |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 448
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 04:02 pm: | |
As long as I have been doing specs - East Coast or West Coast, and even Illinois & Colorado - the engineers did their own specs.
The only time I ever touched MEP specs was for formatting issues. Content is above my pay grade. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 745
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 04:51 pm: | |
Also, what is the specwriter's responsibility when it comes to obtaining Consultant's specifications. I have found that most consultants do not respond to my requests or demands, they tend to wait until the guy who writes the check to ask for specs, esp on projects where schedules are tough. |
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: melissaaguiar
Post Number: 137
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 05:00 pm: | |
Tell your client, that "preparing" will mean you will coordinate with MEP engineers of record by giving them a typically specification format to follow for that particular project.
Have you coordinated with MEP on this project? If not, get in touch with them and express your concerns. What did they say to you?
Typically you will find they will do their own specifications.
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP
|
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: melissaaguiar
Post Number: 138
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 05:03 pm: | |
Jerome,
Are you an in-house specifier?
Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP
|
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 843
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 05:12 pm: | |
Jerome,
Even as an in-house specifier, we don't prepare the MEP sections, nor any other consultant where we don't have a master for them to markup. And even if we do have a master (always structural and sometimes Landscaping) they mark it up and we edit it and they own it. MEP, its 100% theirs.
We require a review draft at about 70-75 percent printed on paper which we review as well as the final (which we take as pdf files.
As to non-delivery, evan as the internal specifier, this is not something that I do. I set the schedule for what is needed when to make various reviews and dates, but it is the Project Architect or Project Manager to get the items. I make it a point that I do not communicate directly with any consultant, it all goes through the PA or PM so they know that status at all times. There are rare points when do deal with them direct - but it is truly rare and the PA or PM always knows what is going on.
That is the way it should be for an independent at well.
William
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate
WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 746
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 05:17 pm: | |
Melissa, I am independent, no ties to any other firm, other than my own - Lazarcitec Architectural Services, Inc. |
Paul Gerber
Senior Member
Username: paulgerber
Post Number: 79
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 05:52 pm: | |
Hmmmmmmmmm Jerry...think about that again...you may want to offer this service to your clients as a cash cow...if you offer the same "quality" product I see in my experience then:
a)you don't have to follow those nonsensical section numbers or names that are shoved down your throat in MasterFormat because none of those things make the least little bit of sense anyways
b) you don't have to follow any pesky standards like SectionFormat / PageFormat
c) your header information doesn't have to be consistent from one Section to the next...heck, the header information can even be different from one page to the next within a Section
c) nobody expects your numbering to actually increase in value with subsequent paragraphs
d) no concrete details are required, especially not anything that would actually stand up in a court of law or for that matter any erroneous details like REFERENCE STANDARDS, or even PART 1 - GENERAL information at all because you have your own discipline specific general requirements that lump anything you can think of (whether they apply to this project or not) and that hopefully covers all possible bases (see more on this topic in point e) )
e) you can completely ignore Division 1 because you have your very own Mechanical and Electrical General Requirements Sections in Division 15 and 16...or if you're actually using MF2010 you just add them to a "made up" Division 20 (no word of a lie, the only project I have done using MF2010 the mechanical consultant has in his spec "Division 20 MECHANICAL WORK GENERAL" including 20 01 00 Mechanical Work General Instructions, 20 05 00 Basic Materials and Methods abd 20 07 00 Insulation). But the electrical consultant had to be much more resourceful because he didn't have any "Reserved For Future Expansion" Divisions before his Division 26 so he used Section 26 00 00 Electrical Work General Instructions but was sure to note "This Section applies to and is an integral part of all Sections of Divisions 26, 27 and 28."...problem solved!
f) You can wait until the 11th hour to submit your Project Manual Sections to the "Architect" or his spec writer (or independent spec consultant) so that he barely has time to co-ordinate the Table of Contents, let alone review any content before the Project is issued for Tender (I thought that's how we like our steak??)
g) you can adopt the "that's OK, we can pick up those little details in the addendum" and then look at the "Architect" with a blank look on your face when he points out that your M or E addendum is half the number of pages of your original Project Manual Sections like you have no idea what he is talking about.
I'm sure there are more good reasons to start writing Mechanical and Electrical specifications but they elude me right now...if I think of any more I will append them to the list!
AND FINALLY...BEFORE THE MEP PARTICIPANTS START SENDING ME HATE MAIL OR DEATH THREATS, PLEASE REFER BACK TO MY FIRST PARAGRAPH WHERE I STATED 'if you offer the same "quality" product I see in my experience then:"...I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS your SPEC I WAS REFERRING TO! TakeItEase...you'll live longer!!
Ride it like you stole it!!! |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 747
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 06:03 pm: | |
Paul, this is why I like wearing only one hat. Besides I am so busy (knock on wood) right now, I don't have time for this nonsense. The irony is my agreement is very clear as to what my role is and my relationship with consultants, sometimes my clients don't read the agreement carefully. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 295
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2011 - 09:25 pm: | |
We once had a rather large hospital project in Utah where the local engineer absolutely refused to provide specifications.
Until that is, I got him on speaker phone from San Francisco and read aloud to him every word and editing note from the MasterSpec template for "Structural Steel"; asking him if I should keep each item in, delete it, or modify it per his direction.
After a couple hours of my voice he agreed to provide the DIV 3 and DIV 5 Sections we needed. |
Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap
Senior Member
Username: lgoodrob
Post Number: 144
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 10:02 am: | |
Jerome,
As the independent specifier, you may need to train your new client about what you do. You are right, the other consultants may not care what you say, because you don't pay them. Schedules and deadlines need to come from the Architect.
As to writing Structural and MEP section, you might remind the Architect that their professional liability does not cover this work.
I prefer that consultants send sections in their final form, in PDF, directly to the Architect. Sometimes the computer elves garble content, especially symbols. I once received a plumbing section in MSWord where all the fraction symbols turned into pi symbols. That story usually scares the Architect into demandng PDFs.
With recalcitrant consultants, have the Architect finish the table of contents. Then you don't need to monitor your email through the evening, waiting for the last few sections.
- |
Scott Mize
Senior Member
Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi
Post Number: 53
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 11:02 am: | |
Paul, Jerome:
Your posts had me rolling on the floor. As the wise man said, "It's funny because it's true."
I'd start telling stories about civil engineers and specifications, but that'd be kicking the guy while he's down.
On a more serious note, I'm late to this party and most (if not all) of the good advice has already been given.
It's hard to tell a client he/she is wrong; I prefer saying, "That turns out not to be the case." :-)
Back to the humor: Dilbert and Wally are less-than-polite in what are probably my two favorite Dilbert strips of all time, but their wisdom shines through.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-05-30/
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-05-31/
(And, when I was an in-house specifier, I had these conversations over and over again, only nicer.) |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 748
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 - 11:10 am: | |
Scot, thanks for the humor, much needed today. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 07:32 pm: | |
I agree with the "consultant sends PDFs to the Architect". in fact, now that I'm with the Architect, the consultants send us PDFs. I've had the same printing elves show up -- but more importantly, the architect is not the typist (or word processor ) for the consultant. these days, with almost everything submitted to the printer electronically, the only thing I do with consultant specs is roll them into the PDF and then transmit for printing. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 752
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 07:54 pm: | |
I receive all Consultant specs in PDF, if it is in any other form I don't accept them. Once I receive them I do not read them for content, but rather for coordination with the remainder of the specs. Most of the time the Consultant will refer to spec sections that don't exist and end up being fuel for questions that waste time answering. As an example I just received Consultant specs for a MF04 job, but it was obvious the Engineer added zeros to the end of each section, the specs were originally from MF95. To make matters worse it was also obvious the spec sections were the firms's masters, since the headers had "Masterspec's" name and a 2005 publication date. (btw a national firm, 40 times my size). I've advised the architect and the Consultant of my concerns, so far its not keeping them up at night.
I've found wrong building codes cited, manufacturers that don't exist, and even references to other jobs, it upsets me that these Consultants care little about what goes into their specifications - I know how important accuracy is, but on many jobs I seem to be alone in my dedication to issuing proper specifications. This is of course private sector work, I know this crap would not be tolerated on a government project. And I also understand time shortages, but what really stinks is that many of these consultants submit the same specifications with the same errors job after job. It blows me away when I look at previous projects and see the same errors with the same Consultant.
It seems some people never learn.
Well time to get off my soapbox, its been nice venting, cheaper than a therapist, the work goes on, welcome to South Florida architecture. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 753
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 08:02 pm: | |
Lisa, I also give the Architect an editable TOC file to add in last minute spec sections; and I require hard copy Project Manuals be sent to us as record sets, of course nowadays we seldom get those Record Sets. We do manage to get one or two calls on every job about why we are missing a section that is in the TOC but not in the Project Manual. It also seems that no matter who authored which spec section we seem to field all the gripes regarding spec errors, the poor specwriter gets blamed for everything. I've grown a pretty thick skin over the years, come with the territory. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 540
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 - 03:40 pm: | |
There are also specs by "consultants" of the Architect other than M-E-P, who may produce specifications to be incorporated in the Project Manual. Based on my experience, I find that I have to deal with specs produced by:
- civil engineer
- landscape architect
- structural engineer (no architectural considerations allowed, apparently)
- roofing and waterproofing consultant (including gas mitigation consultant)
- curtainwall consultant
- door hardware consultant
- signage and graphics consultant
- medical, process, materials handling and other specialized equipment consultants/delegated design contractors
- elevator/vertical transport consultant
- audio/visual equipment consultant
- telecommunications consultant
- fire protection consultant, for both fire detection and alarm system, and fire suppression systems
- security consultant, for intrusion detection and alarm systems, and spec review for security
- Owner or Construction Manager who produces Division 01 - General Requirements (Lord have mercy on us)
- Owner, Owner's legal counsel or Construction Manager who produces Bidding & Construction Contract Documents
- other consultants who do not edit specs but provide information to be incorporated into specifications, including
' geotechnical engineer
' acoustical engineer
' sustainable design ("Green") consultant, for both administrative requirements for compliance with LEED, CHPS or "Green" building code and maybe even product selections
and last but not least, the interior architect/designer.
I'm confident that there are others. And I'm also confident that I can only format but not technically edit specifications by these consultants.
Underlying all of this is the need for the Architect or Design Professional of Record to manage and coordinate this diverse cast of players. If the Architect or Design Professional of Record is not knowledgeable about the many technologies involved in the overall design, that's a problem that is beyond the specifications writer's scope of services ... but somehow usually gets done more-or-less. |
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 421
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2011 - 10:04 pm: | |
John
Your characterization of structural engineers ignores those structural engineers who are highly attuned to architectural considerations. |
Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP
Senior Member
Username: ecwhitby
Post Number: 119
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 - 12:13 pm: | |
As a former structural department head, I can sympathize with John: some structural engineers pay attention to architecture, but not all. On the other hand, I have known all too many architects who have no clue as to engineering requirements, structural or otherwise. Requests for 6” floor slabs (with no beams) spanning 30’ plus spring to mind, plus the addition or relocation of slab openings just before the CDs are issued for bid. Lets not forget the relocation of columns without mentioning it to the engineer. Of course, these events occurred in the days before BIM: that could never happen now (ha).
Allowing no room for mechanical, electrical and plumbing in ceiling cavities is another memory that hold firmly, if not fondly. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 541
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 12:26 am: | |
It is indeed a two-way matter. And the need for interdisciplinary considerations to accommodate reality is essential to minimize and resolve conflicts.
A long, long list of shortcomings of project architects would be relatively easy to generate. My education at least was strong on interdisciplinary fundamentals. I recall without fondness structural engineering classes, including one term being taught by T.Y. Lin. I hated the algebra but at least learned the concepts well enough to be able to adequately converse with structural engineers, and also mechanical, electrical, civil and landscape consultants.
From what I keep hearing about Integrated Project Delivery, collaboration is at the heart of this latest, sure-fire cure to bumbling design and construction. Indeed, those successful projects I have experienced had a great deal of collaboration, collegialty and just plain playing well with others. Having experienced the good stuff, it's difficult to tolerate those who don't think beyond the narrow confines of their discipline.
Please pardon the snide comments if they don't apply. |
Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP
Senior Member
Username: ecwhitby
Post Number: 120
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 08:11 am: | |
"Snide"? I didn't notice. then again I have a sign in my office that states "Sarcasm is one more free service offered" so I may have a high tolerance.
In any case: I agree that collaboration is a key to success. There are others factors of course, but IMHO collaboration is paramount. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 04:44 pm: | |
The sales pitch for IPD is indeed collaboration, but the key to that is someone has to run the collaboration, and too often the architects let that task go to the contractor. And that's the problem.
A boss many years ago always insisted on writing the meeting minutes, because he thought that whoever controlled the meeting minutes controlled the information flow on the project. Instead of seeing the minutes as a tedious task, he saw them as a way of focusing the project in the direction he thought it should go, and he was very effective.
Architects have to stop being so scared of liability and take on some responsibilities for focusing and directing the information. I've worked on sucessful IPD projects, and the best of them are run by the architects because they actually do see multiple sides to a question. The projects that end up being run by the contractor is certainly bottom dollar driven, but also less collaborative. However, as we all know, when you teach a class (or run a meeting) you have to have more information and a greater understanding of the scope of all the questions in order to answer questions and deal with the other folks in the meetings, and not all architects want to do that much addtional work. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 512
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2011 - 05:20 pm: | |
Architects have been giving away the store for a long time, or letting others take it from them. I love the argument for not sharing the model - "It might have a mistake" - which I assume means we have never issued drawings or specfications with mistakes. Contractors have again done a great job of taking on those things architects are afraid of, further reducing the value of the architect. About all that's left is space planning and drawing pretty pictures, and hoping the engineers can make it work. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 542
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 12:23 am: | |
Anne:
YOU LET OUT THE BIG SECRET ABOUT MEETING MINUTES!
When I did Construction Contract Administration (CA), I always prepared and distributed the minutes. You are absolutely correct: s/he who controls the minutes, controls the project record.
I was successful in preparing meeting minutes, and received more than a few compliments, because of two big things: the minutes were accurate and they were fair (honest). Inaccurate and unfair minutes destroy the credibility of the one keeping notes. I believe many conflicts were headed off because it was clear from how the meeting minutes were recorded that the CA guy (me) would be truthful and fair. And I would hold firm on issues as necessary to assert the design team's interests.
And a third thing was how they were organized. I listed each topic and assigned a number representing the meeting number when the issue was first discussed and then a sequential number was added for the order in which it came up at the meeting. And some keywords were included to readily identify the subject.
For example, the second item discussed at meeting no. 4, regarding gypsum board finish, would be "4-2 - Gypsum Board Finish." The issue would retain this number forever. When resolved, it would be dropped from discussion. But it might come back later, such as at Contract Closeout, and the same number and keywords would be used. This way, it was easy to recall and read the thread of discussion.
This was not burdensome. I had to fly from the Bay Area to Los Angeles each week (a horrible culture shock) to attend the jobsite meeting. I already knew the status of at least 80 percent of the issues and actually prepared a draft of that week's meeting minutes while on the plane, before the meeting started.
The meeting minutes were prepared as a summary of the discussion rather than a transcript, and included follow-up actions to be taken. The meetings ran efficiently and stayed on topic, without suppressing valid discussion. The parties were very collaborative and colleagial (yep, even without formal "partnering"!) and that made this process work out so well.
The project was at UCLA in the early 1980's and this format was adopted at that time by the University for all of its projects. Lucky guess on my part regarding the format and procedures. I have no idea if it has continued.
(This was not a project without major problems. Winter rains washed out the end of one of building sites, resulting in about $120k (1982 dollars) of additional grading costs and a 63 day extension of the contract completion date. Yet, the de facto partnering plus a substantial change order to accelerate construction resulted not only in making up the time but delivering half of the project 4-months earlier than the original completion date and the other half 6-weeks early, yielding student housing rents for the University that more than made up for the additional costs.)
To make this appropriate to this discussion thread, the meetings involved all aspects of the project, including architectural, landscape architecture and civil, structural, plumbing, HVAC and electrical engineering disciplines. Being able to converse in the languages of the various designers and trades (while not claiming to be an expert in any of them except perhaps the architectural stuff) was a great benefit. I was blessed from early in my career to be involved in CA where I learned to play nice with (most) contractors. |
Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: kittiz
Post Number: 87
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2011 - 03:07 pm: | |
Going back to the original topic. I work in a firm that only does Engineering specs & I don't touch any decision-making on MEP or Structural. The design engineer or SME always does a review/edit/markup. If as an independent you have a good enough relationship with those folks then I say go for it. But that communication can be the most time-consuming aspect even from where I'm sitting -- that really varies with each individual SME. Some require constant followup/nagging and others ask for drafts way before any deadlines and are diligent. The other consideration is the subject matter itself. On a recent project my Structural Engineer & I went back & forth several times before we had a Section on Crane Rail we were both happy with. Collaboration in new areas can suck up a lot of time.
Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C
Moffatt & Nichol - Long Beach, CA |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 543
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2011 - 01:08 am: | |
For 2+ years, I was an in-house specifications writer for an E-A firm and prepared ("wrote"?) MEP specifications, as well as architectural. The challenge was to take technical content, editted by the responsible engineers, and format it coherently (i.e., according to SectionFormat). I contributed specifications writing principles and procedures, including contractual considerations (i.e, Division 01 ooordination and provisions consistent with the General Conditions of the Contract).
Just as with specifications for other design disciplines, this sometimes involved taking non-conforming manufacturer's specifications and occasionally disjointed text from project engineers and creating suitable specifications. The initial efforts were very time-consuming while subsequent projects went much smoother. Education of the engineers ... similar to teaching a CDT exam preparation course ... helped greatly.
Since I had some knowledge and experience with MEP designs, communication was facilitated. At the same time, I had to learn what is important to these design disciplines. I learned, for example, how complex electrical demolition can be, compared to selective architectural demolition.
I think it is possible for architecturally-oriented specifications writers to work with engineering disciplines, landscape architects and specialty designers to jointly achieve clear, correct, concise and complete specifications ... given enough time and energy in the bidding & contract documents production budget.
Karen, you have a unique position and can offer perspective which architecturally-orient specifiers such as I need to consider. Thank you for contributing. |
Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: kittiz
Post Number: 90
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2011 - 10:39 pm: | |
@ John... oh there is PLENTY of coordination to contract terms etc. ;) [plus, most of our clients have their own GCs which just makes things even more interesting.]
I think the biggest issue is building up trust between yourself and the SME -- once you have that established, "writing" specs with engineers can be very rewarding & an opportunity to learn a great deal, as you suggest.
I love concrete even MORE now than I did in my archi-school/Kahn days. The material is not only honest, but complex.
Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C
Moffatt & Nichol - Long Beach, CA |
|
4specs.com Home Page