| Author |
Message |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 579
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2012 - 11:29 am: |    |
I tried once at a CSI Convention to present an education program on "The Value of Well-Prepared Specifications." It was not very successful, mostly/entirely(?) due to my inadequacy in preparing a program that went beyond the anecdotal.
I believe at the root of most discussions about the future of construction specifications is the question, "What are the value of well-prepared construction specifications?" If design professionals, building product manufacturers, constructors, code authorities and facility owners and operators became convinced that well-prepared construction specifications are valuable (and worth paying for), would this not be a win-win for all parties?
So, what are those values and how are they attained? And how do the conclusions get expressed in quantifiable or at sellable terms? |
Mark Kalin (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 05, 2012 - 11:43 am: | |
Anectotal reasons are at the heart of it. Just got off a phone call with a contractor who refused to enter the LEED data on-line, until they finally noticed that the spec said that was their responsibility. End of discussion. |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 442
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Monday, October 08, 2012 - 12:57 pm: | |
I agree with Mark; it's difficult to get beyond the anecdotal.
We've all had situations where a contractor tried to get an extra, until they were showed the requirement in the specifications (though sometimes their comeback is "but that's not how I bid it"). How can a value be put on that, other than the cost of the change order request that would have been submitted in the absence of the silver bullet being in the specifications? It's like trying to prove a negative.
Another potential way to measure value? We had a project once where the owner hired Redi-Check to review the drawings and specifications. The Redi-Check fee was more than the anticipated cost savings that would have resulted from correcting the drawing/specification coordination issues that the checking process found.
Architects and owners call it "saving our bacon". And if their bacon is saved often enough, they'll come back to you to write the specifications for their next project. The value can't be measured only on a single project basis, but in comparing how smoothly construction went and what kind of change orders were there on the current project, compared to previous similar projects. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 - 04:04 pm: | |
Another anecdote, but illustrative. I worked at an architecture firm that did a specialized type of work all around the country, typically bid by specialized contractors. There were only a handful of firms (both design and contractor) that were in this market. Our specifications were very carefully prepared (you know the drill, exactly what you need, nothing more and nothing less). Consistently contractors complimented us on this fact because it made THEIR life much easier since they knew exactly what was expected of them, which was often not true of our competition. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 583
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 02:21 pm: | |
Well, here is one issue regarding well-prepared construction specifications, related to manufacturer-provided specifications: Conformance to CSI formats.
Again today, I worked with a manufacturer-produced specification ... in PDF of course; no letting the competition have access to product information in a word processing file format. From the very beginning of the section, the section number and title were inconsistent with MasterFormat. The Article headings were non-conforming; in some cases mildy off and in others who knows what the writer was thinking. Quality control (absent from PART 1; specified in PART 3); (identification of the manufacturer (before the text of the section began; vaguely identified in PART 2), identification of the specified products (trade name of system identified in PART 1, SUMMARY Article); trade names of components identifed throughout PART 2); preparation and installation requirements vaguely specified in PART 3; no extended warranty information. And more.
With BIM so relying upon consistent terminolgy and the Drawings supposedly not including trade names or slang terminology, it is essential to have "well-prepared" specifiations that are "ready to go" and not requiring significant rewriting.
This is not just a knock on manufacturer-produced specifications but a statement that well-prepared (conforming) specifications are beneficial for marketing and ensuring that products are correctly and completely specified. Fouled up specifications are detrimental to a manufacturer being the Basis of Design. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: robert_w_johnson
Post Number: 217
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 02:29 pm: | |
It would be good to lead such manufacturers to the CSI Compliant Document Review Program for Guide Specifications (http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/Compliant-Document-Review-Program-for-Guide-Specifications). |
|
4specs.com Home Page