CDR Program

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

Author Message Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 172 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 04:15 pm:    First off, if you are on the committee this is not a slight against you personally. I am just curious. I want to know how the CDR Program has come into being. I want to know who is on this committee of peers that will be reviewing specifications for "compliance". So, we really are getting "spec police" these days? Thanks so much! Melissa Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1054 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 08:10 pm:    There is no committee. The reviewers are CSI members with CCS certification. If you meet these qualifications, then you can request that you be added to the list of reviewers. The CDR program is to assist manufacturers with providing product guide specifications that conform to CSI standards (i.e. MasterFormat, SectionFormat, PageFormat, and the Construction Specifications Practice Guide). If you are a specifier that prepares product guide specifications for manufacturers, and you are a CDR reviewer, then you cannot review your own specifications. Also, if you review a guide specification and return corrections that need attention before getting the "compliant" seal, you can assist the manufacturer in making those corrections, but you cannot review the resubmittal. Believe me, I would rather use a CDR compliant guide specification over most of the guide specifications that manufacturers have out there. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 584 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 12:57 pm:    I can hardly wait until manufacturer's get on the CDR bandwagon and proudly advertise that their specs are "CSI Approved." Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1055 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 01:58 pm:    No, John, they'll say they're "CSI Certified"! Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 173 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 01:58 pm:    Kool Aid aside now. I have questions. To whom do I address them regarding this new program. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1056 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 02:21 pm:    cdr@csinet.org Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Nina Giglio (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 02:04 pm:    There is a general article in the October issue of the Specifier - pg 12, the CSI Weekly focused on the program in todays issue and you can e-mail cdr@csinet. To further Ron's comments - this came out of the Technical Committee starting at least 2 years ago. It is NOT a program that address the appropriateness of products for a project or the technical merits of a product, but simply is to assist specifiers in finding guide specs that conform to the principles to which we profess. Nina Giglio (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 02:11 pm:    One more item - the "official" seal reads "Compliant with CSI Formats and Guidelines" no certification - no approved no certified - just compliant. The reviewers are also not intended to be "wordsmithing" as there are many good ways to write a spec. So the reviewers look at conformance as Ron has pointed out - with CSI Formats and good specification practices as outlined in the Practice Guides. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 876 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 05:14 pm:    Comments to the contrary I would respond to with "get a grip". This is nothing new, and it has not been secretive. It's not in the realm of "kool aide" either. Tis relates only to manufacturers guide specs, which on the whole are a miserable example of specs to the point I train all our PA's to avoid them. Only good can come of this, even if it is only marginal improvement. They are so far down now that bottom looks like up. No one got freaked out about the old program for product data formats, too bad that died. It's tough for a volunteer organization to maintain programs, this one seems setup to succeed if we get behind it. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 174 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 05:28 pm:    Understood. I wanted to pose some technical questions to those "peers". I have been writing some manufacturer specs and need some guidance. I believe it would be a great idea but also I have ran across a couple of companies that believed once I provided a master I would then in turn provide them a "compliance" seal since I am a CCS with CSI. Then, when I tried to explain this new program I realized I needed to know more about it and it's backstory. I don't care where it came from and if it was hatched in the back rooms of some bodega, lol. I want to know facts. I am turning to CSI to discuss these items and want to move beyond the selling points. I will send my items to that email. Thank you. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 98 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 - 06:50 pm:    Melissa, I wonder if since you are a CCS you could get on the "list of reviewers" Ron refers to & kill 2 birds with one spec. ;) Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C Helaine K. Robinson CSI CCS CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 391 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 12:12 pm:    Contact Rob Holson at Institute or Nina Giglio. G. Wade Bevier, FCSI, CCS, LEED-AP BD+C, SCIPa, USGBC Senior Member Username: wbevier Post Number: 39 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 01:22 pm:    I too was on the beta section CDR review testing committee and the description of the program made by Nina and Ron are accurate. I performed many of the initial manufacturer section reviews and reviewer agreement and section compliance form revision and modification recommendations. Rob at Institute has the current reviewer agreement form and section review checklist along with other information to get you started. The article Nina included in the Specifier magazine in a good initial overview of the program and what it is looking to accomplish. You are also welcome to contact me if you want any further information. The link on the Institute website is: http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/Compliant-Document-Review-Program-for-Guide-Specifications Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 14 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 02:41 pm:    Is the "section review checklist" available to anyone, or does one have to be an approved CCS reviewer to gain access to it? I didn't see any reference to it on the webpage cited above... nina giglio (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 02:46 pm:    Bob - I don't think there is anything secretive about the checklist, but I honestly don't know the answer to your question. Please contact Rob Holson at CSI through the cdr@csinet.org e-mail address would be your best bet. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 04:32 pm:    Thanks. I did, and Rob sent me the 3-page template as a pdf. In subsequent exchange, he clarified that also returning a marked-up section is not requred, but currently is allowed. That makes sense, since markup is a routine part of submittal review, and often the simplest and most specific way to convey comments. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 592 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2012 - 08:31 pm:    I decided I'd look at an example, and chose Thermocromex. Couldn't find it on the company website. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 16 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Friday, October 19, 2012 - 10:18 am:    It might help both manufacturers and us specifiers if, on its main CDR web page listing, CSI would include a general description of the work results specified in the compliant specs of these companies (especially since so many manufacturers choose such cryptic corporate names/trademarks). I saw only four companies listed so far as having compliant guide specs. Sto I recognized, but "Thermochromex"? What is that? or "Southwest Progressive Enterprises"?? A masterpiece of vagueness! (That company appears to specialize in lime-based plastering. Whoda thunkit?) Of course, just listing manufacturers in order by their MF division would help--or better yet, listing all the section numbers and titles in the main list, under the manufacturer's names. (And since the manufacturers are likely paying per section, they'd probably feel they were getting more value for their money...) Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 47 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 02:06 pm:    General questions about the CDR program: Are the reviewers paid by CSI for their services, or is this a volunteer activity? Do manufacturers pay for the CSI CDR review? Does CSI make any effort to encourage manufacturers to hire CCS spec writers to create their guide specs? It seems to me that this would both support the value of hiring CCS specifiers and promote the value of CSI certifications. Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 322 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Sunday, October 21, 2012 - 02:11 pm:    I'll add to Peggy's questions - is there an annual maintenance fee for manufacturers to have their compliant specs listed on the CSI Website? Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, October 22, 2012 - 01:57 pm:    I use Mfg's Guide Specifications to tap the expertise of the manufacturer. Could care less what formats they are using. It's the content that matters. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 344 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, October 22, 2012 - 02:15 pm:    Richard, I agree to a point. While I would never use a manufacturer's guide spec in my Project Manual, it would be nice to see information put in the right place so I can find and cull what I do want. I hate 'finishing' a spec only to find that a critical piece of information was off floating somewhere. Pretty much the same concept as how too many Contractors (and A/Es) look at our specs. Nina Giglio (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, October 22, 2012 - 04:44 pm:    Let me catch up slightly. To Peggy's Questions: Yes - the reviewers are paid a nominal amount. This was a hotly debated item but ultimate came down that often times volunteer activities get pushed to a back burner when paid work is calling. This provides a bit of monetary incentive to keep the process rolling. Yes the manufacturers pay CSI for the review. I believe that CSI has always encouraged people manufacturers as well as other professionals to hire qualified specification writers, and carrying the CCS certification certainly is a moniker of that. I agree that it supports the value of a CCS and the value of the Certifications. To Colin's Question: Manufacturers are provided the ability to use the Compliant Document designation for up to 3 years without renewal, unless their specifications require modification due to product/industry or other reasons. There is too much detail to go into here about dealing with modifications but it was considered. As to Richard - Many experienced specifiers stand in agreement - there are however, as we are all aware, many specifiers/project managers/architects/engineers - you list them who don't have the experience and this provides and a starting point - now they still have to determine if the product is appropriate for their project. And finally to Ken and back to Ron's comment of some time ago -I agree - it is nice to have a guide spec with things in the right place using good specification language so that I can do my job better. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 585 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 - 02:37 pm:    I went to the CDR program page on the CSI website. Are the linked examples what to expect CDR "certified" guide specifications to be? (The website uses the term "approved" to describe the specifications). I looked at one of the STO specifications. I like STO EIFS. I've been specifying it since the early 1980s. I was disappointed in what I found in the example CDR specification, however. Editing instructions were embedded as specification text, not offset as is typically found in guide specifications. I didn't notice any significant deviations from basic SectionFormat but I did notice punctuation, capitalization and other things I would consider to be deficiencies. I did notice in the page footer that the section was a "shortform" specification. Are "shortform" and "longform" defined in the Practice Guide? I can't say that I know the difference, except that "shortform" specifications are more concise. I would not expect CDR reviewers to determine for the manufacturer what is the sufficient degree of detailed technical information ... although I do just that in the project-specific specifications I produce. Is there an approved or recommended method of specifying for manufacturer's guide specifications? As I recall, the methods of specifying are Descriptive, Reference Standard, Proprietary and Performance methods of specifying. And under Propietary, there are Open and Closed Prorietary methods. In my real life experience, almost all construction specifications are a hybrid of several methods of specifying. I didn't see in the example specification any clear delineation of optional text for "restrictive" and "non-restrictive" specifications. These would be helpful to guide the spec writer/editor who may wish to or is required to produce a more or less competitively biddable specification Section. This would be especially useful for novice spec writers/editors who would be likely to use CDR ok'd specifications. And regarding specifications writing in general, there are the sacred four C's to consider: Clear, Correct, Complete and Concise. (And maybe a fifth C, Coordinated, although that might be covered under Correct). Are these principles to be considered in the CDR review? Will the CDR reviewer be expected to evaluate and suggest/require text changes to suit some standard for compliance with the four Cs? There are also some other common specifications writing principles and practices that I consider to be fundamental and should be included in the CDR review: the use of key words at the beginning of paragraphs; the use of "streamlining" instead of using "shall be", etc.; logical ordering of Articles and Paragraphs to correspond with construction products acquisitions and sequences work activities (yes, with due consideration of staying on the proper side of the line for specifying means, methods, techniques and sequences of construction). I went to the STO website and found the "longform" version of the EIFS specification Section. It is what I consider to be a true, manufacturer's guide specifications, although I can nit-pick on some of the capitization and punctuation matters. I did notice two things in both the "shortform" and "longform" versions: the complete absence of submittal requirements and the absence of sustainable design ("greeen") building requirements. The latter is something I find very helpful in producing contemporary specifications. And accurate warranty provisions were absent. Obviously, with my reputation for being too idealistic and, therefore, a troublemaker, I will not be CDR reviewer. From what I've seen so far, I also won't be inclined to be a user of CDR approved .... er, certified ... specifications until the program matures. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 10:59 am:    I am surprised that the many comments above imply an expectation that a guide spec should be like any other in house master. So simple even a project Architect can do it. My guess is that your masters have been a product of extensive modification and adjustment to reflect your firms practice and preferences. Why should you not expect to make the same effort on a Mfg Guide Spec? Too many "can goods" out there already. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 586 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 - 08:31 pm:    The underlying expection in my comments is just the opposite: a guide specification ... produced as an in-house master or as a commerically produced document for sale or as produced by a construction product manufacturer ... should provide comprehensive GUIDANCE for editing. These documents also should be compliant with industry-accepted (CSI) principles and practices. The last thing I would expect, advocate or endorse ... especially as implied in the proposed certification of compliance with CSI formats and recommended principles and practices ... is that manufacturer-produced specifications would be ready for use in project-specific project bidding and construction contract documents with minimal modification. I'd just like the non-compliance factor to be reduced significantly and save editing and re-writing time for the spec writer in production of a compliant basis-of-design specification Section. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 664 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, September 07, 2013 - 12:44 pm:    How's the Compliant Document Review (CDR) program doing? Is the CDR program beneficial for selling building products? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 666 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 - 11:58 am:    That's what I expected. Nina Giglio (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 08:53 am:    John, I'm assuming your most recent post is in response to the fact that you didn't receive a response. I saw your post and decided that much as sticking a stick in a hornets nest and stirring is not a good idea - the previous post seemed to be just that and sometimes it is best to just let things ride. But given you want to stir... The purpose of the CDR program is NOT to be beneficial for selling building products. It is to encourage and recognize that well written specifications are beneficial to the industry. Specifiers are notorious for gritching about the poor documents that are available from manufacturers. This program is to recognize and encourage appropriate application of the CSI Formats, standards and good specification writing practices. Given that you are the co-author of several editions of "Construction Specifications Writing - Principles and Procedures" you obviously value the intent. While the CDR program will not cure cancer in Canadian Rats, it will not cure hunger in the United States or anywhere else, and it will not sell building products - none of these were its intended use. To date there haven't been a million participants but with each manufacturer that recognizes the importance of well written specifications it is a step in the right direction. "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 20 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 10:11 am:    I appreciate Nina's clarification and I think the CDR program is a good idea. However, astute product manufacturers would not bother with it if they did not see a financial benefit to it. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. We spend a fair amount of time complaining about poorly-formatted guide specs, websites that require registration, and the indifference with which some manufacturers regard our professional needs. If the CDR program helps them overcome those problems, promote better communication, and sell product at the end of the process, I cannot see that any harm is done. Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 63 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 10:13 am:    What I'm looking for from manufacturers is technical information. Some manufacturers understand that it is to their benefit to provide the technical information, and some have been distracted by the idea of "guide specs" as a way to pretend to provide useful information. I think of them as "buy my product" specs, not guide specs. CSI sells the CDR program to manufacturers with the pitch that this is the way to get architects to use their "CSI Certified specs" - and some manufacturers fall for the ruse. Some architects fall for it as well. The hinted at and assumed benefit to manufacturers is that this will help sell their product. And to architects the pitch is that you won't really have to write your own spec, you can just use the "CSI Certified spec." And, most importantly, this program makes money for CSI! Nina Giglio (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 10:35 am:    As Ron indicated in an earlier post - the use of the word "certified" is incorrect - CDR stands for Compliant Document Review. A business is in business to make money, no matter if that business makes widgets or if that business prepares construction specifications. So yes most of us are looking for financial benefit no matter the shoes we wear. There are a lot of guide specs out there and every design professional needs to remember that their first name is GUIDE, and that no guide spec should be used without editing for project specific conditions. Peggy - I completely agree that technical information is quite often lacking in what is provided by manufacturers. But I believe that guide specifications can/may be useful in gleaning technical information that doesn't exist in other places. There are certainly some Manufacturer Reps that pitch the "you don't have to write your own spec" but there are an equal number that are really working toward being a trusted advisor and a well written guide spec is merely a tool that can be used. I don't believe it is fair to lump all reps or all guide specs into one pile. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 241 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 11:04 am:    Right on Nina! Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1146 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 11:22 am:    The operating costs for the CDR program is negligible since the reviews are conducted by CSI volunteers--almost every dollar of revenue goes to CSI for other expenses and programs (i.e. improve the member value proposition). Therefore, whether the program is popular or not, it does not hurt CSI financially. For those of us who are independents and write guide specifications for manufacturers, I think we can help promote the program. Ask your clients if they want you to submit the specifications to CSI's CDR program--I do. I've only done one guide specification for a manufacturer since the CDR program was introduced. They haven't made a decision yet whether or not to submit to the CDR, but if they do, or a future manufacturer client does, I'll just pass the cost on to the manufacturer as a reimbursible expense or include it in my fee. I think this is an opportunity for us specifiers to help CSI's bottom line, which, in turns, improves CSI for us, other CSI members, and the construction industry. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 667 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 03:31 pm:    Nina: Moi? Stir things up? I didn't go to Berkeley just to fortify the status quo. (Actually, I worked on campus in security and had a daily, positive working relationship with the campus police ... during the height of campus unrest circa 1969-70.) My greatest concern is "selling" design professionals and building product manufacturers on the value of well-prepared bidding and construction contract documents. I believe that promoting this value will fuel purchases of CSI documents, attendance at CSI programs and lessen construction conflicts. I think the CDR program could promote and implement well-prepared documents. Or, it could at least raise awareness of the benefits of "well-prepared" and "compliant" documents. Although, "green washing" would probably sell building products better, if one is cynical. Nina Giglio (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 12:28 pm:    Ron, The CDR program is an opportunity for specifiers to help CSI, other CSI members and the construction industry. Most of the reviewers receive a small fee for their review work. This was implemented primarily to avert instances where deadlines are looming and the volunteer effort slips, it provides CSI a bit of leverage should they need it in the case of the reviews not happening in a timely fashion. Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 106 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 06:52 pm:    Ok, I'll help John stir the pot, just for fun. After all, years ago John was one of my first instructors ;) I just took a look at one of the Napco Security sections as specs in the "coms" have always been a challenge for me personally. Sorry, but I was disappointed. First of all, the Summary article was much too detailed. My second concern is the use of proprietary specifying without options. We all know that one need not name specific products for the spec to become proprietary, this can also be accomplished with criteria that provides no options. In my opinion, this is not the idea behind a Guide spec. I do think the basic premise of the program is sound but also think the review needs to be done with more critical thinking. Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 668 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, September 13, 2013 - 02:05 am:    Karen: My impression is that the CDR program is pretty much limited to affirming compliance with "CSI" formats and evaluating application of recognized principles and practices of specifications writing. That is, compliance with Masterformat, SectionFormat and PageFormat. Choice of method(s) of specifying (Descriptive, Reference Standard, Performance and Proprietary [Closed Proprietary/Open Proprietary and even de facto proprietary] are not part of the compliance review. Nor are inclusion of editing guidance, and adequate requirements for submittal, quality assurance and warranties, and (of course) "greeny-ness." Yet, these latter qualities are what those who are "professional" specifiers value and put lots of effort into. Justatim Senior Member Username: justatim Post Number: 54 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Friday, September 13, 2013 - 07:44 am:    "gritching" According to Merriam-Webster: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary." However, I like the combining of griping with bitching. That's bitchin'! Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 64 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Friday, September 13, 2013 - 11:37 am:    Oh, how I miss "just the facts, ma'am" SpecData! Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 108 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2013 - 07:25 am:    Right, John, that was initially my impression, too... --But Ron said: "MasterFormat, SectionFormat, PageFormat, and the Construction Specifications Practice Guide" --Nina said: "So the reviewers look at conformance as Ron has pointed out - with CSI Formats and good specification practices as outlined in the Practice Guides." --Nina also said: "application of the CSI Formats, standards and good specification writing practices." --csinet also indicates "Other good specification practices..." at http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/CDR-Program.aspx Furthermore to my previous post, --SectionFormat says: "SUMMARY -- This Article permits the reader to assess section content quickly. This Article should not "scope" the section or imply trade jurisdiction; the integrity or completeness of a section does not require its use." I think the committee needs to more appropriately define and state exactly where the line is drawn. Karen L. Zaterman, CSI, CCS, SCIP-Affil, LEED AP BD+C Nina Giglilo (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, September 13, 2013 - 01:04 pm:    John is correct - the CDR Program focuses on compliance with CSI Formats, standards, and good specification practices as indicated in the Construction Specification Practice Guide. Specification Writing is not an exact science and subjective so 5 specifications writers could each produce a good guide specification from the same information and each one would be different. It is really up to the design professional that is editing the GUIDE specification to meet the need of the specific project and ensure that any proprietary information is appropriate or appropriate. The reviewers are all quite capable of wordsmithing to death but that is NOT what this program is about and the reason the importance in a uniform process and a uniform review. Peggy - I certainly agree with you. Nina Giglio (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 10:23 am:    Karen There is always room for growth and improvement of the program. While it seems easy to say "state exactly where the line is drawn" the minute that line is drawn there is an exception. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 686 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 11:56 am:    The purpose of manufacturers' literature is to sell their products; I don't expect their guide specifications to be neutral, or to tell me who their competitors are. As much as specifiers would appreciate a good guide specification that follows the standards mentioned above, they should know that it is only a guide, written to help sell a product. They should know more research is required to understand the product, and be ready to edit the specification to remove proprietary requirements as needed. Incidentally, proprietary specifications are not inherently evil; sometimes only one product will work. Satisfying government requirements for competitive bids by creating an elaborate specification that appears to be open but can be met by only one manufacturer is a waste of time. Nina Giglio (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 12:45 pm:    Thanks Sheldon - I completely agree. G. Wade Bevier, FCSI, CCS, LEED-AP BD+C, SCIPa, USGBC Senior Member Username: wbevier Post Number: 48 Registered: 07-2004 Posted on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 - 09:36 am:    Thanks Nina, I was reluctant to jump in as I just don't have time to "stir any hornet nests" right now... I will be at the CSI booth next week for a few hours on Thursday and Friday and one of my hats will include the CDR program. Constructive input for the next level of the program will be greatly appreciated.