It seems I have another Dilemma?

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 972 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:01 am:    I just finished a conference call with the Owner's rep for a large new project, a South Florida condominium project, the developer wants to know how we can modify the specifications to make them more user friendly to the subs eventually bidding the project (the GC is already on board). Their concern is that most subs who will be contracted on the project do not have access to all the building standards that are referenced in the spec sections that pertain to their work, and during the process of construction neither do all the participants in the process. The Developer claims that for that reason during construction the specs are seldom referenced as they become more of a deterrent to the construction process. For those of you who remember my last dilemma, this sounds very familiar, the difference here is this is a very seasoned developer, architect, and GC who want to include specifications (and referenced standards)in the Contract Documents, but they also want to try a different approach. I've received this request on other projects in the past, the end result being that reinventing the wheel was not feasible. Those projects have all been built and to date I've not been named in any litigation, however unless I am, I am not privy to it. Looking for thoughts here from my peers. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 578 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:18 am:    Quality control and quality assurance are the same no matter how they are packaged. The developers claim "that most subs who will be contracted on the project do not have access to all the building standards that are referenced in the spec sections that pertain to their work" is bovine scatology. However, I have been kicked off the job for enforcing the spec because I was detrimental to the process (CDN) or prawcess as the word is pronounced in the YOU ES of EH. Move the specs to the drawings either in MSWord or in AutoCad. Our office does both. If specs are on the drawings there are No Excuses After This. NEAT eh? Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 51 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 11:43 am:    Option 1: the owner could buy licenses to the standards so they can be included in the specs. This may not be feasible. Option 2: you can transcribe all the standards you reference, and the standards that are further referenced. This may be illegal. Option 3: The owner could get an electronic subscription to Madcad and ASTM, and permit access to team participants. This may be expensive. Option 4: Don't reference standards at all. The trades know how to build stuff, so they don't need them. This may be a mistake. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 452 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:03 pm:    Jerome: your responsibility is to provide specifications that meet the standard of care for the industry. Trying to remove standards from the specs will likely fall below that standard. You should explain this to the Owner's rep and explain that you are not willing to provide documents that do not meet the minimum standard of care. (this is information only and not intended as legal advice) Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 528 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:10 pm:    I agree with Tony's Option 1 & 3, using MadCAD J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 550 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:10 pm:    Oh Lord! We want to hire people who don't know the standards so we can get it done cheaper. Mmmm... We might want to omit some fasteners on that drywall fire partitions or it would be a lot cheaper to simply omit one layer of gypboard. If we don't have the standard or don't know it, we can make it really, really cheap. Jerry, you work with wonderful Owners who want to make sure they provide a quality product... I do agree that if you want to include all of this in the specs, the specs will get a lot longer and you should be charging about 6 times what your fee currently is in order to copy all of this stuff into the specs. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 99 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:22 pm:    Some of these standards are referenced in the building codes. If the construction documents don't reference the standards, the construction documents may be describing a building that does not meet the building codes. The architect-of-record may not realize this, but you might want to tell him/her that. I don't think MadCad has all the standards we need. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1096 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:30 pm:    Most standards are product standards that have no bearing on what the subs know or do not know, as long as the manufacturer knows. All the subs need to do is make sure they obtain products and materials from manufacturers that comply with the product standards in the specs. Other standards are for fabrication and installation. If the sub is in a trade that is subject to these types of standards and they do not have a working knowledge or a copy of the standards, then, in my opinion, they should not be in that trade. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 973 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:54 pm:    I believe I can convince my clients to retain industry standards, not like they have any real choice, however the request that I strive for more 'user friendly' specs is baffling? How do I do that? Any comments? Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1097 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 01:07 pm:    I don't know...dumb it down from the 6th grade level to the 1st grade level? Prepare each section in a handy-dandy little pocket-size booklet? Unless they tell you what the real problem is, there is no way to develop a solution. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 100 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 01:17 pm:    Suggest that they need friendlier users. D. Marshall Fryer, CSI, CCS, CCCA, Assoc. AIA Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 79 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 01:33 pm:    Print "Don't Panic" on the cover in large, friendly letters? spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 01:29 pm:    I don't disagree with anyone here but I will play devils advocate just for the sake of argument. (@Jerome; I am not trying to imply that any of this applies to your work) I have seen many specification manuals that included a myriad of reference standards that did not apply to the project. For instance I saw a masonry section that included standards for galvanizing, epoxy coating, sandblasting of existing lintels to recoat them,as well as standards for masonry flashing, rigid cavity wall insulation, integral water repellent, preglazed masonry units, etc. All of this was for a project that included one new punched opening into a interior non-load bearing CMU masonry wall for a shop primed loose angle lintel. I am not trying to imply that anyone in this discussion produces documents like this but it is possible that the architect, builder, developer have had to deal with such specs in the past and that could be the motivation for the request. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 52 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 01:38 pm:    I think many specs do not succeed very well at communication, for several reasons. We concentrate on legalities. We write at college level. Conforming to CSI SectionFormat can result in confusing redundancy [e.g. MasterSpec]. The use of masters reduces communication, because each is organized for a set of items; editing it can result in a section that is somewhat tortuous, especially if time constraints prevent writing deathless prose. Words are one of our main tools, so we are comfortable with them; the users, in all segments, are usually not as adept at language as we are. I think the legal/commercial situation leaves us little option. Even a section that is a CSI award-winner will not ensure that the users find it friendly. The client here may [or may not] be expressing a real situation. It's a little too comforting to say that, as far as communication goes, the onus falls on the users to come up to our level. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1323 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 02:12 pm:    well, if you go old school on this problem: the old Plan rooms used to have those standards in a set (and of course we had somewhat fewer standards to reference). I've worked with some clients (government typically) who required that any standard we referenced, we had to own in the office. That meant that when bidders came to pick up documents, they were able to see the references. I've also, on large projects, required the contractor to own every referenced standard. I think the real answer here, is if you work with the same owner regularly, and they require a specific level of work, then they need to purchase the standards and make them available when necessary to the sub-bidders. As for the complexity of the specs: I consider them to be about 10th grade level in most cases, and they should be understandable by the subs on the job. of course, if their idea of quality work is "what they did the last time", it really doesn't matter how dumbed down or friendly the specs are. And we all know that specs really get used when there is a problem. if we had superlative performance, it wouldn't matter if the contractor read the specs or not. So... making them simpler won't solve the problem. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 275 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 02:13 pm:    How many standards can any given trade's subcontractor need? I think it is a smoke screen for the Owner not wanting to have to look up the standards or purchase them, especially (let me guess) if they are doing their own CA to supposedly save even more money. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 633 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 02:36 pm:    No problem! Simply remove the references to standards, then enter all of the text from those standards into the specifications. I agree with Ron. If the subs don't know the standards for their own trades, they shouldn't do the work. "during construction the specs are seldom referenced as they become more of a deterrent to the construction process." Great quote. There are things that can - and should - be done to reduce the size of specifications. Starting with a basic requirement to comply with manufacturers' instructions, much of what is often specified is redundant. However, removing reference standards has the opposite effect. Taking the approach I suggested above would save a few paragraphs, which would have to be replaced with volumes of text. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 974 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 06:53 pm:    I wish there were more South Florida based specwriters contributing to this forum, maybe they could explain better than I, the mentality of developers, contractors, and architects in South Florida when it comes to specifications esp on high rise work. When I work on projects in other parts of Florida and elsewhere in the South I do not have these battles. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 975 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 06:56 pm:    In regards to this particular developer its not about the cost of providing access to standards, this project is a half billion dollar construction project and its only one of this clients current projects. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 06:45 pm:    playing devil's advocate again: it is possible that the developer has had instances where they wanted a specific product and the specifier instead offered three possible products and the referenced standards associated with the products. In the instance I am refering to the Developer/owner had already decided that the tile in the bathrooms of this multi-family housing project would be "X". He wanted a simple spec for the tile that said use Crossville Cermics, Cross Sheen, color "x" and install per manufactures instructions. Instead he got a 6 page spec with a bunch of extra information and the eventual low bidder used product "y" since it was in the spec as an alternate product. The developer paid a change order add for going back the product "X" that he asked for in the first place. We typically have to write a spec that covers a broad range of options and potential products and as such we have to establish a minimum standard to maintain. However when we get the chance (and are insturcted by the owner)to be more specific then maybe we should edit and condense the spec accordingly. Maybe one way to get a more "user friendly" spec is to require the developer to make product selections (including colors, finishes, etc.) prior to bidding. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 976 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 07:24 pm:    on every project there is always a crunch at the end to get all the final selections for the project, and yes sometimes those selections are not incorporated into the specifications, it all depends on who my client is, in this case my client is the architect, so I will take direction from the architect, the irony that prior to this project this developer contracted us directly, so getting that kind of information in a timely manner was easy. I've not worked with this team in the past, so it will be interesting to see if Architect will have his ducks in a roll. The other difference on this project is that the Design Architect has a much more significant role in the project, the Design Architect is based in Switzerland....but unfortunately I did not get an invite to attend the kickoff meeting in Zurich. Justatim Senior Member Username: justatim Post Number: 50 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 07:21 am:    For user-friendliness, how about recording the specs as a talking book... in English and Spanish? Afterward, you can collect royalties for publishing them as sleep aids. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1619 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 09:52 am:    Or you could write them as a Dr. Seuss type documents, using a smaller vocabulary (I think he wrote one of his books with something like 50 words after being challenged to do so). That might be more "user-friendly". J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 551 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 10:36 am:    I would suggest that we start writing more "user friendly" specs when the attorneys start writing more "user friendly" agreements and contract condtions. Maybe the Drawings could be more "user friendly" as well (fewer detail on fewer sheets)> Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1327 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 12:26 pm:    or, you could just specify one product for each use, and require the manufacturer's rep to supervise construction 100% of the time and warrant the work. the spec could be pretty simple: "Use Product X. Call Bob." Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1620 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 12:30 pm:    Oh, I like that one! If we're calling the question, I vote for Anne's suggestion. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 480 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 12:41 pm:    Lynn, I like your Dr. Seuss idea. Maybe we can put it to a beat and issue musical specs. It could be everyone's new favorite lullabye. Why not just specify "Ask Developer what he wants and provide it." Seems like the Swiss Designer isn't as focused on product selection as he/she should be. Hey, maybe you can just cut-and-paste your previous project spec for the same developer and see if they've changed any of their selections. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 579 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 01:14 pm:    SPCWTR is on to something here. I would add the website URL after Bob's name. I love it when Anne chimes in. We miss her in Seattle. Wayne Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1098 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 01:17 pm:    As a follow-on to Ken's suggestion, I guess if Southwest Airlines flight attendants can make the obligatory preflight instructions more user friendly with rap music, so should specifiers with their specs, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvdCFYLf_JI Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 660 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 03:54 pm:    Related to the "Call Bob" spec, one of my mentors here found a 100-yr old masonry specification: "Lay brickwork on front elevation like John Smith does." True story. We used to argue about whether that is a performance spec, or a reference standard. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 484 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 05:46 pm:    George, that's hilarious. Luckily there could only be one John Smith so they were sure to get what they wanted. Good thing he didn't have a common name as that might have caused confusion. Unless John was an institution in those parts, I would vote for the performance spec.