Spec Review

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

Author Message Steve Taylor Senior Member Username: steveatwi Post Number: 59 Registered: 07-2008 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 04:58 pm:    Now that I am (mostly) retired one of the few productive things I do is review architectural millwork specs. In doing so, I am serving two masters. Woodwork Institute pays me to review specs so that they will require WI Certified Compliance, Monitored Compliance, and/or Certified Seismic Installation. The architect wants me to review their choices of materials and methods. My question is: How aggressive should I be in modifying a dreadful specification? I'm afraid I sometimes alienate the architect when I bleed red ink all over their specification. My minimum is: Insert WI quality assurance program. (They pay me, and the programs are a bargain.) Update or delete obsolete products and/or referenced standards. Suggest appropriate products and materials as indicated. Should I also try to force the spec into some semblance of CSI Format? Revise awkward or unclear paragraphs? I have occasionally just abandoned their section altogether and started from my own master. There are a shocking number of dreadful specifications out there. I would like to think I help solve the problem, but I'm afraid sometimes I just insult the architect. Steve Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1622 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 05:10 pm:    IMHO, if it's so poorly written as to endanger communication, clarity, comprehension, or any other of the 4 "C"s, so ahead and edit, keeping in mind the goals of the entities involved (no FRPs, meeting Owner's needs, etc.). If, in spite of being dreadful, it's understandable, then leave it alone. You might want to think about doing a workshop for some of the repeat offenders. It's been my experience that you can't insult an architect who doesn't want to learn to do something better. They don't see the "errors of their ways". And those who do want to learn will welcome the corrections. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 98 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 05:31 pm:    It might be worth categorizing your comments according to the priorities outlined in your post: First consideration goes to your minimum goals, with additional comments clearly segregated as issues the specifier can address at its option. This way you are offering suggestions based on your knowledge of appropriate specifications practice, but the architect might be less likely to take offense if these are seen as helpful suggestions beyond the issues expected to be addressed by your review. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 573 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 05:31 pm:    Steve, As an Architect, Specification Writer, and former member of the WI Board, I would suggest you approach the really "poor" specifications by calling the Architect and suggesting that you discuss their spec with them before "bleeding" on it. Lynn's suggestion of a workshop is a great idea. I think any reasonable Architect would be willing to learn more about the proper methods of specifying millwork and casework. As for CSI format - again I would suggest it, and if they don't know what that is, strongly recommend they get in touch with a Certified Construction Specifier (CCS). ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 483 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 05:41 pm:    Steve, congratulations on almost being retired. I'm just tired. I agree with Lynn. Keep in mind that I'm the worst person to listen to since I upset Architects all the time. They have come to expect it from me and I'd feel remiss in disappointing them. You seem like a nice, helpful person, at least that's how you've come across in this forum, so I don't think you'll have much trouble. Having said that, a couple suggestions: 1. Start off by reminding them that it's easier to comment on someone else's work than it is to produce it. Appreciate their efforts, no matter how bad the results. 2. Be honest with them. If they have an obvious misunderstanding, perhaps try the old "Last time I tried to do what you've got specified, it didn't work out as I expected it to. I've found that this works better." 3. Instead of correcting their formatting, explain that you're not sure what they're trying to communicate. Maybe try something like "It sounds like you're trying to say this...I think CSI suggests presenting this information this way...Does that sound better to you?" If you can get them to 'own' your suggestions, you've won a repeat client. Good luck. Let me know if it works. Maybe I'll try it if it does. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 574 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 05:47 pm:    Ken - Good advice. As for being tired, that makes 2 of us. Steve Taylor Senior Member Username: steveatwi Post Number: 60 Registered: 07-2008 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 06:46 pm:    Thank you all. I'll work on my diplomatic skills. As always, I am impressed by the generosity of this group. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 549 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, March 28, 2013 - 10:34 pm:    Having attempted to update a firms master specification section it is often easier to modify a good master and then make some changes. What is difficult is understanding why they have a certain provision and why. In all to many cases they do not know why but somebody may resist the change. Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 231 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, March 29, 2013 - 01:50 pm:    Sorry to jump in on the conversation, but I've got to "translate" one of my client's consultant's specifications into SpecsIntact. Normally this is not a big deal, but these sections are so poorly written I'm in tears. This person has broken almost every rule of specifying. AAKKK! OK I'm venting! I'm stuck on this job working these sections into some semblance of logic. any suggestion of what to tell my client the next time they want to use this consultant? I really don't want to put this person's crap in my project manual. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 392 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, March 29, 2013 - 02:30 pm:    Margaret, I issued a specification yesterday that included an Owner provided DIVISION ONE. I had reviewed a hardcopy of their DIV ONE and there were no red flags, so I had set it aside to work on last after I completed the body of the specifications. But when I opened the MSWord file I discovered an alternate universe, as if this had been put together by humans isolated on a desert island for 100 years, or perhaps the Citroen Motor Car Company. This was a single file of about 120 pages. On each page, the header and footer had been typed in by hand. They eyeballed this (and everything else) so they wander around and if you inserted some new lines of text it isn't the header anymore, now it is somewhere in the middle of the page. Each page number was entered by hand, so if they needed to go back and insert insert something, they would have needed to re-number each page after the insertion by hand. I could discern no formatting that wasn't accomplished with the space bar and the tab bar. This document was a testament to human creativity and endurance. We fixed it in a matter of minutes, but I saved an original version for posterity. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1624 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 29, 2013 - 05:49 pm:    Margaret, I'd tell my client the truth, but logically. Explain the time it took to "translate" the specifications and why - language used is not industry-accepted norm and that sort of thing. And then explain as sweetly as you can (and I know you can do this) that it will cost an additional fee of $XXX to work with similar documents. David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 140 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Saturday, March 30, 2013 - 09:57 am:    Getting back to Steve's questions, I want to congratulate him for taking on such a wonderful task. I would love to have him review my millwork sections, and make sure it is compatible with its purpose--to communicate with the millwork industry to produce the best possible result desired by the Architect. With the introduction of AWS, the woodwork industry has greatly improved the quality of producing millwork specifications all over North America. It's now easier to produce the same consistent specifications when working in any part of the country. Specifiers cannot be experts on every product. Industry practices change over time and new products are introduced frequently. Being able to have an expert review specifications is a wonderful opportunity. I would suggest that Steve, or anyone reviewing specs for quality, provide comments on two levels. One level would be the technical content. Not many specifiers would think they are a better expert and object. These comments could be specific changes in wording. The other level would be general comments or suggestions as mentioned by Ken. It wouldn't hurt to suggest that other specifications he reviewed had generally followed the latest SectionFormat/PageFormat and recommendations by CSI regarding terminology. It is up to each specifier to determine the level of acceptable quality they are willing to achieve, and taking advantage of the expertise of those who have been part of an industry for most of their career is golden. There is no reason for Steve to be concerned about a negative reaction for providing such valuable reviews. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 625 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 03:24 pm:    I'd like to have more (all?) product reps take up the challenge to work with specification writers in producing construction specifications for their products. Those reps who have done so with me, and have demonstrated both knowledge of the technical characteristics of their products and the contractual considerations necessary for well-written construction specifications, are very much respected by me. I think of them first when their type of products come up in discussions with my client architects. Steve Taylor Senior Member Username: steveatwi Post Number: 61 Registered: 07-2008 Posted on Wednesday, April 17, 2013 - 05:46 pm:    I would like to thank you all again for your helpful comments. I've learned a lot from this forum over the years, and am always impressed by your collegiality and generosity.