| Author |
Message |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 695
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 04:56 am: |    |
Restarting the discussion thread begun by Ron Geren on February 12, 2010, "Manufacturer Guide Spec Pet Peeves," I have been immersed in spec production for a large hotel project, where I have found so many "shortcomings" in manufacturer- and consultant-produced specifications that I am very peeved-off (PO'd).
I expect manufacturers' and consultants' specifications to expedite production of project-specific specifications by being technically-correct and consistent with the longstanding spec writing principles and practices of CSI. When I am presented with specifications that are non-compliant, I get PO'd. I also get repulsed from specifying the manufacturer's products. And I find that fixing consultant specs is a big waste of my time, without compensation. So, I let them go, as-is and let the author deal with the consequences (if any).
I'm not talking about small stuff and nit-picky spec writer concerns such as whether there should be a space between the letter and the number when referencing an ASTM standard. I'm talking about what I think are gross deficiencies.
So, here goes, for a start:
- Building Code: I have found references to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) or other long-ago superceded model codes. Although it is common practice to reference the International Building Code (IBC), in fact the IBC may not be the applicable code. There are local and State building codes, which may be based on the IBC but have significant amendments and a different title. For example, there is the California Building Code (CBC) and also similar Codes in other states, such as North Carolina and Massachusetts. It’s embarrassing during planchecking or submittals review to get corrected for referencing the wrong Code. I think it would be better to just state "applicable Building Code" than to reference the IBC universally. (I still prefer to reference the State or local Code by name, such as Los Angeles Building Code, Los Angeles County Building Code or City of San Francisco Building Code, each of which is a variation on the CBC).
- ASTM: Failure to recognize that the organization is now named ASTM International; a similar name change applies to NFPA. It is my understanding that ASTM revises and reissues their standards every few years. When I see "ASTM A #### - 96," I know the standard is way out of date and has been issued as "boilerplate" by a clueless product rep or consultant. It sure undermines the credibility of the spec in general.
Anyone have more comments? |
David J. Wyatt, CDT
Senior Member
Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt
Post Number: 73
Registered: 03-2011
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 09:50 am: | |
John,
I agree that manufacturers and consultants should be more precise and current in their instruments of service.
It would be interesting if some of those folks would get in on this discussion, so we could hear their points of view.
Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen, and this discussion may become another choir session.
The best consultants I have met tend not to label themselves as such. They do an honest job of solving problems and educating their clients.
Too many so-called consultants find ways to prolong, complicate, or over-value their roles in projects.
When I was a freelance specifier, I found my best clients were manufacturers who were trying to get into the architectural world. Usually, I would prepare a package of documents to help them navigate the formalities of procurement and construction with less awkwardness than their competitors -guide specifications, submittal forms, sustainable design information, and other things. One of the things I included was a handbook titled "Construction Contracting Simplified" which briefly explained the project lifecycle and the manufacturer's role in it. It contained a glossary of terms and jargon peculiar to architects so they could communicate with them better.
The manufacturers who bothered to read it (it is only about 50 pages including the forms)would, in fairly short order, swim on their own and had successful architectural marketing programs after a few years. Those who did not read it continued to seek my advice.
That experience taught me that if I approached consulting with the right motive - educating people - my clients would eventually not need me any longer. |
Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP
Senior Member
Username: rich_gonser
Post Number: 58
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 11:48 am: | |
John,
I have to agree. I have found the same issue in some of the larger consulting firms in our local area.
UBC is one the worst culprits. Another is MEP consultants that do the "all-in-one" Divisions they call Section 15000 and 16000. Usually a contractor can drive a truck through the gaps and contradictions.
The other is when they try to include all the Division 1 content inside their "General Requirements for Plumbing/Mechanical/Electrical...". Even if they're using otherwise up to date MasterSpec sections.
Very, very frustrating... |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 696
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2014 - 05:46 pm: | |
I'm hoping we can come up with concise descriptions of problems/deficiencies and then offer corrections.
Today, one of the problems, from a sophisticated facility developer's master specification, was text stating "installing contractor shall inspect and correct deficiencies." Preferred text would be "Inspect and correct deficiencies." The design professional should not determine which trade or subcontractor shall perform which portion of the work. |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 732
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 10:18 am: | |
Okay, I’ll start with three:
1. Use simple, directive language. Active voice, imperative mood. Use of passive voice should be avoided (“Avoid use of passive voice”). How many guide specs over use “The contractor shall…” to start sentences? READ and FOLLOW the MOP, PRM, or PGPD – the books have changed but the basics of effective specification language are the same regardless of which version is gathering dust on your bookshelf.
2. Write in the voice of the owner directing the contractor. John touched on this. Think of a specification as a one to one love letter – owner to contractor. References to others ruin the mood, and spoil the contract.
3. Avoid vague, imprecise, and bankrupt words. Ban “any”, it doesn’t mean “all”. Ban “all”, it isn’t needed. Ban “utilize”, if only just because George thinks it is a worthless word. Use “use” instead.
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Allegion PLC (formerly Ingersoll Rand)
St. Louis, MO |
Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 1787
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 10:22 am: | |
Well written, George! |
David E Lorenzini
Senior Member
Username: deloren
Post Number: 153
Registered: 04-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 11:01 am: | |
I second Lynn's comment. Bravo, George.
David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS
Architectural Resources Co. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 743
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2014 - 11:44 am: | |
George, I will endeavor to encourage others to utilize your suggestions.
I can't tell you how many specs I get from consultants and manufacturers that use all of those terms (except they never address them to George), and many more wiggle words. |
John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: john_regener
Post Number: 697
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Friday, April 04, 2014 - 12:38 pm: | |
Specifications should be written in a logical sequence. That is, PART 1 should specify "administrative" or "get ready" stuff. PART 2 should include "get the stuff" and "off-site fabricate" stuff. PART 3 should specify "on-site construction," including pre-construction/pre-installation checking of conditions, mixing or field assembly, installation or construction, inspecting completed construction (field quality control), and finally adjusting, cleaning and protection.
Too frequently, I find this information gets mixed up within a spec Section. Submittal information is in PART 2 or PART 3. Product attributes are in PART 1. It's as though the writer specifies in a stream of consciousness fashion.
Submitting to the topical order of SectionFormat not only helps organize thinking and but aids the reader by locating information in an expected manner. It also helps ensure that topics are not missed. |
|
4specs.com Home Page