Archive through May 25, 2010

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

Author Message 313 -- Eastside New member Username: russell_john Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 07:23 pm:    I am curious about how people feel towards "sheet specs". Given the increased pace of project turn around time -- "fast track-design build" and such -- it seems this is the nature of projects during the down swing. Instead of 3 or 4 firms going after small project you now have 30 or 40 firms competeing. Are there pros and cons? Words of advice or a model to follow in executing a "sheet spec"? Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 98 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 07:58 pm:    I presume you are referring to specs that are indicated on sheets in the drawings instead of on pages of a project manual. I have been obligated to do this a few times. The fact is, the specs should say everything that they need to say, regardless of where you put the words. I found it to be considerable extra work to try to fit words into text boxes on a drawing that does not have most of the advantages of a good word processing application. You pretty much have to do the spec on a word processor and then transfer it all to the drawing. After the first one, it is too easy for the project architect to think he or she is free to copy the spec drawings to other projects without bothering to check it for appropriateness. Many tend to assume that a similar project can use the exact same spec. For some architects, there is a temptation to redline the drawing’s specs and then have the CAD people update the spec drawing without seeking the specifier’s knowledge or expertise. I also find specs much harder to read when the words are all spread out across a large page, possibly covered with smudges, dirt, and dust from the jobsite. Jo Drummond Senior Member Username: jo_drummond_fcsi Post Number: 39 Registered: 06-2007 Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 08:00 pm:    I've done them. I have a couple of clients who do tiny projects, remodelling a room or suite, usually for medical centers. I've done sheet specs. for rooms preparing for nuclear medicine equipment, and at the other end of the spectrum, rooms which are can wash facilities. It can be done, but it is as time consuming to see that everything is said which should be said, in a very short space, as it does to write a full spec. It may take more time, if you have to fuss around changing margins, format, typestyle, etc. to fit the column layouts on the drawings. I don't like to do them, nor do I recommend them, but if my client says "sheet spec", and I agree to do the job, I do "sheet spec". It doesn't save on the cost of preparing specifications, and I don't see that it saves construction cost or time either. It saves printing a few books, I guess. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 208 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 09:02 pm:    I remember these from small projects in those bygone days in the late '80's when you did have a wordprocessor but did not yet have CAD. You printed out your 8-1/2 by 11 "spec sheets" on a daisy wheel printer that you kept in a box because it made so much noise and stuck them down with repositionable clear tape on a blank title block sheet. Very high tech for a small office circa 1988. David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 89 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Tuesday, November 03, 2009 - 11:25 pm:    Most sheet specs that I have seen are intended to provide the basic product information that can't fit in the drawing notes. Therefore the only time these types of sheet specs should be used are for owner-builders. Essentially, they are unenforceable, since they usually do not have designer oversight during construction. Once you get into submittals and field testing, other than code-required, you might as well go to a short form book spec. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1131 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 09:01 am:    I think sheet specs are perfectly fine when used correctly, like any other spec. We have a sheet spec master in the office used only on small projects. It is used typically for tenant fit ups, and as such, has only work relating to that project type. It has a complete, though short, Division 01 as well. Each product/work result has paragraphs covering administrative items such as submittals, materials, and installation. I maintain the master, but our interiors department produces the specs themselves. They know to start with the master, which I've populated with lots of notes to help them. I also gave the entire department abbreviated specs training. The editing is done in Word, and dropped into a CAD drawing quite readily. Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 254 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 09:18 am:    Like many others, I maintain a very short language spec for use on small interior reno type projects. I make that master available to the project team and they understand that they must get a new copy of the Master from me for every project. I leave it to their discretion regarding location (on Drawings or in a book) for each project but I always ask this question: Is your MEP Engineer producing specs on their drawings or are they producing a “book”? The answer is nearly always a Book and I then question why they would want to do their specs on the Drawings when there’s going to be a book anyway. A Book version is easier to produce since it cuts out the reformatting and drawing insertion process. Consequently we vary rarely do “sheet specs”. Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1133 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 09:24 am:    For us, it's sometimes the other way around: MEP sheet specs and architecture in a book. I don't like that either. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 225 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 10:59 am:    Without a spec in book form, what do they use on the job site to keep the drawings from blowing around? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 284 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, November 04, 2009 - 11:34 am:    I have done specs on drawings for several projects types. We use two methodologies: METHOD 1. MSWORD: Outline spec format on landscape 11 x 17, 4 columns. Insert drawings border in TIFF format as a watermark in header/footer. Add drawing numbers in a text box, formated for sequential numbering. Force column breaks as necessary for future additions (that is, additional white space at botto of columns). Words best of the project uses 22 x 34 sheet size. Have tried the same method with 30 x 42 sheet size but the aspect ratio is different than 11 x 17 therefore, 3 columns worked best. Remove all hard page breaks, section breaks from original. Reduce font to 5 point. Team wanted the font to match AutoCAD ROMANS. We chose Arial Narrow. Becuase I have AutoCAD 2008 loaded, I am able to use ROMANS.ttf but it printed like a halftone. The MSWord spec is 104 single-sided pages. It converted to 13 drawing sheets at 11 x 17 and 22 x 34. Margins for 11 x 17 sheet are: top = .44", bottom = .44", left = .5", right = 1.81", header = .2", footer = .2". Play with left and right margins to accommodate your own drawings titleblock formating. The watermark can be draged around to make small adjustments. METHOD 2: INSERT MSWORD TEXT AS Mtext in AutoCAD. In paperspace with titleblock and border, I created 4 equal coulums of Mtext. An Mtext box is limted to 8 pages of text in *.doc. Approx 95% of the formating is preserved in AutoCAD (indents, hanging indents, auto-numbering). Tables did not come over so I used tabs instead. Text is easily convterted to the correct layer, color, font style (RomanS) and height (3/32" in my case). Same 104 page MS word spec resulted in seven 30 x 42 drawings sheets including the table of contents. The structural spec is on the structural dwgs in their structural general notes. I added two sheet of fire suppresion, plumbing, and HVAC specs, also in outline spec format. Another version of method 2 with AutoCAD is: -open the Word file that has the text you want to insert intio mtext -save the Word file as a TXT file or RTF file -Go to the AutoCAd drawings where you want to insert the Word text. Enter the Mtext command. -Right-click inside the Mtext Editor and choose the Import Text option. Then browse for and select the TXT or RTF file. At the conclusion of each sheet I adjusted to column width to clear borders lines and create an appropriate space between columns. Everything is done for accommodate eventual 1/2 size sets. This is Tipe #3196 from CADtips from Cadalyst.com. I quote "You might even want to consider linking to the text file as an OLE object instead of inserting the text. That way when the text file is updated, the CAD file is updated." My first venture into specs on drawings via AutoCAD included Part 2 products only as noted above by David L. Seattle DPD required the specs on drawings for "over the counter, subject to field inspection" (STFI) building permit applications. I spent the 6-8 hours creating two options using Method 1 and about 7 hours creating the specs using method 2, including the mechanical sections from the consultant. I corrected formating anomalies as I progressed. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 451 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 05, 2009 - 02:31 pm:    Sheet specs by their nature mean shortform specifications. See Herman Hoyer's articles under the "Newsletters" at the bottom of the 4specs.com forums page. He is a master of shortform specifications, having carefully thought out the process of radically shortening the text. Herman has spoken about some key concepts for shortening construction specifications, including streamlining, abandonment of the 3 Part format (use Articles only) and use the most concise method of specifying (reference standard or proprietary). Quality control is one of the major losses in this approach; specifying quality assurance and quality control take too much text. Yet, I have heard Herman challenge the concept of shortform specifications. If one of the cardinal concepts of specifications writing is "concise", then specifications should have no more and no less text than necessary. If "concise" trumps "clear," "complete" and "correct" (i.e., the Four C's of spec writing), then are the specifications deficient? It's challenging to consider. Herman likes to repeat a quote attributed to Mark Twain writing in a letter to his editor. To paraphrase Twain, "I haven't time to write you a short letter so I wrote a long one." It takes considerable spec writing skill to be as concise as true shortform specs need to be and still be "clear, complete and correct." David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 127 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Sunday, November 08, 2009 - 11:25 am:    Good specs are good specs, the physical layout notwithstanding. Some project managers believe specs should be unnecessarily foreshortened to appear on drawing sheets. Why? To leave room for lots of not-very-informative details? Misplaced emphasis! Clear-complete-concise-correct specs can be used in a set of drawings, in a project manual, a project website - wherever! From a professional liability standpoint, complete and correct might trump concision. But if they are written well, all 4 C's are balanced. When we finally quit using paper documents, I think many of these concerns will go away. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 372 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, November 08, 2009 - 12:26 pm:    As many have on this forum, I have in my career reproduced drawings on various types of diazo machines to have that make way for large electrostatic and then xerographic then laser processes (OK, so they are kinda the same thing) with a sidestep into large format offset (remember pinbar overlay drafting?). I have also reproduced specifications on spririt duplcators, memeograph, offset, and xerographic process. In all of these processes until about 15 years ago, we generated an image onto a master which was then reproduced. Typewritten stuff was generally reproduced (until 15 years ago) differently from drawn stuff. Although I have never been able to confirm it, I suspect that the division between drawings and specifications was not so much the content itself, but the manner in which it was produced and then reproduced. You needed a large image for drawings that could be reproduced by blue printing and then diazo at a relatively economic cost. Alternative production and reproduction processes were available for information that could be put on letter-sized media which were much less expensive (on a sq. ft. cost). About 10 to 15 years ago, we reached a point where similar tools could be used to produce a sheet of specifications and a sheet of drawings. At the same time, reproduction processes began to converge. I would be willing to bet that all of you deliver most of your "print" jobs to the repro house as a set of .pdfs (drawings and specifications). When you think about it, why shouldn't we do away with the distinction between a roll of drawings and a book of specs? Go back in time to the early to mid 80s when many of the offices we worked in were looking to get "into CAD". The marketing pitches nearly always centered on "it really isn't that different from drafting, we just give you a different kind of T-square." Instead of going after systems which offered data structures, most firms bought into systems that offered a drafting metaphor centered around overlay drafting. The legacy of those systems survives today in the form of trying to force what was essentially a tool for composition into being a tool for data organization. So, why should we think about "hard copy" at all? Why shouldn't the CAD jockeys be responsible for creating hyperlinks from graphic images directly to the appropriate specifications? I mean, aside from the face that the CAD jockeys who do an adequate job of cut-n-paste operations often don't have a clue about what they are "drawing." Those that price and those that build would be in a point-and-click mode to see that the stuff on the roof deck that a lot of offices used to call "ice and water shield" is really a butyl sheet capable of withstanding high temperature? Many sub-bidders are currently taking off their material quantities from electronic images posted to the web using web-based tools to do the math. I used to talk to my CAD classes at the Univ. of Hawaii about the day when a jobsite superintendent would have all of the construction documents on a CD (ok, it would be a DVD now) loaded into a "walkman" type device he wore on his belt. That would be connected to virtual reality goggles and a controller glove. He could use hand and finger gestures to find what he wanted while he was standing on the top floor of a building about to get the roof deck. This was 16 or 17 years ago; it still isn't a totally goofy idea. Sheet specs? Why not think of seamless construction documents and submittal documents (approved of course) that could be accessed in an electronic environment to be useful to their real user, the contractor. In my view, the conceptual split between drawings and specs (and the lack of understanding about the content and necessity of specifications) keeps this information from being usefully integrated with the drawings. If "specification" information can be seen as a part of the data base along with graphic elements, then getting the data base formatted becomes easier. Commercially available software hacks and stabs at it, but the solutions I have seen are problematic at best and limited in application. What this indicates is that the media (paper or pixels) isn't the problem, the intelligent integration of the information is the problem. Sheet specs? If graphic elements and specification requirements are posted to the same "general ledger", then getting a floor plan, a window jamb detail, and a flashing specification should be a couple of mouse clicks away. It is not really that different from accounting software where the Income statement, working capital report, and balance sheet are no more than a couple of mouse clicks away. In almost all offices, doing a sheet spec really takes more work (aside from generating the content). Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 372 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Sunday, November 08, 2009 - 08:55 pm:    That's the brave new world of BIM! The information model makes possible the realization of the single document suggested in general conditions. We have long talked about this mythical single document, but until now have had to wrestle with two major types of documents, one for drawings and one for text, almost always of different size, and rarely in the same place at the same time. With BIM, we will be able to view the contract documents from any perspective using a browser-like interface. For example, you could be looking at a 3-D image of a particular room, and click on a wall to find out what the assembly is, then drill down to find the performance characteristics or maintenance requirements of each component. You could use SectionFormat to view traditional specifications, or you could use another format to view only the information you're interested in. Going the other direction, you could be looking at a product manufacturer's information, then find where that product is in the project. There will be no more arguments about something appearing on the drawings but not in the specs, or vice versa, as there will be but one document. There will be no more drawings or specifications, and no need to think about sheet specs. And even more exciting is the potential for long-term use by the owner. Instead of the static record documents we now have, the model can be a living representation of the building, the basis for maintenance and operations. The model will show not only what was built, but alterations, furnishings, equipment, and even the occupants. It's a brave new world, indeed! Sunny O. Onadipe New member Username: specsgreen Post Number: 1 Registered: 05-2010 Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 04:39 pm:    I'm working on a small project where circumstances are compelling me to provide a short-form or sheet spec. Doug F., John B., and others who are fortunate to have a short-form or sheet spec master: I will be most grateful if you will be willing to share your treasure with me. My E-mail address is sgbcn@specsandgreenconsultants.com. Thanks. Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 126 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 06:23 pm:    Eastside, sheet specs get cumbersome if they take up more than about four sheets of drawings. As such, they must be abbreviated specs, the kind you'd only use on projects where the team already trusts each other and the risks are low. Even then, sheet specs are cumbersome if you haven't got them mostly ready to go. I developed a set for a large firm that could be revised for a project in about eight hours, including the drafter's time to import revised text into the drawings. They were intended for projects that might have otherwise gone without a spec, being too small or too fast to support the time required for a full spec. They represented the basic needs of a simple project, and there were supplemental sections that could easily be brought in for slightly less common requirements. For instance, there was a plastic laminate millwork section in the main set, and a supplemental section for veneer millwork that could piggyback on the p-lam section. In my mind, that should be the goal: a set of prepared sections that can be edited in less time than a full spec and is appropriate for simple, low-risk projects. If you don't have such a set prepared, then I agree with most of the posters who've said that sheet specs are more trouble than a book.