Archive through February 16, 2011

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

Author Message Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 835 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 04:22 pm:    I've been asked by my CSI chapter's education committee to be one of the presenters at an upcoming product rep symposium. Taking lead from another thread on this discussion forum, I've decided to present on the topic of manufacturer guide specifications. I'd like to hear what you consider to be the number one problem with manufacturer guide specifications. After identifying your top candidate, please provide any other spec infractions that you feel should warrant the public spotlight. You can post here or email your suggestion(s) to ron@specsandcodes.com. Thank you. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1008 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 04:32 pm:    They (#1) don't cite recognized industry standards or test results for comparison with other manufacturers and products; (other) they are only available in PDF form; they are proprietary; the language is poor (lots of "contractor shall" and similar bad practices); they are out of date; they do not follow CSI Master, Section, or page formats - just to name a few. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 04:31 pm:    "The ("fill-in-the-blank") Contractor is not responsible for..." Elevator mfrs are notorious for this in their specs. "Passive" statements...e.g., "Flashings are critical to the success of the roofing system and flashing conditions vary wildly." John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1170 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 04:44 pm:    Often have almost nothing in Part 3. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 510 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 05:06 pm:    I want to form a contracting company called "Others Contracting". That way I would never be out of work doing all the "By Others" stuff that fills guide specs. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 333 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 12:34 am:    First of all I would like to see a CSI Guide Specification. Too many mfrs. thinks specifications are just a list of technical data. In the preamble or specifier notes at the beginning of a CSI guide spec, list what product is being specified and the standard/recommended uses. In addition, list all the limitations or where not to use that product [similar to the limitations text in SpecData Sheets]. Too many mfrs are afraid to list their products' limitations or where not to use their products for fear they may lose a sale. But they will lose 10x the cost of the product sale defending themselves in litigation over the misuse of their product even if they are in the right. Thirdly, mfrs who have widgets rather than systems, provide a printable dropdown menu with specification text even if it is only a paragraph of text. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 334 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 04:17 pm:    Some additional comments: If a website makes me register, I walk. Websites should have contact telephone numbers directly to their technical or engineering depts. Nothing more frustrating than going through multiple persons to get the people that can really answer a question or provide technical data. Many SCIP members work weird hours. If I can go to a website at 1:00 AM and I can't find adequate CSI guide spex or meaningful tech data, I go to their competitors. DO NOT ask me to push "1" to speak english. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1142 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 07:30 am:    Many manufacturers try simply to put too much into a guide spec. They try to use the one section/format for their complete product line which usually turns into a thoroughly unusable document. Also as noted, many do not allow for the possibility of other manufacurers in the bidding process. John is also correct that Part 3 is under-utilized whereas they should be giving good installation information and techniques we can use other than follow manufacturer's printed instruction. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 392 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 09:13 am:    Manufacturers' specifications typically include too much in Part 3. Although specification of work results includes installation, specifications are not intended to be installation instructions. As an example, coating manufacturers’ specifications often will specify detailed installation procedures from inspection through post-installation protection. Along the way, they will state how many coats of each component are required, application rates, temperature and humidity required for curing, and so on. All of this is redundant, as it is stated in the installation instructions. A bigger problem is that a competitive product likely will have conflicting requirements. So if you do specify all the good stuff about installation of one product and you get a different one, Part 3 now contains incorrect information, and unless the specifications are updated, the record documents are misleading at best. Several years ago I proposed “specifying by exception” as the logical result of following the Manual of Practice. It relies on the conditions of the contract and Division 01 to require compliance with manufacturers' installation instructions and recommendations, inspection of conditions prior to beginning application, protection of installed work, and so on. The result leaves little to be said in Part 3; in many cases, there would be nothing. What is required are the exceptions. If a roofing manufacturer's details call for flashing that extends vertically four inches and you want it to extend eight inches, you specify the exception. If you want tolerances that are different from the manufacturer's or from reference standards that have been incorporated, you specify those exceptions. If you know more than the manufacturer about how many fasteners are required for roof insulation, you specify the exception. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 238 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 10:14 am:    #1: Excessive proprietary info that they hope will give them an advantage but in reality makes their spec unusable for the alert specifier and dangerous for the unwary (except maybe on the smallest of private projects). A close second, the lack of industry standards as Lynn mentioned. Also, not following CSI standard language, as other have mentioned ("the fabric weight shall be, the Contractor shall, worst of all the <insert trade> subcontractor shall, or by <insert trade> subcontractor). Finally, must mention greenwashing. I think I read in the news recently that this practice is now going to have the same legal consequences as other types of fraud. So be careful about telling us your product will give us a LEED point. The correct approach is to specify documentation for recycled content pre- and post-consumer, for example, or similar enforceable requirements for applicable credits. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 239 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - 02:37 pm:    Another infraction warranting the public spotlight -- manufacturers who assume that users of their websites should already have intimate knowledge of all their products by brand name or product number in order to navigate, instead of giving us the choice of viewing by application. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 393 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - 02:41 pm:    Even worse - entering a valid product number and getting the "no results" message! This happens to me frequently with two well-known manufacturers. That's one reason I have all those phone numbers! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1143 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - 03:13 pm:    Uh, Sheldon, it must be your very kind and gracious heart, or your "hanging on to the past", to use 20th century technology [i.e., the PHONE-- the "instrument" as Granny called it!] to deal with those manufacturers who FREQUENTLY!!!!!!! give you trouble-- does not compute. Bet Lynn would ditch them after time #2 when they trouble her!!!! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1171 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - 04:06 pm:    Expanding on Chris's comment: Manufacturers with many products who don't have a matrix or chart indicating where to start. Perhaps this is by application, perhaps other method, but somehow give us a road map to begin with. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 310 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 - 04:14 pm:    Manufacturer's websites that require registration. Specifically, when they do not include "Specifier" in their dropdown lists (plural) and do not include "Architecture and Interior Design" in other dropdown lists. And all of the above listed by others. I am ammused how often, by whomever writes the specs, uses the space bar to center text and indent. Manufacturer's should retain a SCIP member to prepare their online specifications Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 934 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 03:34 pm:    Two things I see most commonly in manufacturer's specs that I have been asked to revise: 1) too much little niggly stuff that differentiates their product from someone else's, but doesn't affect the function of the product or the installation of the product. (such as: some proprietary finishing process for the metal in a horizontal shade). and 2) too much training instruction to the subcontractor in the guide specs. As I advise my clients, they should be producing a master specification section AND a training/installation guide for their installer. the latter is a supplement to the former -- as in "this is what you'll see, and this is how you actually perform the work" Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 217 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 05:14 pm:    In addition to manufacturer's websites that require registration, there is a special place on my dart board (11 67 53) for those that also ask for a rather complete project registration (name, address, SF...) before they will allow you to access the information you need. Elevator websites love to and ask for all that, and the number of floors served, floor to floor and total travel distance, your first pet's name...all before you can even decide if this product is right for your client. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 231 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 - 10:54 pm:    When asked for information in order to access a site, you can let your imagination run wild and have some fun with fictitious answers. Returning inconvenience for inconvenience motivates me to fill out their form. It puts a smile on my face just thinking about a salesman calling the officer on desk duty to talk about his building project. If they get get more useless data than legitimate leads, maybe they will stop asking for registration. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 241 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 04:19 pm:    "Manufacturer to remain anonymous" panels can be installed over bracing wood, steel studs and sheathing including; plywood, OSB, plastic foam or fiberboard sheathing. "Manufacturer to remain anonymous" panels can also be installed over Structural Insulated Panels (SIP’s), Concrete Masonry Units (CMU’s), Concrete Masonry Units (CMU’s), and Pre-Engineered Metal Construction. Nice to know! Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 241 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 02:54 pm:    Manufacturers who have no specs, or who think the MSDS or a detail drawing with a few notes at the bottom is a spec. Also websites that tell us little about the products and materials. Hyped-up marketing with no technical data, and entirely flashy scripting-language-dependence will quickly turn us off, having the opposite effect from what they had hoped for. I don't want animation and snowflakes going down my screen, and a maze of links to go through based on your model numbers or brand names! I just want to know what materials the products are made out of, and to be able to easily find them based on which applications they are recommended for!!! With the increasing security issues scripting languages have, I'd rather use sites that don't require any of that, or at least that work without it. If the only way I can see your website is by enabling JavaScript and Flash, I might go elsewhere. Specifiers don't have nearly the same interest as the marketing folks think we do about why their products are better than everyone else's. While we care about that to some degree, we are also looking for characteristics in common from a majority of manufacturers. The one-of-a-kind product might not fly when it comes to public projects or cost-conscious private owners, unless there is a very good reason to exclude other products from being allowed to compete. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 244 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, March 29, 2010 - 04:20 pm:    Expanding on the "no specs" category, there is also the "no specs and scarcely even any product data" category. Full extent of a mfrs product data seen today: a list of sizes, and "meets all applicable ASTM standards" Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate, LEED-AP, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 253 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 04:08 pm:    Seen in an actual manufacturer's guide spec: "Customization: Available in insulated, energy performance, <long list>, decorative and more." (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 02:04 pm:    Ran across this tidbit while researching in a mfr's product literature today. This was actually in their guide spec: "Customization: Available in insulated, energy performance, <long list>, decorative and more." I especially love the "and more" part! If that marketing lingo ever makes it into someone's project spec, what is the subcontractor supposed to price and order? J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 04:39 pm:    Not necessarily related to guide specs specifically, the attitude that any product data other than the trade name is confidential information that they don't want to fall into a competitor's hands. They don't seem to understand that the design professional is legally responsible for product selection and that product selection should be made on the basis of "Trust me; this would be a great product for your project." Two manufacturers have recently told me that they would not give me more than the most general description of their product even though more specific information was required to make an informed decision. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 367 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 08:05 pm:    Those manufacturer’s are ignorant of the real world. They are think that their “confidential information” is just obtained from their website or printed data? It is a long standing practice that product reps of competing companies meet in a parking lot somewhere and trade catalogs. Corporate espionage will always be around. There are a multitude of ways for competitors to obtain information – trade show gossip, suppliers, installers, etc. The best tactic a wise manufacturer can take is to get their product information into the hands of the appropriate design professional and get their product successfully installed. Repeat business, faithful follow-through and support, good recommendations from satisfied customers [design and owners], and a loyal following will make them successful. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 362 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 08:44 pm:    When the standards or tests associated with the product are listed in the building code the building code says that the building official has a right to the information. If the information is not provided when requested it is assumed that the product does not comply with the code and thus cannot be used. The design professional's option is to not specify the product. You could also make the submittal of the desired information a required submittal. Thus if the informaiton is not supplied the product cannot be used. When you decide not to use a product because the required information was not provided send a short note to upper management at the manufacturer noting that you were unable to consider their product because they were unwilling to provide information you needed to evaluate their product. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, January 21, 2011 - 10:49 am:    Most of my concerns have been addressed, I will emphasis a few: 1. Guide specs should be prepared in CSI format, using appropriate language and ideally reviewed by someone familiar with preparing specs. Find that a lot of times, the guide specs need to be reworked substantially to be used. Although it takes time - it is still beneficial that they are there. But if they were better to start with it would be good. 2. Most Websites now let you view without registering, or if they have registering, it is optional. Some require registering to download a "Word" copy of the guide spec - I generally don't register unless I am desparte for the info. 3. Just this week I was working on a couple of Sections that I looked at the guide spec for the products hoping that they would expand on the product info that I was not finding on their Website. Did not have luck there either. If we are to spec manufacturers products, they need to provide definitive info regarding their different product lines or models for us to be able to specify them. In these two cases, they had different products, but it was difficult to find the specific criteria for each. 4. Some websites are loaded with info regarding color and pattern options, but are very short on technical info and criteria on the products. Find that this is especially true of some of the non-US finish products. PS - I am a "member" of the forum. I seemed to have trouble logging in today - usually happens automatically. The last time that I entered my info, it seemed to accept - but I see that I am still coming up as "unregistered". William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 830 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, January 21, 2011 - 11:38 am:    I consider manufacturer's guide specs typically as totally worthless. Even those that have great language and format to CSI standards, the information is almost never comprehensive. That is, it does not cover all options, accessories, and other items that are actually part of the system or material. So using them you are likely to leave out something critical and not realize it. There are actually some that do a good job of it, but its so rare that they are tainted indirectly through the poor quality of the vast majority. I would rather work with manufacturers data sheets. And if the information is not complete on that, its sure not going to be any more complete on the guide spec - all of which has something to say about that manufacturer and that maybe there is a better choice in a different manufacturer. William ps - this site has not automatically signed me in in months. It used to, but I recall Colin saying something regarding that. I have to manually sign in with every post. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 499 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2011 - 05:23 am:    Manufacturers should move responsibility for their construction specifications from marketing to technical support. If I'm looking for a guide or prototypical construction specification, I'm already sold. What I'm looking for is a competenly written construction specification. And the first thing I eliminate is marketing hype from the specification. Marketing language must go. Superlative descriptions such as "best", "high performance", "superior" and "A no. 1 okey-dokey" are unenforceable and have no place in construction specifications. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1183 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, January 24, 2011 - 09:55 am:    What they should do is hire a certified specification writer to write and maintain their specs. There are many available. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 412 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, January 24, 2011 - 12:39 pm:    I agree with everyone on this matter - guide specs tend to be too wordy or too much information by trying to include all of their products under 1 section - However, my biggest pet peeve, and it looks like I'm not alone, is having to spend 5-10 minutes "registering" to gain access to a website. I too am refusing to go there and will not specify the product it I have to "register" to use their website. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 408 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, January 24, 2011 - 12:59 pm:    What annoys me most about registering is the box that asks what is your primary function. 9 times out of 10 my only option is "Other". Specifier or specification writer is usually not offered yet we are the ones most often on their websites. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 387 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Monday, January 24, 2011 - 01:10 pm:    If I'm in the mood, when I have to register for a manufacturer's site I'll just make up a name, like Neddy Seagoon or Sebastian Weetabix Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 409 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, January 24, 2011 - 01:31 pm:    I use Valued Company and Valued Customer. The guys from Car Talk give many other examples during their credits like the chauffer Pickup Anddropoff. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 - 06:26 pm:    Richard "guide specs tend to be too wordy or too much information by trying to include all of their products under 1 section " One Question "Do use MasterSpec"? James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 81 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 10:36 am:    I agree with William - just provide me with a useful product data sheet. It would be ideal if manufacturers of similar products followed a format to make comparison easy but I know there are reasons why they wont. If they would simply list the appropriate standards that the product meets (and I know they know which standards are really meaningful), relevant physical characteristics, available warranty, etc. that might be enough. I certainly think I can write a specification as well as or better than any I have seen in any manufacturer’s literature. One more thing: make it clear what is standard and what is optional for a particular product whether it is a feature or a finish or something else. It really bothers clients when the architect or specifier has to come to them after bidding and say something like, “The anodized finish is an up-charge. The standard is a baked enamel in chartreuse only! Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 413 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 11:43 am:    I don't use MasterSpec - talk about being too wordy! They too try to make "1 size fits all" Trying to edit one of their sections is like tryingto edit a mfgr's guide spec We use an in-house master that has been tailored to the type of work we do, including all of the DSA (California thing) requirements. Also, we had to cancel our subscription to MasterSpec as a cost cutting measure 2 years ago. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 501 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 06:09 pm:    Names for consideration (with due credit to Click and Clack - The Tappet Brothers, and the source they stole them from: MALE NAMES Jim Nasium Pete Moss Wing Flap Luke Warm Art Majors Adolph DeFlor Ike Arumba Linus Scrimmage Noah Count Rick O'Shea Rick Shaw Noah Comprendy Jim Shortz Gene Poole Paddy O'Furniture Marty Graw Bud Tugley FEMALE NAMES Ann Tenna Ann Onimus Lisa Carr Eileen Dover Natalie Attired Sara Bellum Sharon Apartment Sandy Beach Ima Hogg Candy Barr Helena Handbasket Sasha Deal Lucinda Bolts Kay Sera Lois Bidder and last Shirley Ujest Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 412 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 06:28 pm:    John, This one is real. Rhoda Henbest. Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tim_werbstein Post Number: 34 Registered: 09-2006 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 08:43 am:    And here are a few others. MALE NAMES Haywood Jabuzoff ("Hey, would you buzz off," customer care representative) Claudio Vernight ("cloudy overnight," meteorologist) Pikop Andropov ("pick up and drop off," their Russian chauffeur) FEMALE NAMES Marge Innovera ("margin of error," statistician) Firms: Dewey, Cheetham & Howe (lawyers,.on Cartalk's office sign in Ha-vad Square) C.F. Eye Care ("see if I care," optometric firm) J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 10:12 am:    Uh, Ima Hogg was the name of a very real person, important to the cultural history of Houston. Her father was one of the governors of Texas, and she was one of the first collectors of early American antiques. Miss Ima's collection is on view at Bayou Bend, her former residence in the River Oaks area in Houston (see http://www.mfah.org/visit/bayou-bend-collection-and-gardens). The facility also boasts 14 acres of landscaped grounds and gardens. You may hear of her sister, Ura Hogg; this person does not exist. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1186 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 10:55 am:    I remember a name from when I was a kid - maybe from Ripley's "Believe it or Not" - Ima June Bugg. Parents can be so cruel... Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 399 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 11:03 am:    Dont' forget the texas woman Ima and mythical sister Ura Hogg. to qoute from wikipedia "Jim Hogg indicates he may not have been conscious of the combined effect of his daughter’s first and last names" What a silly dad. down the street here in Seattle is a dentist named Leland Dull Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 368 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 02:48 pm:    [True] A local dentist has recently joined my dentists' practice who is retiring soon. His name is David Dodrill. I actually called the dentist to confirm the announcement thinking it was an early April spoof. [Probably not true] During the Great Depression there was bank by the name of Cheetham and Steel. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 01:41 pm:    Another true story: Mr. and Mrs. Lear had a daughter they named Crystal, no problem so far... until they decided to give her the middle name of Shanda. Richard L. Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 06:06 pm:    This is not a complaint, but a question. Many specifications say little if anything about installation "in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations" for instance. Installation instructions are typically a separate file in a manufacturer's Web Site. In writing a project specification I typically try to find requirements in the manufacturer's Web site that would be useful to a field inspector to control quality. Similarly in writing a Guide Specification I try to find requirements that the product manufacturer would want to protect his interests. Do others of you look at installation equirements in Part 3, as useful or as a potential risk; that is "the Contractor is responsible for installation"? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 365 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2011 - 08:14 pm:    Installation instructions in Part 3 should address the issuess that the design professional is concerned about while resisting the tendency to unnecessarily interfear with the contractors means and methods. The level of detail can vary significantly I am not concerned with protecting the interests of the manufacturer but I do not want to require anything that would result in the voiding of the manufacturers warranty. The owner's inspector does not control quality rather he reports on whether the installed work complies with the provisions in the contract documents. The specifications should define the acceptance criteria and any tests or inspections that are required. Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 14 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Friday, January 28, 2011 - 02:01 am:    I got in way too late to add anything, as all my usual complaints have been addressed. But as a side note, I think I'll quit consulting and start some kind of product line with the brand name "Or Equal". It's already in the Specs! John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 504 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 12:08 pm:    I find that it is better not to prescribe installation procedures in too great a detail. Repeating the manufacturer's instructions may not be sufficient and, the more detailed the instructions, the more likely the arguement that a procedure is not required because it is not specified. Such procedure, for example, could be unique to various project conditions or could involve conditions of acceptance from an ICC Evaluation report that is not included in the manufacturer's published instructions. It is more preferable, in my opinion, to identify the steps in application/installation in general terms, including preparation, field testing and inspection and protection. It then serves as a guide to those administering the contract as to what activities to expect to see. For example, application of primer should be expected before finish coats are applied. Yep, there was a project where paint on handrails failed immediately and it was determined that no primer had been applied. And this week, the arguement was over procedures for application of a metallic coating. If the spray gun is not held at the same orientation throughout application, the finished appearance varies unacceptably. It becomes a judgment about how much information to specify. And it certainly does not lend itself to concise specifying. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 416 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 12:19 pm:    I agree with John. Rewriting the installation instructions may cause unintended consequences by not copying them verbatim and screwing up their intent or inadvertently or on purpose adding instructions that were not part of the originals may transfer risk to the Architect. We do not rewrite the Code or ASTM;s etc. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 368 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 03:29 pm:    While I agree that we should not rewrite the code I temper this with the reality that there are some code provisions that are hidden in a design standard that the contractor would have difficulty finding even if he had the document. When faced with such situations I will typically reflect the requiremetn in the specification section. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 417 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 04:33 pm:    Mark, I agree but I stop at specific chapter and verse from the code. I assume this is what you mean? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 369 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 06:47 pm:    Sometimes I will reference a specific code section and other times I will paraphrsse the code requirement in the specification. These issues come up all the time in specifying structural work. For example there is a requirement regarding the diameter of the pilot hole for installation of lag bolts. Because of where this requirement is located I typically paraphrase the requirement in Part 3. Other times, particularly when the provision is long and in a document I believe that Contractor can reasonally be expected to have and I am only concerned about a portion of the document, I will reference the specific section, In other situations I will simply point to the standard. It depends. When I wish to make mandatory a specific recommendation in an industry guideline, which is not a standard, I will typically reference the specific sub section of the document. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1105 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2011 - 07:34 pm:    oh, I have two names... I went to school with a Candace... but of course she was called "Candy" and her last name was Senter. And a good friend of mine is Heidi Klare (her parents did not see that one coming at all) and then there was a family in the northwest who got written up at least every few years: their last name was Tree, and the kids were Douglas Fir, Jack Pine and Merry Christmas. yes, really. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 505 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2011 - 07:36 am:    Re: reciting Code requirements in specifications. On this one, I have some strong concerns. Public agencies often require specific Code citations to be included in the specifications, especially regarding accessibility and fire code provisions. CONTRACTUALLY, this makes the Contractor responsible for Code compliance. That is, the contract becomes design-build. Sure, it's a CYA for the public agency but it complicates responsibility for the design. So, when a manufacturer's guide specification states "in accordance with applicable local codes", it not only makes the Contractor responsible for code compliance during installation/application but it makes the Contractor responsible for the design ... CONTRACTUALLY. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1113 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 - 01:49 pm:    Okay, manufacturers: I understand that for projects, you want to have the sales staff take the lead on new jobs... but once again, I have run into road blocks getting technical information. I'm doing a complicated exterior system (in the Bay Area, with seismic issues) and I needed to talk with an engineer about the stiffness required for framing this wall system. so I call the manufacturer and ask to speak to an engineer. they don't transfer me to an engineer; the receptionst starts asking me where the project is, what project name it is, and then declares that if its not on her list, then I can't talk with anyone but a sales person. So, (and this has sometimes worked) I ask to leave a message for the sales person, and in my message I ask a really really complicated technical question that the receptionist doesn't understand. (this is to point out that I need to speak with an engineer). I cant' talk to an engineer, because the project hasn't been bid yet. the only person I can speak with is a sales person, who really is a "sales" person -- no technical knowledge AT ALL. since the system is proprietary and has been selected for esthetic reasons, my inability to speak with an engineer is sort of like "negative customer service". Not only have I wasted my time trying to explain my question to a "sales" person, but I still don't have any information for the spec. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1114 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2011 - 01:54 pm:    Oh and John... the architect by contract has the primary responsibility for code compliance (as you know) and by license is the one that the authorities go to for code issues. However, the contractor is not allowed to plead ignorance of the code and we rely on them to be more knowledgeable about code issues in their specialty and alert the architect if there are conflicts. Mentioning code issues in the specs does not shift the responsibility from the Architect to the contractor, but it does bring in contractor responsibilty to not be ignorant of code compliance. I think you're being overly dramatic with your code shifting language. Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 24 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2011 - 11:22 am:    John and Anne - I've been on the "ground floor" of taking a manufacturer with no Architectural/Specification support staff, creating guide specs and a department to "market" them - and I fought tooth and nail to NOT use "sales" people, NOT have business cards with "Architectural Sales" imprinted as the reps' title, and to have all materials prepared by technical staff. I wanted solid, technically-proficient people and material...but there's a rub. Often the "techies" have poor people skills, are poor communicators unless among peers and can't create a decent looking piece of technical literature. There ARE rare reps who know how to build relationships AND "know their stuff". Those are the ones we rely on to solve issues - or who we can load up with a preliminary set of working drawings knowing they're return them with a project-specific section (or group of them) that we can confidently "plug in". But they ARE rare. And the "Architectural Department (or Architectural Services or some other "wrong" name) is almost inevitably going to be a division of "Outside Sales", which is also part of (or IS) "marketing". Spec guides are prepared by Marketing - as are brochures, trade show displays and everything else aimed at the Specifier. My "ground floor" department-building was 28 years ago and a bit of an exception to the "norm"- I refused to fold to upper-management demands and luckily wasn't canned! I trained the sales reps I was given and would not "turn them loose" until they were qualified technical personnel who knew more than "sales reps" and were the types Specifiers could rely on. Worst case scenario - I'm both personally and professionally offended when I attended a trade show and a large number of booths have pretty young ladies working in the booth - and they turn out to either be company employees from departments totally unrelated to technical support or ladies hired just to "work" the show. Years ago we called them "booth furniture". And I will not provide details, but once had the owner of manufacturing firm state the requirements for "Architect's Reps" (his term) were just such females...and proceeded to describe necessary physical attributes. Sheesh. Well, that wasn't much about guide specs - but perhaps a view of the mindset behind the process. I left that arena long ago but from what I've seen it hasn't changed all that much. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1192 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2011 - 11:53 am:    "Pretty young ladies" don't do much for me unless they are intelligent, informed, and educated about the product. I'm with you, Jim - personally and professionally offended by a manufacturer's or product's representative who knows nothing beyond an attractive picture or smile. With current instant availability of information, a human representative is under pressure to offer more than just the basics. (S)he must be thoroughly knowledgeable about the product, its applications, its requirements, its failures, its limitations and its competitors, including industry-wide "insider" information. (S)he MUST also be ethical and truthful. It's a changing world, and whether we "like" it or not, we have to either change or be left behind. Information is available 24/365; the quality of that information needs evaluation. And I expect - demand - that a product or manufacturer's rep be able to help provide that evaluation. J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2011 - 02:19 pm:    We have recently been called on by "pretty young ladies" from a couple of different manufacturers. I would expect them to be enthusiastic, but have also been impressed with how much knowledge they already have and how much more they want to learn. Not only do they want to know more about how we would use their products, they also want to know more about "product representation" and dealing with design professionals. Now if they can keep from being corrupted by the marketing department... Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1195 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2011 - 02:38 pm:    Be sure to send them to CSI and the certifications available. Ask about their involvement in their chapter...point out that you respect a rep more if they have CDT after their name on their business card and even more if it states CCPR! It's what expect from a serious rep. Justatim Senior Member Username: justatim Post Number: 15 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2011 - 04:00 pm:    I'm all for it! The more attractive and young product reps we have visiting us (knowledgeable too), the easier it will be to attract a new generation of spec writers. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1196 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2011 - 04:13 pm:    I'm assuming you also mean "attractive and young" male product reps... James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 82 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, February 11, 2011 - 09:22 am:    Lynn, I'm sure Justatim means both men and women. It seems females are reaching parity in this industry at least when it comes to precentages of product representatives. These days it's not enough to be only attractive (by this I mean present well, re: books by John T. Malloy) or be only knowledgable. One must be both. With all the demands put on our time it is difficult for an architect or specifier to give his or her attention to a presentation that is not clear and concise. I've said this before in another thread: I can almost always tell, even before seeing a business card with those letters printed after the representative's name, if he or she has achieved CCPR certification. It is just evident in their knowledge of their product and in their presentation style. I suppose the confidence that comes from knowing what one is talking about (his product) manifests in his effective manner of communicating. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1197 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 11, 2011 - 10:13 am:    James, Please understand that I just had to tweak Justatim's tail! I've been in this business long enough to tell when someone truly has a sexist attitude and when they're just using conventional and symbolic language. And you're right. The percentage gap of female to male is closing rapidly. Since men and women are different and think differently, the industry will be better for it; we do our best work when we work together. Of course, the competition should also be good. Who's better? Who has the most incentive to prove himself more knowledgeable? Who is more willing to learn? There has always been that rivalry. Specifiers and architects win when there is an effort made to provide us with more usable information, whether it's from a good product/manufacturer's rep with a CCPR or from a guide spec written by a such a rep. Justatim Senior Member Username: justatim Post Number: 16 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Friday, February 11, 2011 - 10:48 am:    Actually, I don't have a tail, but I can sniff out a good product rep through volumes of glossy brochures. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1198 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 11, 2011 - 10:50 am:    Oh, the imagery... Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 463 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, February 11, 2011 - 11:28 am:    Wait a minute, Lynn! What blasphemy is this? I've been told for about forty years now that there's no difference between men and women. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1199 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 11, 2011 - 12:45 pm:    Sheldon, I feel sorry for Linda... James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 84 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 09:53 am:    Yes, women and men do think differently. There have been volumes written on subjects from child rearing to work place communication that point this out. Studies show definite chemical differences in female and male brains. I have at least empirical evidence of this as I have been married to a highly intelligent woman for the last 27 years. She is in fact the proverbial “rocket scientist” working for a NASA contractor. Of course we share many common interests outside of our jobs and are both interested in what the other does “at the office.” Many times in the past quarter century plus it has been evident to us that we have a different approach to thinking about certain things. We come from similar backgrounds –college educated professional parents, close-knit nuclear family, etc. so I have to believe the differences in our thought processes are gender related. On the whole it is a great thing. One gets a radically different perspective on occasion that proves helpful in dealing with certain problems. There is a slight difficulty when discussing our jobs though. Since my wife works for a government contractor, and therefore speaks fluent Acronym (and passable Russian too), I am at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to understand some of the things she is trying to tell me. Back to the subject of this thread: It would be an interesting exercise to have a man and a woman, each knowledgeable about his/her product, write a guide specification about the same product, once in three-part CSI form and again as a table or series of bullet points, then try to determine who wrote which. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1200 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 11:16 am:    What a great idea! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1118 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 - 05:37 pm:    When I first started out, my boss (a woman) had the office make up two sets of business cards: one set using my name of Anne Whitacre; the other set using my first initial and middle name -- A. Frank Whitacre (yes, its a family name and I didn't appreciate it for a long time). That's because back in those days, there were a lot of reps who wouldn't talk to a "lady architect" (much less a "lady spec writer") and I often couldn't get information even if I wrote for it. as for the male/female thought debate: I think people think differently. In a typical office, I think much more like my male colleagues than I do like my female colleagues, but my architectural interests are more like them, too. What I do think is important is mental flexibility..and if you have that, maybe gender isn't that big an issue. James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 86 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 - 09:45 am:    I suppose mental flexibility is what will keep all of us viable in this rapidly changing industry. Our desires expressed in this thread for manufacturers' guide specifications are mostly the things that would make our lives easier. It is no sin to desire such but we also know we will never get all that we ask for so our minds must remain nimble as we approach our work. Anne, my children are 21- (son) and 18-years-of-age (daughter). Their attitudes, and those of their friends I know, toward "lady architects" or even "lady crane operators" are refreshingly different from those even of my generation and I grew up in the 60's and 70's. With them the combinations of X and Y chromosomes simply are not an issue. My daughter works part-time at a neighborhood hardware store and is amused by the reaction of some of the patrons when she is able to tell them about paints, fertilizers, and adhesives (she has attended manufacturers' seminars on each of these). Some "good ol' boys," and "good ol' gals" too, just can't get their feeble little minds around the idea that women are just as intelligent (much evidence to suggest perhaps more intelligent) as men on any subject.