Category Archives: Architectural Specifications

The technical writing that goes with the architectural drawings on a construction project.

Unknown's avatar

One for Construction Product Manufacturers: How do Spec Writers Decide What Products to Specify?

by

Maybe in a perfect world, spec writers would research ALL the available products, and specify ALL of the products that meet the project requirements.  Think of the competition that would create, and the potential cost savings to the Owner because of that competition… and think of the additional costs to the Owner for the time the specifier would have to spend on all that research!

The construction industry generally seems to agree that having 3 competitors provides enough competition to get a fair price for a product.  I believe that the law of diminishing returns would apply to a practice of researching and specifying any more than 3 comparable products, or “equals”.

So how do spec writers select those three products?  Sometimes the Owner tells the design team what they want us to specify.1  If an Owner doesn’t have a preference, the Architect often makes selections based on aesthetic requirements.2  And, if neither the Owner nor the Architect has a preference, the specifier makes product selections. 

Last night, I got a comment from Kirk Wood about the third situation.  Kirk was wondering if it’s a case of “who you know” rather than “what you have to offer” that determines which manufacturers’ products get specified by spec writers. 

First, I have to mention that the manufacturers’ reps that spec writers know best are those whose products we have researched and have had questions about; the reps we know best are those whose products we know best.  We know these reps through the process of researching the products we were specifying, NOT the other way around.  It’s NOT that we know them, so we spec their products; it’s that they rep products that we spec, so we turn to them when we have questions about the products (compatibility, pricing, product options, availability, et cetera).

So how do specifiers know about these products or manufacturers in the first place?  When preparing specification sections for a project, many of us start with commercially available master specifications.  (I use MasterSpec, by ARCOM.)  These master specifications usually list available manufacturers for the products we’re specifying, and many of us start the selection process there.3 

Moving ahead from the master is where, due to time and budget constraints, the process of product selection has the capacity to get random…

When possible, we select products and manufacturers that we are familiar with, and we do research to make sure that these familiar products work for the specific project.  If we haven’t ever researched any of these products before, they’re unfamiliar, so we start from the list provided by the master specification, and research those.  It’s a very rare situation when all the products listed in a master specification will meet the project requirements.  So, I research the listed products until I get three that meet the project requirements.

Here’s how I go about this:  I start with the list, and delete those that don’t work.

A manufacturer’s website with too many barriers to entry will make me jump to the next manufacturer on the list.

A manufacturer’s website with no information, just contact information for the manufacturer’s rep, will make me jump to the next manufacturer on the list.

A manufacturer’s website that is running too slowly will make me jump to the next manufacturer on the list.

A manufacturer that has NO WEBSITE is OFF THE LIST.

It’s not who you know.  I’m not saying that product selection isn’t a bit random at times, but generally, if a manufacturer has clear, easily accessible, easily navigable, correct, quickly available, concise, complete, and non-conflicting4, information on the internet, that manufacturer’s products are more likely to get specified.

Spec writers are a predictable breed of design professional.  We prefer to see things published, in print, rather than to listen to someone tell us about them.  We’re skeptics, and aren’t likely to blindly accept things that we can’t independently verify.  We are detail-oriented and generally are not interested in information beyond the technical.  Most of us are introverts, and a lot of us would rather write than talk (can you tell?).

So, my advice to manufacturers is the following:  Have a good website.  Have a good technical information department.  Have great manufacturer’s representatives!  Encourage your reps to join CSI, the Construction Specifications Institute.5 

Being active in CSI is not about getting spec writers to know you so that they’ll spec your products; it truly does not work that way.  Being active in CSI is about getting spec writers to realize that you, a local manufacturer’s rep, are there to answer our questions, and to help educate us about your products, and about comparable products (your competitors’ products).

Reps should become resources for spec writers.  Specifiers aren’t really susceptible to old-style salesman techniques; we’re skeptics, remember?  Don’t go to CSI meetings and try to “sell.”  Go to CSI meetings and let design professionals know that you’re there, and when you’re given the opportunity, educate us about your products (and about how they compare to your competitors’ products.)

We’re all in this construction industry together.  The primary goal that all of us have is to get a building built for an Owner, and to make a living doing it.  When one manufacturer’s product is more appropriate for a project than another’s, that’s the one that should be used in the project.  I think that, objectively, we can all agree on that.  The best way to make sure that the most appropriate products are being incorporated into the project is for manufacturers and their reps to make their best efforts to educate spec writers.  And if there are a bunch of equally appropriate products, then specifying 3 of them is a good way to get a fair price for the Owner’s project. 

Notes: 

  1. Ah, yes – the natural question is, “How does the Owner pick the products that they want us to spec?”  Well, that’s always a bit perplexing.  Many of the products that Owners require in their technical guidelines aren’t actually comparable, but are written as if they are.  Many of the products in the Owners’ technical guides have been discontinued, and listed manufacturers have gone out of business.  Some of the products and manufacturers never existed – curious typos and misspellings have created shadowy products or manufacturers that somehow get repeated, project after project…  Truly, a mystery.
  2. When the Architect makes product selections, the spec writer researches the Architect’s desired products, and if they meet the project requirements, and are compatible with other specified products, the spec writer specs the product or products selected by the Architect.  If there are comparable products, or “equals”, selected by the Architect, the specifier will include those.  If there really aren’t exact equals, the specifier will usually indicate that the Architect’s selected product is the “Basis of Design,” and will allow substitution requests for products that almost meet the specifications.  The Architect will decide if proposed substitutions are acceptable.
  3. More than once, I have suggested to a manufacturer’s rep that they should contact ARCOM, MasterSpec’s publisher, to see if they can get their products listed.  If spec writers don’t know you exist, we can’t specify your products…
  4. Yes, I have reported conflicts between different bits of technical information on a manufacturer’s website.  Come on, people!
  5. CSI’s website: http://www.csinet.org

More GREAT info for construction product manufacturers can be found at the blog of Chusid Associates: http://www.buildingproductmarketing.com/

Unknown's avatar

Work As If You Have the Job You Want

by

You’ve probably heard people suggest to job seekers, “Dress for the job you want.”  It’s good advice, but I’m not that into fashion, so I modify that advice to say:  “Work as if you have the job you want.”

I am lucky to actually have the job I want!  But I don’t always get the projects I want.  My clients are great – it’s their clients (the Owners on construction projects) that I sometimes wish were, well, a little more this… a little less that… 

But I keep working as if all the Owners actually were appreciative of my efforts to do my best, and were aware of the ways my work can benefit them. 

One of my goals for my future is to work only on projects with Owners who are aware enough to appreciate my conscientiousness and thoroughness.  For now though, on a lot of my projects, I’m just practicing.  I’m doing my best on all my projects, whether it’s appreciated by the Owners or not.

As we’ve all heard “…perfect practice makes perfect.”  (This is how I remember that great Vince Lombardi quote, because this important fragment is all that I ever heard from Mr. Roberson, my guitar teacher when I was 8.)  The full quote is: “Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.” 

I believe that you cannot be prepared for the work you want to be doing unless you always work as hard as your dream job will require you to work.

Unknown's avatar

Specs – “Letters” to Subcontractors?

by

My work, writing architectural specifications for construction projects, feels a bit like writing letters to subcontractors.  The architect and the general contractor sometimes seem like the couriers who pass these letters along. 

I’m oversimplifying things here; there’s so much other work that goes into the project management of a construction project on the part of the architect and the general contractor.  They are so much more than messengers, and even with specs, they need to be so much more than messengers.  But the specs are something that are best understood by the sub or vendor on the contractor side, and by the spec writer on the design team side.  We’re specialists in our fields.  (Something that highlights this fact is that a bad spec section can look just fine to almost everyone on the project team [owner, architect, general contractor], but a sub and a spec writer know an incomplete or incorrect spec when they look carefully.)

Because the writer of the specs naturally knows the specs better than the architect and general contractor do, sometimes part of my job is to act as translator between architect and general contractor.  That’s fine – I expect to do that.  But once in a while, I act as translator between general contractor and subcontractor.  And that’s a little weird. 

I wouldn’t be writing about this if it had only happened once, or if it had only happened with one contractor.  It’s happened to me with several general contractors.

The architect and the spec writer shouldn’t have to put their heads together to figure out what the general contractor is trying to communicate to the architect.  We shouldn’t have to trace back through an email chain to find out the source of the GC’s question.  We shouldn’t have to go back to the source (the sub’s email to the GC) to be able to figure out that the GC isn’t understanding something about his sub’s question, but he’s passing on the question to the architect, anyway.

General contractors shouldn’t just pass along questions from their subs to the architect – they should try to answer them first.  And architects shouldn’t just pass along questions from their consultants to the owner, they should try to answer them first.  And architects shouldn’t just pass on info from one source to their consultants without verifying it first.

And the main point of all of this is that architects and general contractors need to read the specs, and not just act like the couriers who deliver the specs to the subs.  The specs are not just for the subcontractors!

Unknown's avatar

Construction Documentation Reminders from Children’s Literature

by

“What I mean and what I say is two different things,” the BFG announced rather grandly. 

“Meanings is not important,” said the BFG.  “I cannot be right all the time.  Quite often I is left instead of right.”

I’m reading The BFG with my 7-year-old.  It’s a 1982 children’s book by Roald Dahl.  (To give you a frame of reference, in case Dahl wasn’t one of your favorite authors when you were a kid, Roald Dahl also wrote the 1964 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.) 

The BFG (the Big Friendly Giant) is a nice vegetarian giant, who tries to communicate clearly, but frequently mixes up his words.  He knows that language is not his strong point, but he thinks that’s just fine.

The book is charming and funny, especially when you read it with a child who has nearly perfect grammer, understands that the BFG’s way of speaking isn’t grammatically correct, and finds it hilarious.  We laugh a lot when we read this book.

But some of the BFG’s pronouncements have uncomfortably reminded me of some people whose paths I’ve crossed in my professional life.

There was the electrical engineering consultant I worked with a long time ago, when I was practicing as an architect.  His drawings were a mess.  I told him his AutoCAD grid snap settings were turned off, so none of the 2 by 4 light fixtures in his ceiling plans were actually on the ceiling grids.  He proudly told me, about the snaps, “I don’t use ‘em.”  Aaarrrgghh! 

There was the owner’s project manager who, when I commented that a provision in the owner-generated general conditions didn’t match the rest of the documents, said “This is illegal verbiage; I would not worry about it.”  (The owner had no intention of clarifying this provision in our documents, and had no intention of correcting this “illegal verbiage” for future projects.)

There are owners and architects both, on CM/GC projects, who have had an awfully relaxed attitude towards documentation before and during construction, who have dismissively said things such as, “Oh, we talked about that with the contractor.  He knows what we want there.”  They didn’t intend to clarify our documents, and were therefore relying on the contractor to provide something based only on a discussion.

In all three of these examples above, the professionals knew that communications were not clear, and they were quite sure that that was just fine.  IT’S NOT OK!

Now, since this is the first time I’ve re-read The BFG since I was little, and we’re only halfway through, I don’t remember if the BFG’s communication shortcomings cause any mishaps.  I am sure the giant’s miscommunications do not cause any change orders, lawsuits, or unhappy clients.

On the other hand, unclear and incomplete construction documents can cause misery for owners, architects, and contractors.  They often lead to change orders, and they can lead to lawsuits, and unhappy clients.

CSI (The Construction Specifications Institute) always reminds us that our contract documents must be clear, concise, complete, and correct.  If you can’t accomplish that yourself, the right thing to do is to hire someone who can accomplish it for you.  Owners, you should have qualified people prepare (and regularly update) your procurement and contracting requirements.  If you are a public entity, you absolutely owe that to the taxpayers.  Design professionals, if you haven’t mastered new must-have technologies, you should hire, or outsource to, people who have.  Owners and design professionals, you should properly staff projects so that the required documentation gets done in a timely manner to prevent misunderstandings.  (Design professionals – this needs to be a factor when you negotiate your fees.) 

Contracts are based on what’s written and drawn.  They are not based on what we meant to write or draw.

“I know exactly what words I am wanting to say, but somehow or other they is always getting squiff-squiddled around.”  (The BFG)

We can do better.

Unknown's avatar

Adapt or… What?

by

For years, it’s been said (mostly in whispers) that Architecture is a dying profession.

One of the reasons for this dismal outlook is that many of the building products and systems that we are incorporating into our buildings today are pretty complicated, and require quite a bit of project-specific design work by their manufacturers.

As Michael Chusid’s important blog post today said:

“Instead of building with raw or semi-finished materials, we assemble buildings from components that are shop fabricated and finished. Master builders with a personal knowledge of all building materials and methods are an endangered species; designers and builders must now rely on manufacturers’ product data sheets, shop drawings, installation instructions, field training and supervision, and off-site fabrication. Many building products require such specialized experience or knowledge that they can only be detailed or installed by the manufacturer. The building product industry today is more than just a material supplier; it plays an integral role in detailing, engineering, and constructing systems, sub-assemblies, and entire buildings.”

Some buildings end up with a large percentage of components that were designed by the product and system manufacturers, instead of the architect.  Entities who are part of the contractor team – subcontractors, vendors, manufacturers, and installers – sometimes do so much of the design for specific elements that some people wonder why the architect was engaged in the first place.  They may wonder if the architect’s function is just to produce a schematic design.  They may ask, “Well, couldn’t some hotshot fashion designer / interior designer / artist do that just as well?”  No.

The role of the architect has NEVER just been to produce a schematic design.  Aside from schematic design, what we architects have always done is to design how all the different components of a building go together.  What we do, what we need to do, what we are more qualified to do than anyone else, is design the transitions from one material to another.  We select the systems and the products, which are often detailed by the manufacturer.  But then WE, the architects, design the way these things go together.  This, we cannot delegate.  This, general contractors are not particularly well suited to do.  This is the work that architects will always need to do, no matter how much project-specific design manufacturers do.

Remember, our primary job as architects is to interpret the owner’s wishes for the building, and communicate those wishes to the contractor, to get the building built.  We are the people who need to communicate to the contractor how he is supposed to get the subcontractors to build the building.  The general contractor needs to coordinate all the different installers, but we, the architects, need to draw, and specify, how all the different manufacturers’ standard pieces go together to make a building.  Every building is different.  Every manufacturer has standard details and standard specifications for their products, and the architect is the person who needs to take those standard details and specifications, and, working with the manufacturer, properly adapt them to the specific project, and then produce those adaptations as part of the project drawings and specifications.  This is pretty much how it’s always been – it’s just more complicated today.

As those systems and products have gotten more complicated, so have the transitions between all those systems and products.  The transitions between different materials and products have always been the most vulnerable parts of buildings.  No one manufacturer, and no general contractor, and certainly no installer in the field, should be designing the transition from one manufacturer’s product to another manufacturer’s product.  (I’ve seen what happens when the installer solves an unaddressed transition issue in the field.  This is the LAST thing we want.  Fellow architects, design those transitions, please!)

We need to be familiar with the products and systems we are drawing and specifying, but we need to remember that the product reps and manufacturers will ALWAYS know more about their products than we will.  They know more about their products than architects, specifiers, contractors, and owners ever can.  Except when drawing and specifying simple, straightforward products, it’s always a good idea to talk to product reps about your project.  For systems (elements such as curtainwall, exterior metal panel rainscreens, or roofs) it’s even more important to talk to the reps for all the manufacturers that you are incorporating into the documents.

In this time of increasingly complicated building products and systems, architects need to be spending a little less time copying manufacturers’ standard details, and a LOT more time figuring out and detailing those pesky transitions between all these complicated products and systems!

The profession of Architecture should not be dying.  Architects need to continue to be the leaders in the design and construction process (great phrase – thanks, Michael Chusid).  Trained and licensed architects are important to the look, feel, safety, durability, and function of our built environment.  Architects are essential to ensuring that owners get a good value for their construction dollars; architects help keep contractors honest.  But, as Michael Chusid wrote:

“A better understanding of the organization, activities, and concerns of the building product industry would enable architects to design with and specify building materials more astutely and effectively, and would strengthen their ability to lead the design and construction process.”

This is today’s world of architecture and construction.  Architects must recognize the important role that product reps play in the construction process.  Architects must realize that the role of product reps does not threaten the role of architects, but complements it.  Together, we can improve our built environment.  Architects must step up and meet the challenge of more complicated products and systems.  Architects must adapt or… what?

This is the link to today’s important post from Michael Chusid, of Chusid Associates: http://www.buildingproductmarketing.com/2011/05/architect-consumer.html

Unknown's avatar

Questions from Bidders – No Surprises for the Spec Writer

by

This morning, my architect-client on a school project forwarded some questions from bidders on the project. 

None of the questions was a surprise.  In fact, I’d asked some of the same questions weeks ago, but the design team hadn’t gotten answers back from the Owner.  (See my post below about how Owners need to respond to questions in a timely manner.)

All members of a team on a construction project look at the drawings differently.  The Owner, the architect, the engineers, the spec writer, the contractor are all looking for different things; we’re all extracting different information from these documents.  The specifications writer looks at the drawings in a way that’s a bit different from the architect’s way, and a bit like the contractor’s way.  (But I don’t do any take-offs or estimating!  Phew!)

So, Owners and architects, take a look at those questions from the spec writer.  Answer those questions before CD’s go out, or you may find bidders asking those same questions a few weeks later!

Unknown's avatar

“How Did You Get… So Far Behind?”

by

Sunday morning a few weeks ago, my family ran into some friends of ours, and we were chatting about what we were going to do for the rest of the beautiful day.  I said that I needed to squeeze about 3 weeks worth of work into the rest of the day.  (I was exaggerating, but not by much.)  My friend paused, then responded with a perfectly reasonable response, “How did you get… so far behind?”

That’s truly not how I saw my situation.  My perspective was that the reason I had so much work to do was because I hadn’t received, in a timely manner, the information that I needed to do my work.  I had unanswered questions out there.  Yes, there was some work I could have been doing, but I have a (totally rational) distaste for taking the risk of having to completely redo something.

Our work as design professionals does not follow a linear path.  I know that the work of my accountant friend who asked the question isn’t completely linear either; he also relies on input from others to complete his work.  But the bulk of the work that we do when preparing construction documents for a building is collaborative.  None of us can operate independently of other members of the team, and, remember, the Owner is part of this team.  The work of each of us involved in this process is integral to the work of the whole team.

We start with some basic info.  We begin our work in a somewhat linear manner.  We design or research things, we ask questions about products, building codes, existing conditions, the work of other team members.  Sometimes one question brings not just one answer, but an answer and a whole host of other questions.  We need to get these answered before we can move on.  We get these answered; these questions bring up more questions.  We build on the design work of other team members, after we put all our work together at design documentation milestones.  Sometimes we have to take a step backwards, if someone went a little too far ahead.  We build (or revise) on the input of the Owner.

I have found that, sometimes, Owners provide information without realizing what they’re providing.  Sometimes Owners do not respond to questions from the architect in a timely manner.  Owners sometimes seem to want us to “finish” before they review things.  This is a really bad idea if we are not actually to have free rein in this design process.  Owners need to realize that we proceed with the information they give us, and if they don’t actually want the stuff they’re giving us information on, they shouldn’t give us that information.  I know this sounds ridiculous, and obvious, but it needs to be said.

None of us knows everything that is involved in the work of others.  Owners seem not to understand how much work and time is spent developing a design or a project specification based on specific instructions, and how many parts of a project every single other part profoundly affects.  When we, the design team, are instructed to change things or add things at the last minute, it’s never good.  The reason we have intermediate milestones is for everyone to review the work of others, and for the Owner to make sure that the direction is correct.

Every member of the team should carefully review documents that are issued at every milestone.  If the Owner doesn’t like something, the Owner needs to speak up immediately, instead of waiting until after the next milestone, when things have been further developed.

So Owners, please answer questions from the architect.  Please know what you want before you provide information to the design team.  Please understand what it is that you are asking for.

Owners, you may not realize your very important role on the team.  Design is a “garbage in, garbage out” sort of process.  Sure, I can write a good spec in a vacuum.  But a project specification that’s good in a vacuum isn’t necessarily good for your project.  When you get questions from the architect’s spec writer, answer them thoughtfully.

Owners, if you need to change things after they’ve already been developed, please change the design team’s schedule and fees as well as the scope of the work.  It’s only fair.  It will allow architects, engineers, and specifiers to produce better, more coordinated documents, and this is likely to save you time and money in the long run.

Unknown's avatar

what an “outline specification” REALLY is…..

by

I prepare architectural specifications for a lot of school construction projects.  At the Design Development phase, we’re usually contractually obligated to deliver “outline specifications”… but I’m not sure that everyone involved knows what those are.  By everyone, I mean the architect, the engineers, and even (gasp!) the owner’s project manager.  (Oh, yes, an owner’s project manager once said to me at DD, “These sections are just one page.”)

School district projects that I’ve worked on require that at DD, the design team submit “outline specifications that identify major materials and systems and establish in general their quality levels.”  At CD, they usually require “specifications setting forth in detail the quality levels of materials and systems and other requirements for the construction of the Work.”  This language is from the AIA B101, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect.  If the architect’s (or prime consultant’s) agreement with the owner actually calls for “outline specifications,” then the architect should make sure that his agreements with his consultants also actually call for “outline specifications.” 

The school districts, and many other owners, don’t want detailed specifications at DD.  They want more general, outline specifications which don’t have details and installation requirements like 3-part specifications do.  I personally prefer outline specifications (non-detailed specifications) at DD for all the same reasons that I believe owners do – they are easy to get fully correct and coordinated, and they are easy to read and understand (for owners and contractors and the entire design team), therefore they are very useful, 1) for pricing, 2) for demonstrating to the owner the scope of work, and 3) for design team coordination.  DD specs, just like DD drawings, should not be progress sets or snapshots of CD sets in progress.  They need to be their own finished, complete, stand-alone thing, especially when they are to be used by an estimator for pricing.

An excerpt from the Construction Specification Institute’s The Project Resource Manual:

“Outline specifications include information about manufacturers, materials, manufactured units, equipment, components, and accessories.  They also describe material mixes, fabrications, and finishes, along with installation, erection, and application procedures.  Only a few items from PART 1 GENERAL of SectionFormat are necessary in outline specifications. Reference standards involving products and installation may be listed. Special submittal requirements beyond the norm, such as unusual samples, mock-ups, special testing requirements, and maintenance materials, should be listed.  Special qualifications for manufacturers, fabricators, or installers may also be included, as well as a description of any extended or special warranty requirements.  Include fabrication and workmanship requirements only when such information has an impact on product or installation grades, cost, or time scheduling. Architectural Woodwork Institute (AWI) grade levels, for example, have cost ramifications and should be identified.

“Outline specifications aid in the design process and help form the basis for revised cost estimates and schedules.  As the design process continues, they become the basis for preparation of the project specifications.  Outline specifications serve as a checklist for the project team for choosing products and methods for later incorporation into the project manual.  Properly developed outline specifications establish criteria for the final contract documents. They also help to eliminate fragmented decision making, which can affect previous decisions and cause unnecessary changes and extra work. MasterFormat Division numbers and titles are the recommended basis for organizing outline specifications.”

My approach for outline specifications is to indicate what products and materials are to be incorporated into the project, and indicate anything about them, that we already know, that affects pricing.  For example, if I already know that the owner only wants to allow a few specific manufacturers for a certain product, I will indicate those manufacturers.  If the owner or design team has no preference for manufacturers at DD, I will not list any manufacturers.  If we already know some product options that will be used, I will indicate those.  If we know finishes, I will include those.  If we don’t know finishes, I won’t guess – I just won’t indicate finishes.  If there are special or unusual installation requirements, I will indicate those.  I will not mention typical installation requirements in an outline spec. (“Lay out tiles from center marks established with principal walls, discounting minor offsets, so tiles at opposite edges of room are of equal width.  Adjust as necessary to avoid using cut widths that equal less than one-half tile at perimeter.” is a pretty typical VCT installation instruction that I will always include in specs at CD, but will never include in an outline spec at DD.)  If we know that carpet will be installed by direct glue down method, I will indicate that, but will not mention specific installation requirements for that method.  I will list any special submittal requirements, and requirements for mock-ups, but will not indicate that product data is to be submitted, because that doesn’t affect pricing.

I am not an estimator, but if I were a project manager at a construction company doing CMGC on a project, and I were going to be the person doing CD project management as well as DD estimating, the last thing in the world that I would want to receive at DD is a partially-edited, partially incorrect 3-part full length spec.  There are a few reasons for this.  1) A spec with lots of detail implies that decisions regarding these details have actually been made, and that the spec reflects design decisions.  Design professionals know that we often haven’t actually made these decisions at DD, so any detailed spec (or drawing) is likely to change before 100% CD.  2) Partially-edited documents are difficult to wade through, and difficult to extract useful information from. 3) I might be spending a lot of time getting a pretty exact price on a detailed thing (that is going to change), when it might actually be a lot more productive (and fruitful) at DD to spend a lot less time, and assign a price range to the item.  (I don’t know about this for certain – I guess I need to learn more about how estimators work.  But this is an educated guess, based on my own work using detailed information from drawings that look like all the design decisions have been made, and preparing a spec section based on that, only to find out that it was a detail taken from another project, put in a set to make it look more complete, and I have to start all over again later, when the design decisions have actually been made!!)

We, as design professionals, have to keep in mind what is to be done with our documents.  They aren’t merely “deliverables” that are due to our clients.  They are to be used – at DD they’re to be used for pricing and design team coordination.  At CD, they’re to be used for constructing.

MasterSpec master outline spec sections can be purchased from Arcom at www.arcomnet.com .  Once you’ve gathered all the design decision information you need, it doesn’t take too long to complete an outline set.  Or, of course, a full length section could be edited down to be just an outline, but a one-year license for an outline spec library at a cost of several hundred dollars has a pretty quick payback, compared to the hours spent editing full length sections down… 

Now, the question of whether outline specifications are useful documents is a question that many specifiers have been asking lately.  Many prefer Preliminary Project Descriptions at DD.  But that’s a topic for another day.  This is just all about what we, as the design team, are supposed to deliver to the owner when our contracts require “outline specifications!”  Here’s hoping that I never have another owner’s project manager wondering why my spec sections at DD are only one page long…

Unknown's avatar

Words Matter… Especially in Contracts

by

I am not an attorney, but once in a while, I look at contracts all day long.  Why would I do that to myself?  Because these documents directly affect my work of preparing architectural construction specifications.

The contract documents for a construction project include contracting forms (such as the owner-contractor agreement), conditions of the contract (such as AIA A201), the drawings, and the specifications.  These documents, all together, make up the contract.

These documents should not conflict.  All too often though, because different parties prepare different documents, conflicts occur.

The owner-contractor agreement may say one thing, and the conditions of the contract may say the opposite.  The conditions of the contract may say one thing, and a Division 1 specification section may say the opposite.  A Division 1 specification section may say one thing, and a technical section of the specifications may say the opposite.  The technical sections of the specifications may say one thing, and the drawings say the opposite.  I’ve even seen General Conditions directly conflict with Supplementary Conditions!

My attorney and insurance professional friends will happily tell you that when a contract is ambiguous, courts usually side against the party who drafted the contract.  What does that mean for design professionals?

We have to coordinate, coordinate, coordinate.  If the Owner prepares General Conditions, the person preparing the specifications needs to make sure the specifications are coordinated with the Owner’s General Conditions.  If AIA A201 General Conditions are used, and the Owner just prepares Supplementary Conditions, the person preparing the specifications needs to make sure the specifications are coordinated with the Owner’s Supplementary Conditions.  If the Owner prepares General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions, and Division 1, the person preparing the technical specifications needs to make sure that his work product does not conflict with the Owner’s documents.  To protect his firm, the person signing the Owner-Architect Agreement should make sure that the Owner’s General and Supplementary Conditions do not conflict with provisions in the Owner-Architect Agreement.

And the issue on my mind all day today?  If the Owner has a Guide Specification/Technical Specification/Specification Standards sort of document that he expects design professionals to adhere to when preparing drawings and specifications, this guide SHOULD NOT CONFLICT with the Owner-prepared General Conditions and Supplementary Conditions.  Ah, yes, this should go without saying… However, I have spent days of my career as an architectural specifications consultant trying to coordinate conflicts among Owner-generated documents to make sure that the work I produce does not conflict with any other contract documents.

Again, I am not an attorney, but I have a feeling that uncoordinated Owner-prepared documents increase our risk as design professionals.  We have to produce coordinated documents, no matter what our Owner clients give us.  Every word matters! 

Unknown's avatar

Take the CDT exam!

by

Do you produce construction documents (architects and engineers)?
 
Do you use construction documents (contractors)?

Do you do both?  (Assist in the production of construction documents, and comply with construction documents, the way product representatives do.)
 
I encourage you to take CSI’s CDT exam.

Although I was already a licensed architect with several years of construction contract administration experience when I took the CDT exam several years ago, studying for the exam rounded out my knowledge of the construction process, and filled in some gaps in my experience.  I had a number of “aha” moments.  My past experience informed my studying, and the things I learned from studying and testing have helped me to do my current work better. 

The Construction Specifications Institute administers this exam, the Construction Documents Technologist exam, twice a year.

Registration is open now for the spring exam.  go to CSI’s Website