There’s a Place for That!

December 1, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I’ve been so busy, I’m weeks late with following up on a post my colleague and I put together and published on the blog of the firm she works for! Busy is good, but work can be SO distracting.

Morayma Salas, a client, personal friend, former coworker, and fellow Denver Chapter CSI member, came up with the idea for this article and did most of the surveying of construction professionals, and then I wrote it.

Here’s the ending of our article: “Architects are often extremely creative people who like to do things their own way. However, following the rules about placement of information doesn’t take creativity away from the design process. Following the rules actually frees up more time to be creative with the things that should be part of the design process. So don’t waste your time getting creative with naming parts of your specs or placement of information! Follow CSI’s standards for locating information and apply the time you save to the design your projects.”

Here’s a link to the whole post, “Architects, There’s a Place for That: SectionFormat & PageFormat,” on the Hutton Architecture Studio Blog: http://huttonarch.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/architects-there%e2%80%99s-a-place-for-that-sectionformat-pageformat/

Substitutions: Often a Quagmire, but CSI Can Help

November 8, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

I think there’s a big problem with the way substitutions are often handled, at least here in Colorado.

CSI has some great solutions – for example, 2 different substitution request forms, one for use during bidding, and one for use during construction. Arcom’s MasterSpec has what I consider to be fairly decent language regarding substitutions, in Division 01. But these solutions are often not implemented.

I think that “what we’ve got here is a failure to communicate” on several levels:

G.C.’s often fail to forward Division 01 on to bidding subs, so subs don’t know the requirements for substitution request submittals. (They don’t even know that there ARE requirements for substitution request submittals.)
Then the G.C’s try to push substitution requests through to the architects without the required information, since they didn’t receive that info from their subs.
Project architects often fail to enforce the specifications’ requirements about the information that is to be submitted with a substitution request. Sometimes, that’s because they aren’t familiar with the requirements in their own project specifications.
So the architects waste their precious bid-period time trying to verify that the proposed substitution is comparable to the specified system or item, doing the work that the sub ought to have done.
Owners seem to not understand that substitutions can’t appropriately be made in the blink of an eye, since the designed system took weeks to design and took everything related into account.
Back to the G.C.’s – during construction, they submit on non-specified items, or they just install them, because that’s what their subs gave their bids on, even though they weren’t acceptable products. This happens when the G.C. didn’t verify that the subs’ bids were in compliance with the construction documents during bidding, and the sub didn’t know the proper procedure for getting a substitution request approved.

As a specifier, I sometimes add some language to the “acceptable products” list in each spec section that refers to the Division 00 section “Procurement Substitution Procedures” and/or Division 01 section “Substitution Procedures,” or if I have a Basis-of-Design product by one manufacturer listed, and a list of comparable manufacturers after that, I sometimes add language in each spec section that indicates that the contractor should “Comply with the requirements of Division 01 Section ‘Product Requirements’ for comparable product requests.”

But as with everything else, the project architect still has to know what’s in the specs (and then enforce the specs), the G.C. still has to comply with the requirements of the construction documents (and make sure his subs do too), and the Owner still has to understand that proposed substitutions have to be very carefully evaluated since everything was designed around the specified product.

I think this is where our work as CSI members lies – we should try to educate the rest of our industry about the roles that all parts of a project team play in this substitution process.

This post is a reprise of a comment I made on the Denver CSI website, in response to our Chapter President’s November post. Check it out, and join the discussion! http://www.denvercsi.org/journal/2011/10/17/november-2011-presidents-message.html

Architects, CSI Is Not Just About Specs

October 28, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Fellow architects, solutions offered by the Construction Specifications Institute take the brain damage out of communication in many phases of design and construction. Also, taking advantage of the educational opportunities CSI offers can help you be a better architect.

The Construction Specifications Institute is not just about specs. CSI offers formats and processes for the project team to use for many phases of a building’s design and construction, from Preliminary Project Description through Punch List. (You don’t have to reinvent these things for your practice.) CSI also offers educational programs about technical topics from building envelope performance to daylighting.

It’s fun, and fulfilling, to design. It’s a great accomplishment to listen to a client’s needs and put solutions on paper in the form of a building design. My favorite phase of design, when I worked as an architect, was design development. The inefficient (in my eyes) schematic design process was out of the way, and the complicated construction documents phase was yet to come. In DD, I didn’t have to detail things, and the client’s needs had already been taken into account in schematic design. I could just focus on the big picture of the building itself, and coordinate and refine plans, elevations, and sections. Fun!

But the practice of architecture is not all about fun with drawings. Fellow architects, we are part of the construction industry. Most of us don’t design “unbuilt work” on purpose. Most of us are designing buildings for the purpose of getting them constructed. When we produce construction documents, the end users of those documents aren’t our clients, and they aren’t magazine readers, they’re the people who are supposed to build a building from those documents.

The technical information that the contractor needs to know (in order to build your design) doesn’t all reside in that big book called the Project Manual. An awful lot of the technical stuff needs to be drawn, in detail, on your drawings. Architects (not just spec writers) need to understand the technical details of construction.

It’s great to have a good-looking rendering. But it’s better to have a design that gets executed really, really well in construction. A building that lasts and looks good as it ages speaks well of its architect.

Here’s how you get a great building, a great execution of your design: First have good construction documents that clearly communicate to the contractor the technical details of your design intent. Second, have excellent communication with the contractor throughout the construction phase.

CSI has solutions that help tremendously with construction documents and construction phase communication. You don’t need to be a CSI member to take advantage of some of the things CSI offers, such as education, standards and formats, webinars, and construction industry news. But membership opens the door to more benefits, such as networking opportunities and member discounts on the things I mentioned above.

If you’re considering joining CSI, this weekend is a good time to do so. Right now, today through Monday, you get 20% off national membership dues. (If you want to join your local chapter in addition, which you should to get the full benefit of CSI, that separate membership is still at the normal price.) Here’s the scoop from CSI:

Join CSI by October 31 and pay only $192 for national dues — a 20% savings.

1.    Visit www.csinet.org/joincsi
2.    Select “Join Now”, and then click “Sign Up as a New Member”
3.    Enter Promotion Code 1220ARCH when prompted
4.    Click the “Add Discount” button

We recommend you also join a chapter, where you can attend local education sessions and networking opportunities (chapter dues are not included in this promotional offer).

Rejection of Submittals

August 12, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

“The rejection of a submittal for good cause is not a cause for a delay claim on the part of the contractor. The contractor should anticipate the potential need to resubmit incomplete or rejected submittals in the submittal schedule.”

My thought of the day, from The Project Resource Manual – CSI Manual of Practice.

We all know this, right? Let’s practice it!

In Defense of MasterFormat 2004

August 8, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

As Don Short pointed out in his blog post today http://blog.tempestcompany.com/2011/08/08/masterformat-2004-a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem/comment-page-1/ , the most obvious upside of MasterFormat 2004 is that it makes writing specifications easier.

In the 16 years since 1995, we in the construction industry have been introduced to many new technologies and materials. We have outgrown MasterFormat 1995. MasterFormat 1995 does not give architects, specifiers, and building product manufacturers enough direction about where to put the information we need to communicate to the contractor team. MasterFormat 2004, along with its updates issued in 2010 and 2011, provides us with the framework to let us know exactly where to put our information.¹

MasterFormat 2004’s more fully developed framework, which the more compact MasterFormat 1995 did not provide, produces more consistency in construction documents across multiple construction projects, no matter who the architect and specifier are.

Clear, concise, correct, and complete is the goal for construction communications. MasterFormat 2004 can guide design professionals to that goal better than MasterFormat 1995 can. When the design team’s documents are clear, concise, correct and complete, everyone, from the owner to the estimator to the constructor, benefits. To use Don’s phrasing, “ease of writing” leads to “ease of use.”

Notes:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

1. In different projects which used MasterFormat 1995, I’ve seen the same information in different divisions – not just different sections, actually different divisions. One example: water repellent products intended to be applied to exterior masonry assemblies. When using MasterFormat 2004, we know where to locate the specification information for these products. MasterFormat 2004 guides us to “07 19 00 Water Repellents” which is further broken down into different types of products. On MasterFormat 1995 projects, I’ve seen these products specified in Division 4 (under “Masonry Assemblies”), in Division 9 (under “Paints and Coatings”) and, just as in MasterFormat 2004, in Division 7 (under “Dampproofing and Waterproofing”). Inconsistencies from project to project lead to problems in construction. MasterFormat 2004 is a solution to these problems.

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

June 1, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

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:

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.
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.
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…
Yes, I have reported conflicts between different bits of technical information on a manufacturer’s website. Come on, people!
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/

Construction Documentation Reminders from Children’s Literature

May 9, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

“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.

Can You Say “Addendum”?

April 11, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Yeah, “addendum” is a fancy word, derived from Latin. The Latin background is the reason the plural is “addenda.” But really, what’s important is that it means something that’s added. In construction, it’s something added to or deleted from the contract, or something that revises the contract. Remember, the contract includes the contract documents – the drawings, the specifications, the agreements, etc.

The Project Resource Manual – CSI Manual of Practice, published by the Construction Specifications Institute, says that addenda are “written or graphic instruments issued to clarify, revise, add to, or delete information in the procurement documents or in previous addenda.” It goes on to say that “it is imperative that participants to the construction process properly account for these changes by posting or documenting the appropriate addenda information in the affected areas of the drawings and specifications.”

So, what is the proper procedure for design professionals when issuing addenda?

Remember that you are MODIFYING THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The easiest way to think about this is to put yourself in the shoes of the people building the project. They are going to take your addendum, cut out the additions from the paper document of the addendum, and tape them over the things in the originally-issued documents that changed. They will strike through the things that your addendum deletes. When you, the design professional, issue addendum changes (or ANY modifications to the contract documents, actually) you NEED to actually MODIFY THE DOCUMENTS. If an Addendum item changes something about the contract documents, you have to actually modify the documents. You can’t just answer bidder questions without actually modifying your documents, the contract documents, to back up the answer to your question.

If you can’t put yourself in the shoes of the contractor, put yourself in your own future shoes. How does it feel when a question comes up late in the project, and you think that you may have changed something a while ago, but now you can’t remember what changed, and there is no official documentation of that modification? Feels bad. Looks bad to your client.

Do yourself, and your clients, and the contractor, a favor. Issue proper and complete addendum modifications. Change the actual documents, and, even if you don’t issue a whole drawing, document exactly what the change is, so that the intent is unambiguously communicated to all the participants in a construction project. You’ll probably thank yourself later!

Construction Product Reps – NOT Just Salespeople

March 17, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Denver CSI had its annual Symposium today – technically, it’s the Education Symposium and Product Show. There were about 35 different product reps (my estimate) representing hundreds of construction products. Unfortunately, I only managed to visit 6, because I spent a very long time with each one I got to talk to… I always have lots of questions. I hope to be invited by a product rep again next year, and catch up with the rest of the reps I didn’t get to visit with!

The Product Show component of today’s event reminded me of a comment I made on someone else’s blog a couple of months ago. The blog is written by a young architect and the intended audience is intern architects. The post that prompted me to comment was entitled “The gentle art of product-rep self-defense.” I’m not the only one who commented – actually, the blog post started a truly excellent discussion among commenters and the blog author. Here’s the link to the blog and comments: http://architectureintern101.blogspot.com/2011/01/gentle-art-of-product-rep-self-defense.html

It’s somewhat embarassing to admit that only in the last few years have I come to understand the importance of the role of product reps in construction projects. These people can be tremendous resources throughout an entire project, from schematic design through the warranty period.

Copied below is my comment from the discussion:

“I was just discussing this issue yesterday with a product rep, and fellow Denver CSI member. I’m a spec writer, and a licensed architect, and I practiced as an architect for years before I started writing specs. As soon as I started writing specs, I realized how hugely important product reps are. But when I was working as an architect, my opinion of product reps was the same as yours.

“Product reps know their products better than anyone else could ever hope to – they know them better than architects, spec writers, contractors, owners, and users do.

“These people aren’t just salespeople – many of these people do forensic investigations on their products, when failures occur on projects. Failures usually turn out to be due to improper installation. Sometimes improper installation is a result of poor or incorrect project specifications written by the project specifier, or poor or incorrect details drawn by the project architect. We, as design professionals, may have more to learn from failures than from anything else. These product reps are tremendous technical resources for specifiers and for architects who know how to tap into them.

“My recommendations to your readers: Get to know a product rep for a product you frequently use. Ask this rep to review your project specifications and details that include their product – you may surprise yourself and learn something about a product you thought you knew well! Then you’ll see how much product reps have to offer.”

what an “outline specification” REALLY is…..

February 22, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

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…

Comments From a Spec Writer

Liz O'Sullivan's Blog

Category Archives: CSI