Adapt or… What?

May 3, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

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

Questions from Bidders – No Surprises for the Spec Writer

April 18, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

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!

“How Did You Get… So Far Behind?”

April 13, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

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.

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.”

Please, Colleagues, Read Your Contracts

March 14, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

Please, fellow design professionals, read the agreements your clients give you to sign.

Please understand them before you sign them. Review them with your attorney if you don’t understand everything.

Negotiate with your clients to get acceptable provisions.

Know the liability pitfalls of giving up ownership of your instruments of service.

Understand the dangers in giving up the ownership of your copyrights on your work.

And, please don’t do free work.

Times are tough. Please don’t contribute to making the recovery harder for our profession.

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…

Ummmm, What is He Thinking? AIA chief economist Kermit Baker suggests that architects should do what they do best—design—and hire paraprofessionals to do the rest.

January 13, 2011 by Liz O'Sullivan

This month’s Architect Magazine has an article about using design “paraprofessionals,” written by the AIA’s chief economist, Kermit Baker.

“AIA chief economist Kermit Baker suggests that architects should do what they do best—design—and hire paraprofessionals to do the rest. Try it. Your profitability might just skyrocket.”

http://www.architectmagazine.com/business/add-a-layer-the-case-for-paraprofessionals.aspx

I think Mr. Baker is misguided, or misunderstands how our profession works. Here’s my response, which I posted on the website.

“In this scenario utilizing paraprofessionals in architecture firms, who would train the interns? What would they learn?

“Since interns who want to become licensed someday have to work under the direct supervision of licensed architects, what would they be learning if the licensed architects aren’t doing anything technical?

“The best way to learn how a technical detail is supposed to look is to draw that detail from scratch. If interns never learn that, we would be very, very poorly training the future leaders of the firms. What we are licensed to do is to design safe and sound buildings. We are not licensed to just design whatever we want. A good start to designing safe and sound buildings is to understand building technology. We are not training architecture students in building technology in architecture school, and if we stop training interns in building technology, we are headed for much tougher times for the profession.”

Medical students receive 2 years of clinical training, working in hospitals, while they’re in medical school, before they graduate as M.D.’s. Architecture students have no official training working in architecture offices while they’re in school, but they don’t graduate as Architects. They go to work as architectural interns after they graduate. They receive their training on the job, before they’re allowed to sit for their licensing exams and, if they pass their exams, become Architects.

In school, we do not train architecture students in what they need to know to become licensed. If we quit training them them in technical matters on the job, how will they even become licensed? And if they do become licensed, how will they be able to oversee the paraprofessionals working for them, if they actually have no technical understanding themselves? Who will do the construction contract administration? The licensed architects are the ones who need to seal the drawings and specifications. The licensed architects are the ones with the professional liability and obligation to design safe and sound buildings. That’s what they are licensed to do.

It’s not all about profitability. Unless the system of architectural education and training completely changes, architects have an obligation to train interns in practical and technical matters. We can’t shift that responsibility to paraprofessionals. Soooo… if we have paraprofessionals doing the work that interns and young architects usually do, why would anyone hire an intern? And if there are no interns, who will be the architects of the future?

Words Matter… Especially in Contracts

December 3, 2010 by Liz O'Sullivan

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!

Business Structure

September 26, 2010 by Liz O'Sullivan

I wrote a letter to the author of “Setting Up a Business Structure” in the September 26, 2010 Wall Street Journal Sunday in the Denver Post.

In this time of high unemployment among architects, we don’t need any misinformation about setting up small businesses.

Dear Ms. Needleman,

LLC does not mean “limited liability corporation.” LLC means “limited liability company.” Your referring to LLC as “limited liability corporation” in today’s Wall Street Journal Sunday article is incorrect and could confuse people.

Your article also says that Marc Karell lost his unemployment benefits because of filing his new business as an LLC.

Don’t you think he would have lost those benefits by filing as a C-Corp or S-Corp or any other business that requires filing forms to create a new company? I don’t think it’s the LLC structure itself that is to blame, but the setting up of his new business.

In Colorado, at least, if you set up your new business (with the state) as an LLC, you have to decide (for IRS purposes) whether you will be a corporation (S or C), or a partnership, or a sole proprietorship. You don’t choose from the 5 choices you listed: S-Corp, C-Corp, partnership, sole proprietorship, or LLC. You choose from the first 4. You can also be an LLC in addition to one of the first 4, but you HAVE to be one of the first 4.

This second topic I’ve brought up may vary by state. However, referring to LLC as “limited liability corporation” is a pretty big mistake.

People need sources of information that they can trust. I’m not an attorney or MBA or accountant – I’m just an architect, with a bachelor’s degree. If I know this stuff, someone writing an article about it in the Wall Street Journal should know it better than I do, or should have done all the necessary research to verify its correctness, before going to print.

Liz O’Sullivan, Denver, Colorado

Comments From a Spec Writer

Liz O'Sullivan's Blog

Category Archives: Practicing Architecture