I’ve been asked by my CSI chapter’s education committee to be one of the presenters at an upcoming product rep symposium. Taking lead from another thread on this discussion forum, I’ve decided to present on the topic of manufacturer guide specifications.
I’d like to hear what you consider to be the number one problem with manufacturer guide specifications. After identifying your top candidate, please provide any other spec infractions that you feel should warrant the public spotlight.
They (#1) don’t cite recognized industry standards or test results for comparison with other manufacturers and products;
(other) they are only available in PDF form;
they are proprietary;
the language is poor (lots of “contractor shall” and similar bad practices);
they are out of date;
they do not follow CSI Master, Section, or page formats - just to name a few.
I want to form a contracting company called “Others Contracting”. That way I would never be out of work doing all the “By Others” stuff that fills guide specs.
First of all I would like to see a CSI Guide Specification. Too many mfrs. thinks specifications are just a list of technical data.
In the preamble or specifier notes at the beginning of a CSI guide spec, list what product is being specified and the standard/recommended uses. In addition, list all the limitations or where not to use that product [similar to the limitations text in SpecData Sheets]. Too many mfrs are afraid to list their products’ limitations or where not to use their products for fear they may lose a sale. But they will lose 10x the cost of the product sale defending themselves in litigation over the misuse of their product even if they are in the right.
Thirdly, mfrs who have widgets rather than systems, provide a printable dropdown menu with specification text even if it is only a paragraph of text.
Websites should have contact telephone numbers directly to their technical or engineering depts. Nothing more frustrating than going through multiple persons to get the people that can really answer a question or provide technical data.
Many SCIP members work weird hours. If I can go to a website at 1:00 AM and I can’t find adequate CSI guide spex or meaningful tech data, I go to their competitors.
Many manufacturers try simply to put too much into a guide spec. They try to use the one section/format for their complete product line which usually turns into a thoroughly unusable document.
Also as noted, many do not allow for the possibility of other manufacurers in the bidding process.
John is also correct that Part 3 is under-utilized whereas they should be giving good installation information and techniques we can use other than follow manufacturer’s printed instruction.
Manufacturers’ specifications typically include too much in Part 3. Although specification of work results includes installation, specifications are not intended to be installation instructions.
As an example, coating manufacturers specifications often will specify detailed installation procedures from inspection through post-installation protection. Along the way, they will state how many coats of each component are required, application rates, temperature and humidity required for curing, and so on. All of this is redundant, as it is stated in the installation instructions.
A bigger problem is that a competitive product likely will have conflicting requirements. So if you do specify all the good stuff about installation of one product and you get a different one, Part 3 now contains incorrect information, and unless the specifications are updated, the record documents are misleading at best.
Several years ago I proposed specifying by exception as the logical result of following the Manual of Practice. It relies on the conditions of the contract and Division 01 to require compliance with manufacturers’ installation instructions and recommendations, inspection of conditions prior to beginning application, protection of installed work, and so on. The result leaves little to be said in Part 3; in many cases, there would be nothing.
What is required are the exceptions. If a roofing manufacturer’s details call for flashing that extends vertically four inches and you want it to extend eight inches, you specify the exception. If you want tolerances that are different from the manufacturer’s or from reference standards that have been incorporated, you specify those exceptions. If you know more than the manufacturer about how many fasteners are required for roof insulation, you specify the exception.
#1: Excessive proprietary info that they hope will give them an advantage but in reality makes their spec unusable for the alert specifier and dangerous for the unwary (except maybe on the smallest of private projects).
A close second, the lack of industry standards as Lynn mentioned.
Also, not following CSI standard language, as other have mentioned ("the fabric weight shall be, the Contractor shall, worst of all the subcontractor shall, or by subcontractor).
Finally, must mention greenwashing. I think I read in the news recently that this practice is now going to have the same legal consequences as other types of fraud. So be careful about telling us your product will give us a LEED point. The correct approach is to specify documentation for recycled content pre- and post-consumer, for example, or similar enforceable requirements for applicable credits.
Another infraction warranting the public spotlight – manufacturers who assume that users of their websites should already have intimate knowledge of all their products by brand name or product number in order to navigate, instead of giving us the choice of viewing by application.
Even worse - entering a valid product number and getting the “no results” message! This happens to me frequently with two well-known manufacturers. That’s one reason I have all those phone numbers!
Uh, Sheldon, it must be your very kind and gracious heart, or your “hanging on to the past”, to use 20th century technology [i.e., the PHONE-- the “instrument” as Granny called it!] to deal with those manufacturers who FREQUENTLY!!! give you trouble-- does not compute.
Bet Lynn would ditch them after time #2 when they trouble her!!!
Expanding on Chris’s comment: Manufacturers with many products who don’t have a matrix or chart indicating where to start. Perhaps this is by application, perhaps other method, but somehow give us a road map to begin with.
Manufacturer’s websites that require registration. Specifically, when they do not include “Specifier” in their dropdown lists (plural) and do not include “Architecture and Interior Design” in other dropdown lists.
And all of the above listed by others.
I am ammused how often, by whomever writes the specs, uses the space bar to center text and indent.
Manufacturer’s should retain a SCIP member to prepare their online specifications
Two things I see most commonly in manufacturer’s specs that I have been asked to revise:
too much little niggly stuff that differentiates their product from someone else’s, but doesn’t affect the function of the product or the installation of the product. (such as: some proprietary finishing process for the metal in a horizontal shade).
and 2) too much training instruction to the subcontractor in the guide specs. As I advise my clients, they should be producing a master specification section AND a training/installation guide for their installer. the latter is a supplement to the former – as in “this is what you’ll see, and this is how you actually perform the work”
In addition to manufacturer’s websites that require registration, there is a special place on my dart board (11 67 53) for those that also ask for a rather complete project registration (name, address, SF…) before they will allow you to access the information you need.
Elevator websites love to and ask for all that, and the number of floors served, floor to floor and total travel distance, your first pet’s name…all before you can even decide if this product is right for your client.
When asked for information in order to access a site, you can let your imagination run wild and have some fun with fictitious answers. Returning inconvenience for inconvenience motivates me to fill out their form. It puts a smile on my face just thinking about a salesman calling the officer on desk duty to talk about his building project. If they get get more useless data than legitimate leads, maybe they will stop asking for registration.
“Manufacturer to remain anonymous” panels can be installed over bracing wood, steel studs and sheathing including; plywood, OSB, plastic foam or fiberboard sheathing. “Manufacturer to remain anonymous” panels can also be installed over Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs), Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs), Concrete Masonry Units (CMUs), and Pre-Engineered Metal Construction.
Manufacturers who have no specs, or who think the MSDS or a detail drawing with a few notes at the bottom is a spec. Also websites that tell us little about the products and materials. Hyped-up marketing with no technical data, and entirely flashy scripting-language-dependence will quickly turn us off, having the opposite effect from what they had hoped for.
I don’t want animation and snowflakes going down my screen, and a maze of links to go through based on your model numbers or brand names! I just want to know what materials the products are made out of, and to be able to easily find them based on which applications they are recommended for!!!
With the increasing security issues scripting languages have, I’d rather use sites that don’t require any of that, or at least that work without it. If the only way I can see your website is by enabling JavaScript and Flash, I might go elsewhere.
Specifiers don’t have nearly the same interest as the marketing folks think we do about why their products are better than everyone else’s. While we care about that to some degree, we are also looking for characteristics in common from a majority of manufacturers. The one-of-a-kind product might not fly when it comes to public projects or cost-conscious private owners, unless there is a very good reason to exclude other products from being allowed to compete.