Uh, Ima Hogg was the name of a very real person, important to the cultural history of Houston. Her father was one of the governors of Texas, and she was one of the first collectors of early American antiques. Miss Ima’s collection is on view at Bayou Bend, her former residence in the River Oaks area in Houston (see http://www.mfah.org/visit/bayou-bend-collection-and-gardens). The facility also boasts 14 acres of landscaped grounds and gardens.
You may hear of her sister, Ura Hogg; this person does not exist.
Dont’ forget the texas woman Ima and mythical sister Ura Hogg. to qoute from wikipedia “Jim Hogg indicates he may not have been conscious of the combined effect of his daughters first and last names”
What a silly dad.
down the street here in Seattle is a dentist named Leland Dull
[True] A local dentist has recently joined my dentists’ practice who is retiring soon. His name is David Dodrill. I actually called the dentist to confirm the announcement thinking it was an early April spoof.
[Probably not true] During the Great Depression there was bank by the name of Cheetham and Steel.
This is not a complaint, but a question. Many specifications say little if anything about installation “in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations” for instance. Installation instructions are typically a separate file in a manufacturer’s Web Site.
In writing a project specification I typically try to find requirements in the manufacturer’s Web site that would be useful to a field inspector to control quality. Similarly in writing a Guide Specification I try to find requirements that the product manufacturer would want to protect his interests.
Do others of you look at installation equirements in Part 3, as useful or as a potential risk; that is “the Contractor is responsible for installation”?
Installation instructions in Part 3 should address the issuess that the design professional is concerned about while resisting the tendency to unnecessarily interfear with the contractors means and methods. The level of detail can vary significantly
I am not concerned with protecting the interests of the manufacturer but I do not want to require anything that would result in the voiding of the manufacturers warranty.
The owner’s inspector does not control quality rather he reports on whether the installed work complies with the provisions in the contract documents. The specifications should define the acceptance criteria and any tests or inspections that are required.
I find that it is better not to prescribe installation procedures in too great a detail. Repeating the manufacturer’s instructions may not be sufficient and, the more detailed the instructions, the more likely the arguement that a procedure is not required because it is not specified. Such procedure, for example, could be unique to various project conditions or could involve conditions of acceptance from an ICC Evaluation report that is not included in the manufacturer’s published instructions.
It is more preferable, in my opinion, to identify the steps in application/installation in general terms, including preparation, field testing and inspection and protection. It then serves as a guide to those administering the contract as to what activities to expect to see. For example, application of primer should be expected before finish coats are applied. Yep, there was a project where paint on handrails failed immediately and it was determined that no primer had been applied. And this week, the arguement was over procedures for application of a metallic coating. If the spray gun is not held at the same orientation throughout application, the finished appearance varies unacceptably.
It becomes a judgment about how much information to specify. And it certainly does not lend itself to concise specifying.
I agree with John. Rewriting the installation instructions may cause unintended consequences by not copying them verbatim and screwing up their intent or inadvertently or on purpose adding instructions that were not part of the originals may transfer risk to the Architect. We do not rewrite the Code or ASTM;s etc.
While I agree that we should not rewrite the code I temper this with the reality that there are some code provisions that are hidden in a design standard that the contractor would have difficulty finding even if he had the document. When faced with such situations I will typically reflect the requiremetn in the specification section.
Sometimes I will reference a specific code section and other times I will paraphrsse the code requirement in the specification.
These issues come up all the time in specifying structural work. For example there is a requirement regarding the diameter of the pilot hole for installation of lag bolts. Because of where this requirement is located I typically paraphrase the requirement in Part 3.
Other times, particularly when the provision is long and in a document I believe that Contractor can reasonally be expected to have and I am only concerned about a portion of the document, I will reference the specific section, In other situations I will simply point to the standard. It depends.
When I wish to make mandatory a specific recommendation in an industry guideline, which is not a standard, I will typically reference the specific sub section of the document.
oh, I have two names…
I went to school with a Candace… but of course she was called “Candy” and her last name was Senter.
And a good friend of mine is Heidi Klare (her parents did not see that one coming at all)
and then there was a family in the northwest who got written up at least every few years: their last name was Tree, and the kids were Douglas Fir, Jack Pine and Merry Christmas.
On this one, I have some strong concerns. Public agencies often require specific Code citations to be included in the specifications, especially regarding accessibility and fire code provisions. CONTRACTUALLY, this makes the Contractor responsible for Code compliance. That is, the contract becomes design-build. Sure, it’s a CYA for the public agency but it complicates responsibility for the design.
So, when a manufacturer’s guide specification states “in accordance with applicable local codes”, it not only makes the Contractor responsible for code compliance during installation/application but it makes the Contractor responsible for the design … CONTRACTUALLY.
Okay, manufacturers: I understand that for projects, you want to have the sales staff take the lead on new jobs… but once again, I have run into road blocks getting technical information.
I’m doing a complicated exterior system (in the Bay Area, with seismic issues) and I needed to talk with an engineer about the stiffness required for framing this wall system. so I call the manufacturer and ask to speak to an engineer.
they don’t transfer me to an engineer; the receptionst starts asking me where the project is, what project name it is, and then declares that if its not on her list, then I can’t talk with anyone but a sales person. So, (and this has sometimes worked) I ask to leave a message for the sales person, and in my message I ask a really really complicated technical question that the receptionist doesn’t understand. (this is to point out that I need to speak with an engineer).
I cant’ talk to an engineer, because the project hasn’t been bid yet. the only person I can speak with is a sales person, who really is a “sales” person – no technical knowledge AT ALL.
since the system is proprietary and has been selected for esthetic reasons, my inability to speak with an engineer is sort of like “negative customer service”. Not only have I wasted my time trying to explain my question to a “sales” person, but I still don’t have any information for the spec.
Oh and John… the architect by contract has the primary responsibility for code compliance (as you know) and by license is the one that the authorities go to for code issues. However, the contractor is not allowed to plead ignorance of the code and we rely on them to be more knowledgeable about code issues in their specialty and alert the architect if there are conflicts. Mentioning code issues in the specs does not shift the responsibility from the Architect to the contractor, but it does bring in contractor responsibilty to not be ignorant of code compliance. I think you’re being overly dramatic with your code shifting language.
John and Anne - I’ve been on the “ground floor” of taking a manufacturer with no Architectural/Specification support staff, creating guide specs and a department to “market” them - and I fought tooth and nail to NOT use “sales” people, NOT have business cards with “Architectural Sales” imprinted as the reps’ title, and to have all materials prepared by technical staff. I wanted solid, technically-proficient people and material…but there’s a rub. Often the “techies” have poor people skills, are poor communicators unless among peers and can’t create a decent looking piece of technical literature.
There ARE rare reps who know how to build relationships AND “know their stuff”. Those are the ones we rely on to solve issues - or who we can load up with a preliminary set of working drawings knowing they’re return them with a project-specific section (or group of them) that we can confidently “plug in”.
But they ARE rare. And the "Architectural Department (or Architectural Services or some other “wrong” name) is almost inevitably going to be a division of “Outside Sales”, which is also part of (or IS) “marketing”. Spec guides are prepared by Marketing - as are brochures, trade show displays and everything else aimed at the Specifier. My “ground floor” department-building was 28 years ago and a bit of an exception to the “norm”- I refused to fold to upper-management demands and luckily wasn’t canned! I trained the sales reps I was given and would not “turn them loose” until they were qualified technical personnel who knew more than “sales reps” and were the types Specifiers could rely on.
Worst case scenario - I’m both personally and professionally offended when I attended a trade show and a large number of booths have pretty young ladies working in the booth - and they turn out to either be company employees from departments totally unrelated to technical support or ladies hired just to “work” the show.
Years ago we called them “booth furniture”. And I will not provide details, but once had the owner of manufacturing firm state the requirements for “Architect’s Reps” (his term) were just such females…and proceeded to describe necessary physical attributes.
Sheesh.
Well, that wasn’t much about guide specs - but perhaps a view of the mindset behind the process. I left that arena long ago but from what I’ve seen it hasn’t changed all that much.
“Pretty young ladies” don’t do much for me unless they are intelligent, informed, and educated about the product. I’m with you, Jim - personally and professionally offended by a manufacturer’s or product’s representative who knows nothing beyond an attractive picture or smile.
With current instant availability of information, a human representative is under pressure to offer more than just the basics. (S)he must be thoroughly knowledgeable about the product, its applications, its requirements, its failures, its limitations and its competitors, including industry-wide “insider” information. (S)he MUST also be ethical and truthful.
It’s a changing world, and whether we “like” it or not, we have to either change or be left behind. Information is available 24/365; the quality of that information needs evaluation. And I expect - demand - that a product or manufacturer’s rep be able to help provide that evaluation.
We have recently been called on by “pretty young ladies” from a couple of different manufacturers. I would expect them to be enthusiastic, but have also been impressed with how much knowledge they already have and how much more they want to learn. Not only do they want to know more about how we would use their products, they also want to know more about “product representation” and dealing with design professionals.
Now if they can keep from being corrupted by the marketing department…