John is correct - the CDR Program focuses on compliance with CSI Formats, standards, and good specification practices as indicated in the Construction Specification Practice Guide.
Specification Writing is not an exact science and subjective so 5 specifications writers could each produce a good guide specification from the same information and each one would be different.
It is really up to the design professional that is editing the GUIDE specification to meet the need of the specific project and ensure that any proprietary information is appropriate or appropriate.
The reviewers are all quite capable of wordsmithing to death but that is NOT what this program is about and the reason the importance in a uniform process and a uniform review.
Right, John, that was initially my impression, too…
–But Ron said: “MasterFormat, SectionFormat, PageFormat, and the Construction Specifications Practice Guide”
–Nina said: “So the reviewers look at conformance as Ron has pointed out - with CSI Formats and good specification practices as outlined in the Practice Guides.”
–Nina also said: “application of the CSI Formats, standards and good specification writing practices.”
–csinet also indicates “Other good specification practices…” at http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/CDR-Program.aspx
Furthermore to my previous post,
–SectionFormat says: “SUMMARY – This Article permits the reader to assess section content quickly. This Article should not “scope” the section or imply trade jurisdiction; the integrity or completeness of a section does not require its use.”
I think the committee needs to more appropriately define and state exactly where the line is drawn.
The purpose of manufacturers’ literature is to sell their products; I don’t expect their guide specifications to be neutral, or to tell me who their competitors are. As much as specifiers would appreciate a good guide specification that follows the standards mentioned above, they should know that it is only a guide, written to help sell a product. They should know more research is required to understand the product, and be ready to edit the specification to remove proprietary requirements as needed.
Incidentally, proprietary specifications are not inherently evil; sometimes only one product will work. Satisfying government requirements for competitive bids by creating an elaborate specification that appears to be open but can be met by only one manufacturer is a waste of time.
Thanks Nina,
I was reluctant to jump in as I just don’t have time to “stir any hornet nests” right now…
I will be at the CSI booth next week for a few hours on Thursday and Friday and one of my hats will include the CDR program.
Constructive input for the next level of the program will be greatly appreciated.