this is rather a delicate topic (which is why its here and not Linked in). 18 month ago, I replaced a retiring specifier who had been in the office for a long time. I’m now starting to work on some of the projects he prepared – doing additions, or additional phases of the work – where I’m asked to use his specs as the baseline document. I have five projects right now that are of this sort.
Problem is – some of that baseline document is terrible. Really. I’ve seen some sections that are obviously copied directly from a manufacturer’s web site – and the choices all left in. I have a couple of sections that show up consistently – but they reference documents that were superceded in 1999. I have another project in a corrosive environment (the middle east) that uses field applied paint on the flashings – and the flashings are galvanized metal. Some sections like roofing have 24 manufacturers listed and all installation options left in the spec.
I don’t really like to tattle – my predecessor is retired, after all – but I have a couple of reactions:
was no one in the office even reviewing the specs before they went out?
what does that say about how the office thinks about specs in general? (I’ve gotten some comments that I’m “not as fast as XXXXXX was”. Well, yes… if you don’t edit the documents it goes a lot faster)
how do I give an hourly estimate for the “addition” when I’ll probably have to rewrite 50% of the specs — and explain why?
some of what I’m seeing could easily fall into the realm of negligence, not just carelessness. Some of these projects are just barely open, and still in the warranty period. Others have been open a little longer but constructed using insufficient materials.
Wow. IMO, you’ll have to be direct, open, and honest, explaining that there are corrections and rewrites needing to be done. If pressed for a reason why the specs are bad, you really don’t know, you just know they are.
The intent may have been to go back and edit, but the chance never happened, or he forgot, or…whatever, you don’t know why this happened.
And probably no one did review the specs. I find it rare when that happens, and if everyone trusted him because of past performance, it might have been justified.
You might have to show an example of what you’re up against; I’d pick a section that doesn’t look too bad, and point out where the edits will have to be made and allude to other sections that are worse. Depending on how long ago the projects were, it might be manufacturer changes, too, and you could cite that as a reason for review.
Our estimate per section is in the 3 hour plus range (more depending on different factors of the project), so maybe it won’t take as long as it usually does. On the other hand, reviewing specs that someone else has written will take longer than if you wrote them, so checking references and the like can eat time.
I don’t think you’ll gain anything by pointing out what a bad job he did over all.
I don’t envy you this one. Let me know if you want to talk about this.
I think you just have to explicitly explain why you have to rewrite a bunch of stuff. I feel for you. I hate this kind of inefficiency.
Others have no way of knowing unless you explain (gently, if possible).
(I also wonder what the specifier who replaced me is saying about my old specifications … oh wait … I’m seeing Steve at the CSI meeting tonight and probably having scotch with him afterwards… there’s no hiding from your past when you retire in a big small town.)
If these projects have been constructed, What did the CA staff have to say in trying to enforce them? Were they used as the proverbial door stop in the construction trailer? In reworking (ie ditching and starting from scratch) these projects you might get some backup from them in your justifications.
I think you guys are forgetting who is paying for this. The Architectural fee is fixed, the specs are an in-house cost. The firm can’t go back to the client asking for more money or time because their new in-house spec writer is being persnickety.
Anne is in the tough spot of ethically being unable to deliver to her own standard of care within the fee/time structure she has to operate in. Suggestions to start over are simply naive.
My suggestion is to Just Do What They Are Used To, and then take some time to highlight the bulk of the unedited portions that need the PM’s response, and meet with the PM to show them what you are working with. The goal would be to bring the PM into being part of the solution by taking some of the responsibility for editing out the errors.
This will help get it done, it will help in team building, it will help gain credibility and trust with the PM’s of the firm, and it help improve the product.
All the post have valid points, worthy of consideration.
For me, I would do as Phil suggested, and generally start from scratch, while using any individual old specifications sections that I would find acceptable with minor editing. I am sure I could complete the specifications in less time than trying to fix something that is in such questionable quality.
Unrelated, as an independent specification consultant, I would price myself out of business if it took me, on average, 3 hours per section to write a complete Project Manual, as Lynn stated . I log every minute I spend on a project, including performing a quality assurance review of the drawings, telephone calls, emails, travel time to meetings, and also writing the door hardware specifications. On average, I spend just over an hour per section.
I run into this with a slightly different twist when I am given a master developed and maintained by an Owner. I say “developed and maintained” but in some cases they were developed 15 years ago and never looked at again. Where they were “maintained,” the maintenance was inconsistent and sometime flat wrong.
Building practice changes, codes change, and products change. The spec that you have been using for 15 years is probably 13 years out of date (it may be 17 years out of date if it wasn’t done right to begin with).
Anne, I’m sorry you’re experiencing this. I have similar issues on a smaller scale. My predecessors were thankfully diligent for the most part, however…
I found when starting out as an independent consultant years ago, before going back to salary work, that using someone else’s work takes more time regardless of whether or not it was done right. I’d rather provide a good short form spec than be forced to use someone else’s spec.
All - I have been with my firm for 6 months and have struggled with the limited maintenance done by my predecessor. Fortunately the firm was aware of many of the problems and has given me quite a bit of free reign to fix it. After my predecessor left, others in the firm tried to write specs for their own projects. It wasn’t as bad as what Anne is dealing with, but I will say that all the architects were thrilled when I came on board full-time.
It’s important that the firm’s, and the individual specifier’s, standard of professional care be maintained. That to me is more important than making a profit on a given project.
Of course that’s easy for me to say when it’s not my money, but it’s how my firm managed our projects and we’re still in business after 33 years.
The downstream cost of fixing problems resulting from faulty specifications likely will be more than any profit shortfall–not to mention professional reputation.
In theory my firm has a master that is kept updated. We use Arcom as the basis for our specs. However, my predecessor “didn’t believe in Masterspec*” so he squirreled away his own set of masters that he used for projects, and invented his own macros. My administrative assistant now has a budget for re-templating his MEP masters because at the moment they are uneditable by anyone without the secret macros. (it is truly amazing to me what a mess this stuff is)
What’s surprising to me is that such a large office with big projects can go so far down the rabbit hole and not really understand what’s happening.
When I first started writing specs, I worked for a local firm that had a spec writer with the same basic attitude. The firm used SpecText, and he modified the files, ignored the updates, and kept his own master that we were supposed to use. He reused sections from previous projects all the time. Being new to the whole spec writing gig, I didn’t know any better. Once I passed the CDT, I did my best to change the company policy, but failed.
He’s still writing specs. I hear he’s retiring soon. I wonder what that firm will do? And further, I wonder what the specs are like?
The firm is local to Wisconsin; I don’t think they do projects beyond the state borders. So perhaps that makes it easier - they’ll know and will have worked with the contractors before.
Your success in this field is due to your high standards as well as your ability to convince others that they are worth maintaining. You would not be where you are if you succumbed to mediocrity.