Comments on an Unusual situation-- Please!

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions
1

Have a large corporate client, who is moving to implement a program whereby their corporate standards will be used in lieu of formal project specifications. Although the standards contain a good deal of material that is required in specs, they are not formatted, etc, in a specs fashion.

Comments–
What do you think of this?
What legal implications do you see, both for the client and for the professional offices involved?
What stance should we take on this issue?

Of course, as always, a PDQ/ASAP answer would be appreciated!!! And many thanks

2

Ralph-

I have had two recent experiences with this system, one at a previous employer and one where I am now. In both cases it was a corporate client with standards that approximated specifications. Our approach was to review the standard sections and make additions, deletions, or corrections to meet the project specifics, our office practice standards, and the standard of care. In one case, the client allowed us to physically modify their standard document and then reviewed it. In the other case, we provided a front end type document that looked very much like an addendum listing all our changes to their standard sections, which were bound in unedited.

Id be happy to discuss in more detail by email. geverding@cannondesign.com

3

Ralph,

Many corporations have corporate standards, especially some of the major hotel chains. The way that most of these work is that they give the standards to the design team and they incorporate them into the project manual.

There have been some projects in the past which developed corporate standards in the form of specifications which they then require the design team to use. Some of those have been some of the major subway projects around the country, and the Northeast Corridor Rail Imporovement Project of the late 70’s/early 80’s.

One of the subway ones that I looked at back in the late 70s, can’t remember which one it was, actually published a core package that was required to apply to all projects as is - they did this in the form of what looked like a 5 inch by 7 inch paper size paper back book. Looked exactly like what you would buy at a book store. The book contained the basics of Division 1 and the basics of many of the other materials and systems. Project specs modified that or added onto it - it remained a separate stand alone document.

William

4

What William describes sounds like a common method for public civil works projects, where the document combines contract conditions with standards for construction. Massachusetts has such a standard for roads, published in hardback. In Southern California, there is the “Greenbook.”

I understand why these companies create the standards, but I’m not sure how well they deal with extremely important regional differences. In the case of hotels, they infamously put vinyl wallcovering (i.e. a vapor retarder) on the interior walls in projects in hot humid climates. As to format, I’d be annoyed, but if the information was good I’d try to get over it. Maybe there’s an opportunity to get paid to reorganize their standards into a better format. May be worth a shot.

5

Some of our clients have been very current while others have been way out of date. This is complicated by the fact that even with the poorly maintained documents (typically from private clients, in my experience), anywhere from 85 to 95 percent of the stuff is “design standard” stuff we should incorporate. Two specific problems to look for:

(1) Obsolete references. One of our clients wanted polished plate glass, referencing the Fed. Spec. No. that I have not seen used in about 10 years (private client). I told the Project Architect that we might be able to get it, but it would be hideously expensive when compared to float glass. Another client (public sector) wanted plywood stamped with DFPA markings (Douglas Fir Plywood Association merged with APA in the mid 1960s). I was in receipt of both of these within the last 3 years.

(2) Obsolete Products. This is less of a problem, but can still be tricky. The vendors know what their customers in the private sector want and will provide it no matter what is drawn or specified. When I called one vendor, the contact person told me just what custom modifications this particular client/customer required them to make to a standard product. On a project we worked on a little over a year ago, the client (again private sector) wanted a particular wood veneered panel (critical to the overall visual quality of the space). That product was being discontinued, but there was still enough in stock for our project. The firm that developed the design standards for this client was going to have to do a bit of work to find a comparable product without going into custom panelling work.

Clients think that when they provide you with their master, they will save you work so they can have a lower fee. My experience is that you still have to do some due diligence, even if it is a set of “standards” you have worked with before. Sometimes it takes me more time to unravel poorly organized documents than it would to use my master in the first place.

We recently had a public client who wanted us to use their master as it came out of their copy machine–no edits permitted, not even for formatting. I am hoping that because their documents appear different from the ones we have developed for that particular project, people will direct questions about the spec directly to them rather than us–I was not quite sure in a couple of instance what specifically they were looking for.

Clients should understand that they are expressing intent, albeit very specific intent in many cases. This does not relieve the A/E from the design responsibility for which they were hired. I am often tempted to ask a client who is particularly insistent about using their documents whether they will be stamping the documents or not. Moreover, I have to caution our staff that copying a client’s detail (because that is what we were told to do) does not relieve us of design responsibility or liability in case of failure.

The bottom line is that one is often dealing with a client representative who is himself (nearly always male) somewhat removed from those developing the design standards/intent and does not understand (nor in most cases want to understand) the details of those standards. They do understand that it will be their head on the block if it doesn’t come out exactly like what corporate wants. Nor is anyone really interested in answering a lot of questions that they don’t understand when they did not understand the documents they are distributing in the first place. Tread lightly, but realize that the A/E remains liable for the particular project’s design.

6

Thanks to you all, so far-- great insight and comments; greatly appreciated.

Any one else? Would like as many as possible.

7

There are really three topics here - Owner Standards, Standard Specifications, and Project Specifications. Owner Standards may include design standards, performance requirements, products, installation methods, etc. Standard Specifications are intended to cover most types of construction included in the coverage - most common subjects include highway and public works construction per John’s comment, but I have also seen subway standard specs per William’s comment. I have only experienced them from corporate owners on specialized subjects.

Another option is Owner’s Master Guide Specifications that include their standard requirements. The Owner is then in a position to see how the A/E editied their master for the particular project.

Standard specs are incorporated into and modified by supplements in the project specs to make them appropriate for the project. If Owner Standards are in a reasonable and accessible form, they might be incorporated as a “Reference Standard” into project specifications with proper concern for potential conflicts, but more often the correponding requirements are included in the project specs.

I agree with Peter’s bottom line, the important thing to remember is that the A/E of record is the one responsible for the documents. Don’t include anything in the documents you have prepared that you are not willing to stand behind, because in the end you may have to. Any conflicts in opinion between the Owner and A/E about the requirements should be resolved and documented as for any other disagreements.

8

and as an aside: when you review the Owner’s standard documents, one of the things that you might prepare is a summary of the changes that you would make, including the reasons for those changes – whether local conditions, code compliance, updates, or standard of care. This will help you “triage” the documents:

  1. things you would change but can live with
  2. things that have to be changed because of code or other compulsory reasons
  3. things that will make you walk away from the project.

you may end up getting a consulting contract out of it to update the Owner’s standard documents - I had two national clients who came about from that exercise.

9

Anne: An excellent idea. We do something very similar to this regularly, even with owners’ Division 00. Surprisingly, all have been receptive at least to some degree to well-thought out suggestions for change. We actually get fee for this service.