I just finished a conference call with the Owner’s rep for a large new project, a South Florida condominium project, the developer wants to know how we can modify the specifications to make them more user friendly to the subs eventually bidding the project (the GC is already on board). Their concern is that most subs who will be contracted on the project do not have access to all the building standards that are referenced in the spec sections that pertain to their work, and during the process of construction neither do all the participants in the process. The Developer claims that for that reason during construction the specs are seldom referenced as they become more of a deterrent to the construction process.
For those of you who remember my last dilemma, this sounds very familiar, the difference here is this is a very seasoned developer, architect, and GC who want to include specifications (and referenced standards)in the Contract Documents, but they also want to try a different approach. I’ve received this request on other projects in the past, the end result being that reinventing the wheel was not feasible. Those projects have all been built and to date I’ve not been named in any litigation, however unless I am, I am not privy to it.
Looking for thoughts here from my peers.
Quality control and quality assurance are the same no matter how they are packaged.
The developers claim “that most subs who will be contracted on the project do not have access to all the building standards that are referenced in the spec sections that pertain to their work” is bovine scatology.
However, I have been kicked off the job for enforcing the spec because I was detrimental to the process (CDN) or prawcess as the word is pronounced in the YOU ES of EH.
Move the specs to the drawings either in MSWord or in AutoCad. Our office does both. If specs are on the drawings there are No Excuses After This. NEAT eh?
Option 1: the owner could buy licenses to the standards so they can be included in the specs. This may not be feasible.
Option 2: you can transcribe all the standards you reference, and the standards that are further referenced. This may be illegal.
Option 3: The owner could get an electronic subscription to Madcad and ASTM, and permit access to team participants. This may be expensive.
Option 4: Don’t reference standards at all. The trades know how to build stuff, so they don’t need them. This may be a mistake.
Jerome: your responsibility is to provide specifications that meet the standard of care for the industry. Trying to remove standards from the specs will likely fall below that standard. You should explain this to the Owner’s rep and explain that you are not willing to provide documents that do not meet the minimum standard of care. (this is information only and not intended as legal advice)
I agree with Tony’s Option 1 & 3, using MadCAD
Oh Lord! We want to hire people who don’t know the standards so we can get it done cheaper. Mmmm… We might want to omit some fasteners on that drywall fire partitions or it would be a lot cheaper to simply omit one layer of gypboard. If we don’t have the standard or don’t know it, we can make it really, really cheap.
Jerry, you work with wonderful Owners who want to make sure they provide a quality product…
I do agree that if you want to include all of this in the specs, the specs will get a lot longer and you should be charging about 6 times what your fee currently is in order to copy all of this stuff into the specs.
Some of these standards are referenced in the building codes. If the construction documents don’t reference the standards, the construction documents may be describing a building that does not meet the building codes.
The architect-of-record may not realize this, but you might want to tell him/her that.
I don’t think MadCad has all the standards we need.
Most standards are product standards that have no bearing on what the subs know or do not know, as long as the manufacturer knows. All the subs need to do is make sure they obtain products and materials from manufacturers that comply with the product standards in the specs.
Other standards are for fabrication and installation. If the sub is in a trade that is subject to these types of standards and they do not have a working knowledge or a copy of the standards, then, in my opinion, they should not be in that trade.
I believe I can convince my clients to retain industry standards, not like they have any real choice, however the request that I strive for more ‘user friendly’ specs is baffling? How do I do that? Any comments?
I don’t know…dumb it down from the 6th grade level to the 1st grade level? Prepare each section in a handy-dandy little pocket-size booklet?
Unless they tell you what the real problem is, there is no way to develop a solution.
Suggest that they need friendlier users.
I don’t disagree with anyone here but I will play devils advocate just for the sake of argument. (@Jerome; I am not trying to imply that any of this applies to your work)
I have seen many specification manuals that included a myriad of reference standards that did not apply to the project. For instance I saw a masonry section that included standards for galvanizing, epoxy coating, sandblasting of existing lintels to recoat them,as well as standards for masonry flashing, rigid cavity wall insulation, integral water repellent, preglazed masonry units, etc. All of this was for a project that included one new punched opening into a interior non-load bearing CMU masonry wall for a shop primed loose angle lintel.
I am not trying to imply that anyone in this discussion produces documents like this but it is possible that the architect, builder, developer have had to deal with such specs in the past and that could be the motivation for the request.
Print “Don’t Panic” on the cover in large, friendly letters?
I think many specs do not succeed very well at communication, for several reasons. We concentrate on legalities. We write at college level. Conforming to CSI SectionFormat can result in confusing redundancy [e.g. MasterSpec]. The use of masters reduces communication, because each is organized for a set of items; editing it can result in a section that is somewhat tortuous, especially if time constraints prevent writing deathless prose. Words are one of our main tools, so we are comfortable with them; the users, in all segments, are usually not as adept at language as we are.
I think the legal/commercial situation leaves us little option. Even a section that is a CSI award-winner will not ensure that the users find it friendly. The client here may [or may not] be expressing a real situation. It’s a little too comforting to say that, as far as communication goes, the onus falls on the users to come up to our level.
well, if you go old school on this problem:
the old Plan rooms used to have those standards in a set (and of course we had somewhat fewer standards to reference). I’ve worked with some clients (government typically) who required that any standard we referenced, we had to own in the office. That meant that when bidders came to pick up documents, they were able to see the references. I’ve also, on large projects, required the contractor to own every referenced standard.
I think the real answer here, is if you work with the same owner regularly, and they require a specific level of work, then they need to purchase the standards and make them available when necessary to the sub-bidders.
As for the complexity of the specs: I consider them to be about 10th grade level in most cases, and they should be understandable by the subs on the job. of course, if their idea of quality work is “what they did the last time”, it really doesn’t matter how dumbed down or friendly the specs are. And we all know that specs really get used when there is a problem. if we had superlative performance, it wouldn’t matter if the contractor read the specs or not. So… making them simpler won’t solve the problem.
How many standards can any given trade’s subcontractor need? I think it is a smoke screen for the Owner not wanting to have to look up the standards or purchase them, especially (let me guess) if they are doing their own CA to supposedly save even more money.
No problem! Simply remove the references to standards, then enter all of the text from those standards into the specifications.
I agree with Ron. If the subs don’t know the standards for their own trades, they shouldn’t do the work.
“during construction the specs are seldom referenced as they become more of a deterrent to the construction process.” Great quote.
There are things that can - and should - be done to reduce the size of specifications. Starting with a basic requirement to comply with manufacturers’ instructions, much of what is often specified is redundant.
However, removing reference standards has the opposite effect. Taking the approach I suggested above would save a few paragraphs, which would have to be replaced with volumes of text.
playing devil’s advocate again: it is possible that the developer has had instances where they wanted a specific product and the specifier instead offered three possible products and the referenced standards associated with the products.
In the instance I am refering to the Developer/owner had already decided that the tile in the bathrooms of this multi-family housing project would be “X”. He wanted a simple spec for the tile that said use Crossville Cermics, Cross Sheen, color “x” and install per manufactures instructions. Instead he got a 6 page spec with a bunch of extra information and the eventual low bidder used product “y” since it was in the spec as an alternate product. The developer paid a change order add for going back the product “X” that he asked for in the first place.
We typically have to write a spec that covers a broad range of options and potential products and as such we have to establish a minimum standard to maintain. However when we get the chance (and are insturcted by the owner)to be more specific then maybe we should edit and condense the spec accordingly.
Maybe one way to get a more “user friendly” spec is to require the developer to make product selections (including colors, finishes, etc.) prior to bidding.
I wish there were more South Florida based specwriters contributing to this forum, maybe they could explain better than I, the mentality of developers, contractors, and architects in South Florida when it comes to specifications esp on high rise work. When I work on projects in other parts of Florida and elsewhere in the South I do not have these battles.
In regards to this particular developer its not about the cost of providing access to standards, this project is a half billion dollar construction project and its only one of this clients current projects.