…but that is because the contractor KNOWS better than you, right? He’s always put wire glass in those stairway doors, so you have to tell him NOT to do it, because he is probably not reading your specs carefully enough, if at all.
Example from the past: years ago I did a small project converting a single family house to a group home. My drawings showed the new front door swinging out. Got to the jobsite one day, and sure enough the door swung into the house. Dumb architect, I shoulda known that ALL residential doors swing in, especially when the contractor buys them from the local retail building supply store. I could have avoided the argument at the jobsite with a huge plan note: “Dont swing this door in. It REALLY DOES swing out just like I have it shown. Im NOT kidding.”
In principle, I dont like the idea of contract documents containing thou shalt nots. But I guess when we get burned enough, a few donts can save time and money later. Still, it is the bidder/contractors responsibility to read the documents and to understand their intent. Our list of donts might be better served as a topic for pre-bid/pre-construction meetings, where my facetious plan note above might have taken the form of Please note that this project involves a change of use. Those of you used to traditional residential construction should note the following.
Okay, all of you that are against “negative” specifying will have to remove the words “Not Used” next to the Part or Division number. Just leave it blank or empty.
The contractor will just infer that there are no sections under the listed Division or no spec information under the Part.
If you don’t tell the contractor what you specifically don’t want, you can get stuck endlessly reviewing substitution requests and wasting everyone’s time. A simple sentence would have put the subject to bed once and for all.
“No that is not what we are looking for.”
“Nope that’s not it.”
“No that’s not that it either.”
“No but keep trying.”
“No, but you are so close.”
“You are getting warmer.”
“Oooh, you almost had it this time.”
I prefer “not acceptable.”
There are many projects where the design professional’s involvement during construction is nil. Sometimes it’s because the construction manager/owner’s representative/contracting officer doesn’t want the design professional around. Sometimes the design professional doesn’t want to be on the jobsite but prefers to be back in the office doing “architecture” or “engineering.” (Personally, with a few decades of construction contract administration experience, I think it’s irresponsible if not unethical for a design professional to not be very actively involved during construction.)
In such a passive situation, “not acceptable” expresses the design intent of the architect or engineer, in the form of a contractually-enforceable requirement. It also puts the quality assurance and quality control personnel in a position to reject non-conforming work as being contrary to the specifications which are the basis of the construction contract and the building permit. I think it also makes it clear that non-conforming construction is not the design that the architect or engineer has produced, under the seal and signature (license) of the responsible design professional.
I think the alternative terms — such as will not be permitted/approved — imply that the architect or engineer will be actively involved during construction and will act as an enforcer of the requirements of the contract documents. As author of the specifications, I think it would be difficult for an architect or engineer to argue that they do not control construction, when terms such as “permit” or “approve” are used. And the little ideas of “permit” or “approve” expose the architect or engineer to a whole lot of risk regarding jobsite safety. (“How can you claim that you had no responsibility for means, methods, techniques and sequences of construction when your specifications indicate that you would approve the way the work was performed?”)
Trying to come up with more and more words to prevent errors and deviations is not productive. You can’t make drawings and specifications foolproof. Fools are too innovative. They’ll beat us rational types everytime. Somehow we must specify construction in affirmative terms and minimize negatives. I don’t think negatives can be completely avoided, however. It’s how we express the negatives that’s the challenge.
If the contractor submits information for a product that does not comply with the specifications, it can and should be rejected. Contractors may argue, but they have nothing to stand on.
If you rely on “not permitted”, you must have an exhaustive list, or you will keep adding to it. You may start with “Adhesive not permitted” but what about rubber cement? A few steps down the line, you’re at “Rubber cement not permitted. White glue not permitted. Saliva not permitted…”
When you get done listing all the things that are not permitted, you’ll realize that a shorter way to say it is “Nothing else is permitted” which is where you started - specifying what you do want. Which is, after all, the whole point of specifications.
Sheldon,
That’s the obvious logic. However, i think you can see that many here have specific situations that are very few for any given office and that using the phrase seems to solve the problem. Yes, its a menu from which you must choose from only what is there. We have found that our extremely limited use of this phrase has solved the problem and killed thsoe issues.
Remember, even some restaurant menus say “No substitutions”!
Whenever I see a very specific requirement in a specification, an employee handbook, or a college catalog, I always wonder “What kind of bozo did something to elicit this response?” Unless someone does some radical housecleaning every so often, the “rule book” becomes so cluttered with very specific prohibitions that it is unmanageable.
I would suggest not overreacting to a single situation (although I can well imagine a set of circumstances arising to which almost no no action would be seen as overreaction). When you begin to see a trend, stick something in, but review it in a few years to see if it is still needed.
I agree with Mr. J. Peter. Reactive behavior produces a lot of the weirdness (ie: non-common-sensical situations) we see in construction. Somebody get me a thesaurus.
Okay let me take another approach. Let’s talk about another type of specification. How many of you have rented a house/apartment or rented one out?
Why do standard lease agreements say the following?
“Pets: Not permitted.”
Shouldn’t the leasee be able to reasonably infer that since pets were not mentioned in the body of lease they are not allowed?
Here’s another one.
“Smoking and use of tobacco products on job site: Not permitted.”
Are you going to try to convince the contractor that he/she can not smoke or chew tobacco on the job site because you did not give him/her permission to do so in the specifications?
Ah! The subtle difference between a rule and a requirement.
David,
If smokless tobacco is OK on the job site, be sure to include the requirement for the GC to provide “spitoons” (solid brass or colored plastic) in Division 01 to collect the brown byproduct for use as a construction adhesive, unless you have specified “NOT PERMITTED” somewhere in the spec that “Spitoon Adhesive: Not permitted.”
Wayne
When you specify a product, you are specifying what you want. When you prohibit smoking or pets, you are still specifying what you want - the absence of a specified thing. Both describe the intended result in the most efficient manner.
To prevent smoking, you would not specify “On site activities: Walking, talking, breathing, eating, thinking, etc., etc.” and list everything except smoking, any more than you should prohibit the use of everything except the product you want.
A school district in this area requires that specs specifically prohibit loud music and “boom boxes” on the job site (as well as other no-nos such as smoking).
Here is another one.
How do you specify “Substititions: Not allowed.”?
Do you just say nothing in the specs and just hope that the contractor does not submit any substition requests?
I believe that it is unreasonable to specify “no substitutions.” There are always circumstances beyond the control of anyone related to the project that require the use of substitutions. such as product no longer being offered or product no longer comply with current regulations. If the specification is proprietary, the product could have been discontinued or the manufacturer gone out of business.
Not only that, Peter, but you can’t block substitutions anyway. The contractor can always go directly to the Owner with anythng.
Then if you have failed to specify how a substitution is handled, documented, and how the criteria is match with the specified items, then you get to deal with it however the contractor presents it.
Substitutions are not a good example.
William
William,
You are so right.
When the GC does an end around the A/E to the Owner with attractive $$$ saving, the process is compromised.
How many times have you provided indisputable technical reasons to the Owner to not take the risk? First cost invariably trumps risk. Not always, but enough to make us cynical curmudgeons. You have done your due diligence and your duty on bahalf of your client.
Wayne