Sometimes I struggle with Part 3 of my specs. I do not want to repeat manufacturer’s installation instructions because each manufacturer may recommend a slightly different installation method or tool. I don’t want to conflict with what the manufacturer recommends.
But on the other hand, if I do put instructions in my specs I then have something to point to when the installer fails to read the manufacturer’s instructions.
Require copy of manufacturer’s printed instructions as a Submittal and then enforce it.
Part 3 should refer to this process and require that the mfr.'s instructions be followed, without modification of any kind, without mfr.'s written approval. Also, you can require a mfr. rep to meet you/others at the site, periodically.
David,
Manufacturer’s printed installation instructions are typically not written in the language of a specifier. You run the risk of inadverntley changing the intent or meaning or end result of the instructions by rewriting them or paraphrasing them or reformating them. If things go wrong, the risk has been transfered to you.
This warning does not preclude specifying some of the more subtle points.
I suggest lightening our (including Ralph’s) workload. Require that the contractor make the manufacturer’s installation manuals available on site. Don’t ask for them as submittals - receiving them and reviewing them and filing them and sending copies back stamped all provides no benefit to our owner clients.
I agree it’s often unclear how much to say and not say in Part 3. I think of Part 3 more as an outline or checklist of the requirements. It’s also a location for reinforcing the use of the secondary products named in Part 2. For example, specifying a cover board over polyiso roof insulation in Part 2 is good; specifying that it be set in cold adhesive in Part 3 is even better - it gets hard for the contractor to ignore the cover board requirement.
If there are optional installation methods and one is preferred, it should be identified. If a reference standard applies to a particular installation, it should be named.
Keep in mind the strictures against saying too much. Have a good general idea what manufacturer installation recommendations say, so you don’t conflict with them. If warranties are involved, keep repeating the mantra " … in accordance with manufacturer’s written recommendations." I like Ralph’s recommendations about involving the manufacturer’s tech rep on site; that keeps the manufacturer involved, and helps keep the better manufacturers who employ tech reps involved with the project.
When we specify that work be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions we typically do not have a copy of the instructions. I would be interested in understanding the provisions in manufacturer’s instructions beyond the technical that might limit the manufacturers liability or expose the owner and his consultants to liability that they did not anticipate.
Let’s liven this up a bit. What really needs to be said in Part 3?
If you require compliance with manufacturers’ installation instructions and the usual collection of reference standards, what can you add? If you state the requirement for compliance in Division 01, you don’t need to tell the contractor how to do much of anything, and it isn’t necessary to repeat “in accordance with…” at all. You do have to be somewhat familiar with manufacturers’ instructions, but in most cases, they’ll say a lot more than you would - or should.
There are exceptions, of course. For example, a manufacturer might require flashing to extend four inches up a vertical surface, but you might want it to be eight inches, so you state that on the drawings. The conditions of the contract establish the contractor’s basic responsibilities (look at the A201 - it covers a lot!), you use Division 01 to require the contractor to comply with manufacturers’ instructions and other common requirements, and all that remains is to state the exceptions. I have referred to this for many years as “Specification by Exception.”
Any time you get into the details of how the contractor’s job is to be done, you are involved in “means and methods,” which is the contractor’s responsibility. If something goes awry because you contradicted the manufacturer’s instructions or a reference standard, it’s your problem, not the contractor’s. There will be times when you want to assume that risk, but don’t do it lightly.
I like Phil’s suggestion. We’ve been analyzing all of our submittal requirements the last few weeks; I’m going to require the contractor to have the installation instructions on site. One of the reasons for our review is to get closer to all electronic submittals. Taking that a step further, it should be o.k. for the contractor to have all of the instructions available through the PC in the field office. Not on a smart phone, though - we have to be able to read them! An obvious advantage is being able to search the instructions electronically.
Sheldon is spot on.
Specifying installation requirements in Part 3 for a product or material that you specified in Part 2, ends with “per manufacturer’s written instructions and reference standards” or a variation of that, unless you want to specifically call for exceptions.
For our current work this seems to only happen when a roofing/waterproofing consultant wants a belt and suspenders assembly.
A funny example is from far back in the late '80’s when I was involved in large restoration projects. There were a lot of “faux” finishes that were achieved by grossly ignoring the manufacturer’s recommendations, including mixing oil and water based coatings to get various marbleized effects. I recall we even had language stating that this was against any written recommendations of the manufacturer.
Steven,
“There were a lot of “faux” finishes …” haha, someone after my own heart. There was a trend in my area in the late 80s, early 90s of painting outlet cover plates with a faux of the stone or wood paneling that they might end up in in lobbies. I actually used a hobby ‘how to’ book to write the basic descriptions after talking with one of the artists that specialized in it.
Painting with feathers!
Sheldon is right though, and I do this a lot. Its one reason for using manufacturers you really know and understand and that themselves have not only good installation instructions but good details as well.
William
Unfortunately there isn’t enough $ in projects to require a pre-installation conference for every material/trade but it sure is important for a select few of the more problematic trades. I can’t tell you the number of times when our bacon was saved by requiring a project specific, comprehensive agenda for the pre-installation conference including a careful review of the manufacturer’s instructions with the manufacturer’s rep present. Architect [drawing] required deviations, or as Sheldon says exceptions, can be clearly set forth and reviewed by all parties.
The only time this process fails is when the Contractor doesn’t schedule such a meeting and the Architect is too lazy to enforce the specifications.
“Install materials/assemblies in accordance with its manufacturer’s instructions, plumb, level, with tight, flush joints” will likely cover 90% of what we need to say in Part 3.
Repeating manufacturer’s instructions verbatim in Part 3 is only to justify our consulting fee.
I typically organize my documents by stating what I want the end result to be, and then stating how I’m going to verify that end result. I will put some basic language in part 3, but mostly I address how they demonstrate that the work was done properly. I don’t specify specific tools, coverage, seam installation or anything else-- for that I refer back to the manufacturer installation instructions or the trade association standards.
From the time the documents are produced to the time of installation, the manufacturer may change their requirements any number of times – which would put any fussy specification in immediate conflict with the specs.
I do know a few extremely detailed spec writers who go into a lot of instruction in Part 3 and my first question is: “how are we going to enforce this? and what if its wrong?”
unfortunately though, there are architects (clients) who conflate “lots of words” with “good words” and we all know that is seldom the case.
Really? I usually start documents by thinking how nice it would be to be independently wealthy, and somewhere warm and sunny
Marc,
If you live in SoCal you’ve got “warm” and “sunny” already, now you just have to become wealthy.
Two out of three is not bad.
NO, I’m in the only place in the country currently cloudy, and rainy
actually, Marc caught me. I usually start documents thinking of the next pair of shoes I want. especially now that I live somewhere warm and sunny and don’t have to own only “useful” shoes..
If you specify that the manufacturer’s data must be on site - then what? I’ve seen thousands of “trunk libraries” estimators carry, dumping portions on the foreman at a particular jobsite. How are they to be used? Are they even in the worker’s native language?
Sheldon answered some of how to get around screwy wording on data sheets - out here (in warm sunny and not very wealthy CA) we generally use the catch-all “unless otherwise specified” and thdn try…as difficult as it is…to ensure we “fix” what the manufacturer has screwed up in their product data.
But, man, what a can 'o worms if an assembly/part/material is shipped in from China (or wherever) and there’s a slight variation - specifically, one that requires ANOTHER change in the manufacturer’s “recommendations”. Reject the material? Knock out a change order (whoops - who will take the hit if the price goes up - or down?).
I won’t drag that out.
Anne made a very important point - “how are we going to enforce this?”
She may implement procedures that cover that issue…but on most jobs, it’s anarchy.
When I was on the “interpretive” end of specification, I rarely saw ANY enforcement.
I DID see things like:
“comply with” specific results: “bla bla” per ASTM D90245098275"
“install at (insert a measurement of some kind here)”
"Apply (insert thickness, or “at manufacturer’s recommended spread rate) over properly prepared surface.”
Uhhhh - is a “properly prepared surface” the result of procedures on the manufacturer’s data sheet? The MPI manual? A clause in your master? Because if that “properly…” specifies a single method of preparation, the sub did it and it didn’t work - who eats the crow? The sub performed as specified.
Anne’s short note is the tactical nuke that deals with the other examples. There IS nobody enforcing except on high-end projects where the owner is willing to pay for inspections/field quality control (most are not aware it’s available; I’ve been in many meetings where owners - and many design professionals - seem surprised that what’s written down doesn’t automatically occur). Heck, they usually don’t even know field QA processes can be performed.
Playing the combined roles of contractor and sub now - I’ll have my guys/gals do whatever they normally do to make something look/perform (for 365 days at least…nah, strike that, I don’t want to even get into warranties) well enough to pass a punchlist walkthrough.
But am I going to hand them data sheets, specs and test equipment, have them interpret data in the field, take measurements and create reports?
Are you kidding?
It doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference what I (back in my own shoes) put in Part 3 unless I have verification requirements as well. Otherwise I might as well not waste the ink.
Anne again: “I typically organize my documents by stating what I want the end result to be, and then stating how I’m going to verify that end result.”
Yep - specify results, not methods (how many times has this been beaten into our skulls…yet I still see method specs, or some sort of unworkable combination) and notify bidders that you WILL be verifying those results.
That’s the game changer. Placement of it is less important.