Printing Engineer's Specifications

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions
21

In our office we require every Consultant be responsible for their own sections including printing and corrections. We also send out a format sheet and request hard copy and electronic format. We also request that the Consultants send us hard copy 1 week before we submit to allow us time to review their work for format only.

Why should we waste our time doing their work.
Aren’t specs part of their agreement with the Architect?

We do occassionly print a Consultants section and make minor corrections with their prior approval.

Keeping the Architects informed about the quality and timeliness of their Consultant’s work is key.

Does the quality of their specs reflect on the quality of their Drawings?

Tommy

22

Doug: No hard feelings. I guess we’ll agree to disagree. Maybe a new thread on the subject?..

23

I too refuse to accept electronic copies of any consutant’s spec sections for all of the reasons posted, for the most part. But I have worked with many spec writers that, amazingly, not only will do this, but REQUEST it. I am not that anal retentive. If consultants have mistakes in their sections, that’s their problem, not mine. If the formatting looks a little different - they haven’t followed the instructions sent, no biggie - life is too short. I have neither the time, the expertise, nor the desire to do any editing of consultant’s specs.

One poster mentions that architects typically ask for electronic copies of consultants drawings, so why should specs be any different? Does that poster’s firm also “edit” those drawings??? Reformat? I doubt it.

Editing a consultant’s specs, being responsible for their electronic lives during the whole process is absolutely a liability issue and for those that cannot appreciate that, god bless ya.

24

An observation. Shouldn’t we be doing what is in the best interests of the Owner and, as an extension, the general public? The time it takes to do the project in the best way possible is inversely relative to time lost by problems that may arise later. We all have a different perspective on what the priorities are. Some of us may be more loyal to our firm and want to maximize profits. Some of us may use our work as a reflection of our image and want to attract more business. In no way do we intend to lower the quality of our work. As with many other aspects of preparing specifications, what works for one may not work for another. Sharing ideas on this forum shows the many solutions to essentially the same problem.

25

Dave,

Sure, that’s a great concept - and it would work all the time if everyone did that. But it does not work out that way all the time.

So, no, I don’t accept electronic files in any form from any consultant.

Now, being an internal specifier, this is another one where I believe an independent specifier may take a totally different point, or not have the leverage with the architect to get the contract the way they way they really want it.

I don’t take files from consultants for more than 1 reason. 1, even word to word on 2 different configured systems, you can set the options and preferences up so that if someone uses on a different cofigured system opens it up, some things can just disappear. super/subscripted fractions are notorious for this, and any other special keyed character.

I won’t take pdf files, because they may not print out correctly for my printer.

I don’t have time to do the consultants work for him. He is required to deliver us paper printouts, and it is required to be present in the draft spec where it is reviewed and corrections required before printing, and in the final the same. Those sending us paper printouts are required to have their specs in our office 5 days before they go out to print. I review them immediately for any required corrections which I markup and send back to them that same day.

Structural, due to terminology requirements, they edit on or masters. Landscaping is encouraged to edit our masters, but I will let them write their own. MEP writes teir own.

I send them a specific page layout both in description and in an example section.

I am not going to make small edits in their work, that is their responsibility. Like their drawings. I do however read them at the time of the draft and cull through all the aesthetic issues in their sections to assure that the architect really intended to have those ivory switch handles and plug faces in plastic device plattes in that stainless steel and stone featured lobby - among the other kinds of things I check. This is beyond the coordination of Division 1 and other sections like firestopping and access panels that I markup. There are lots of items that end up needing change because no one ever asked and the engineers have just let their masters go with their default.

William

26

I would like to have both paper and .pdf files from our consultants. We will occasionally ship .pdf files off to the printer, but these are more for our archiving convenience in-house. I typically ship the hard copy to the printer. About the only coordination item I have time for is to make sure that what the consultants think they are sending (as listed on a TOC or transmittal) is what they actually sent (the hard copy sections).

If I do get word processing documents and I have the time, I will quickly scan those documents for format (like pagination). I do not make substantive changes in consultants documents without their approval.

I like having the .pdf files for final output because they are not as dependent on drivers and printers for format (like pagination).

I am having trouble with our project managers buying into the idea of coordinating consultants’ specifications. It gets so bad sometimes that we have job names and numbers for several different projects included in what we get from the consultants. I have gotten to the point where if the documents vaguely resemble ours, I regard them as coordinated.

27

I note that this discussion lacks input from consultants who work with Architects.

I am a Structural Engineer and a long time member of CSI who regularly prepares project specifications. I have always attempted to be responsive to the requests of our client even when they cause us difficulties. We jump through hoops to comply with the clients requests, without extra charge, even though they were not documented at the time the contract was signed. When requested we work with the Architect to edit their master even when it would be quicker and technically better to use our in-house masters.

I will suggest several reasons for the problems noted.

  1. Many consultants have no training in specification writing. CSI seems to make no effort to try to educate engineers and other consultants.
  2. Every Architect has a different way of doing things and different formatting requirements. It would be nice if all of our clients would adhere to the CSI Section and Page Formats.
  3. We typically hear about the formatting requirements late in the project thus giving us less time to deal with editing the specifications.
  4. We seldom see the General Conditions or Division 1 documents until the project has been submitted for permit.

If we looked at this rationally and engaged the consultants in the dialog I am sure we would create a situation that made both of our lives easier.

If there was more consistency in what was expected there would be fewer problems of the types mentioned above.

28

Mrak,

For my part, structural engineers have always been the most responsive and flexible.

Indeed, we do require that our structural masters be edited for any project that we do rather than use the structural engineers sections. That has to do with the internal coordination and cross referencing we do. We also have a more developed finishes section, espcially related to slab finishes which the structual engineers typically defer totally to our preferences.

In addition, for all our projects we separate out into a separate section all “Owner’s Testing and Inspection” requirements. This is for 2 reasons. One, it makes it easy to distiguish what the contrctor is testing and paying for even if they must hire an independent service and that which the owner is paying for and having tested. Two, it makes it easy for the Owher to take those sections and know what his testing service is going to provide and base his fees on. I have yet to see a structural master that does this - and many of the project specifications that I have seen from others don’t do this either.

But, the primary point that we make to the engineer is that he feel totally comfortable with the sections. If he does not like a particular paragraph, he can edit it, or send us a copy of his own marked for inserts, and we will accomodate them. Actually, if we don’t use that to simply update our master, we put the different engineers paragraphs in as alternate choices during the editing process. Next time around, its there as a choice or simply incorporated.

From time to time we also encounter a totally new topic which we do not have covered in any master. In those cases, we ask for the consultant to provide us with their own master edited, and electronic copiy. This I reformat into our system - not just page layout, but location of information, cross references to other sections. If he permits, we make it part of our master. If he does not, then we retain it with a specific notation that this master will only be used with the specific structural engineer. To date, most don’t mind its being incorporated.

Our editing process starts with our sending out masters out to the structural engineer 3 weeks before we would like to see them, 4 weeks before we absolutely have to have them. This goes out at Permit time as a review draft - where eveyrone gets to see the state of the project manual. This is typically 4 to 8 weeks to the final issue. So, the engineer gets to see how his edits were implemented, and to make changes before the final.

As to your points you raise…

1 - I agree for the most part. There always seems to be great talk about this, and there are programs for it - but nothing at Institute level ever seems to be really done. All that is done is passive for the most part, not active. Chapters are encouraged to be active, but there is not much that most chapters can actually do, they don’t have the resources or the manpower. Having been on the national board of directors of another association several years ago, I watched as out of nowhere at the annual meeting the at that time CSI President and CSI Executive Director both made presentations about CSI. There was no real coordination, there was certainly no follow up. Both of them knew I was on that board and had not contacted me in advance. I made sure they were aware I was there and asked if there was anything I could do to assist. Nothing. Frankly, it was as ineffective as a product rep making an inperson cold call at my office where I have never heard of him or his product and typically don’t even use the system - just drop off literature and depart. I think that CSI does connect with some associations more efficiently and consistently, but I don’t think its often. Certainly chapters and members are not informed of how they could get out and assist.

2 - This is not likely to happen now, or in the future. There actually is considerable leeway in the page format (section format is more defined). Font, margins, headers, footers, spacing between paragraphs, use of bold (or not) and other styles, those are free for choice. We take great effort to give our clients (owner’s) a product that is visually easy to use ultimately for their facility management as well as for the contractor during construction. Our project manuals are actually a marketing tool.

3 - That’s always unfortunate - but its one thing I refuse to permit. When we have a consultant that has their own master that are being used (MEP), if someone wants to suddenly change the date in the last week of production I tell them that though I can make the change easily enough, they need to see the consultants - make sure they can do it, and will it be a cost. But in many offices the production of the project manual does not have that kind of input or control.

4 - This seems to be the most common error of architectural firms. Actually, for some of the Division 1 and the conditions are the last thing they actually do. I think its about the dumbest thing. Now, if you have consultants that are familiar with you, that’s something else. But even then I think every consultant deserves to see this for every project no matter how typical. There are always elements that are different from project to project.

Maybe we should work together some time -grin!

William

29

Though this topic seems to be veering off the original post, I’ll contiue along. The first thing I do is get the general conditions togther, and make a rough edit of Division 1. These get sent to the consultant along with a memo which explains requirements for coordination and format. I offer to edit Division 1 to suit an engineer’s needs if they’d like (no one ever does). This solves many of the coordination problems early on.

30

“Im amazed that some of you actually make changes to consultant documents yourselves; even minor ones. Theres no way I would accept that potential liability.”

Does this apply when you get sections that have: PART 2 TESTING? Wouldn’t you want to revise that?