Shortform Specifications

[john_regener]

Restarting an old discussion topic …

I have taken on a project to write construction specifications for a new, custom residence. The expectation of the architect is for the specifications to be “shortform” and maybe suitable for inclusion on the Drawings.

Even before taking this on, I had been mulling over the topic of shortform specifications and how they can be a means to introduce the fundamentals of specifications writing to those who design light construction projects. I think the Four C’s of spec writing can be applied, especially with emphasis on the C that stands for concise. I see shortform specifications as being produced by architects, with a specifications writer as a true consultant or resource.

I also see a place for shortform specifications for facility maintenance and minor commercial and institutional remodeling. I think it’s a valid concept for small, uncomplicated and light construction projects.

Ignoring the fact that it takes about the same effort to write a shortform spec as it does a “longform” one … especially the efforts to leave out requirements and be ruthlessly concise … what are the benefits and challenges of shortform specs for light construction projects?

[nwoods]

Shortform: More likely to be read and followed or at least understood by residential contractors…

[specman]

MasterSpec has a Small Project library that is a one-time purchase (not a subscription) and is much more concise than MasterSpec’s shortform specifications. I used it on a custom residential project a couple of years ago and was pretty happy with it for that application.

[david_j_wyatt_cdt]

During the worst part of the recent recession (2008-2011) I devised a shortform specification format for residential projects that residential contractors were comfortable with. The whole thing was about twenty pages - 10 for Division 01 topics and the other 10 for the products.

It was a good experiment in concision and learning what contractors who bid primarily using house plans were able to use.

At the pre-bid meetings for these jobs, I would review the specifications and the contract - usually AIA A105. I always came away from these discussions with a slightly better, clearer understanding of what the contractors needed.

Funny - I reviewed the specs with them to help them understand, but, in the end, I was the one who learned something.

John, if you send me your contact information, I would be happy to send you a copy of my template for you to look over. It might be fairly easy to adaopt it to light commercial work.

My e-mail address is dwyatt@tcarchitects.com

[awhitacre]

I did the same thing about 20 years ago – I devised a short form spec (mine was about 30 pages back then) that concentrated on the quality control issues, and relied on the drawing schedules to call out the products. I used it for preliminary pricing of small commercial buildings, and also for high end ($1 million and up back then) residential. (Microsoft had just gone public, and there were a lot of high end houses being built at the time). I charged a flat fee for this product, and always made a good profit on it. Developers loved it – it was enough documentation to get financing, and enough to provide some controls.

Short form specs have traditionally concentrated on listing products, but the real cost issues, (I think) are how you enforce quality: what construction standards, how much testing, what the tolerances are. Labor costs more than materials these days, so you have to pay attention to the labor on the job, too.

[john_regener]

(shameless plug)

In Construction Specifications Writing, Principles and Procedures(5th Ed.), I addressed a chapter on shortform specifications. I also included an example Division 01 - General Requirements. I based the requirements on the use of AIA contract documents. I only included requirements that I think are most important for an uncomplicated, light construction project. And tried, tried to not get into being too directive about issues such as temporary construction and a lot of administrative procedures.

It was difficult because I come from a position where I think a comprehensive Division 01 is very important, especially on public projects.

Drawing on what I learned from Herman Hoyer (read his series on shortform specs elsewhere on 4specs.com), I abandoned the 3-PART format (please don’t tell the Spec Police). For “work results” Sections in other Divisions, I am moving toward the development of prototype shortform specs which rely on product data and work results information being put on the Drawings as much as feasible. That is, use schedules and notes on the Drawings and minimize text in the Specifications. Keep information about the qualitative aspects of products in the Specifications and identify products and their locations in the funny papers … I mean, on the Drawings.

One good example of this is Structural Notes which are required by many plancheck authorities to be on the Structural Drawings. Rather than duplicate information, I prefer to refer to specific locations in the Drawings, such as in Structural Notes, for product information for “structural” elements. Considering the topic of structural steel, I put in the specifications only requirements that are not strictly “structural.” Otherwise, shortform specs should refer to the Structural Notes. Examples to keep in the specifications are requirements for Architecturally Exposed Steel (AESS) and primers on the steel.

For finish materials and door hardware, the schedules on Drawings may need have added information so that bidders and constructors know clearly what is intended and who is the basis-of-design manufacturer, supplier or fabricator. And a lot of specification text can be eliminated by having the Drawings refer to things such as TCNA Hanbook installation methods and materials. The SMACNA Manual is another good “reference” document for Drawing details that eliminate a lot of specification text.

I cheat in shortform specs by using phrases such as “match Architect’s sample”, “match existing” and “as [noted] [indicated] on the Drawings,” rather than writing a whole bunch of stuff that says essentially the same thing, or maybe contradictory things.

Shortform specs should not attempt get involved with all the potential topics found in SectionFormat. SectionFormat needs to be locked away when writing shortform specs. The challenge needs to be to radically reduce text in the specifications without hindering bidding and construction … and rendering quality assurance meaningless too.

The primary limitation of shortform specs … they are best suited for simple, light construction project of limited scope … needs to be kept in mind. I’ve written multi-volume Project Manuals. I fear I may be cavalier in taking on shortform specs, but I think it’s an oppportunity to have contact with a major portion of the design community who could use some education in product evaluation & selection and construction specifications writing. Remember, it’s going to be them who will operate the BIMco Spec-O-Matic machine and give the spec writer the results to fix-up for hard bidding and construction.

[bunzick]

We had an office master “sheet spec” that was intended to be used for small interiors projects. It included primarily simple administrative requirements, submittals and samples; quality standards; a few material requirements, such as type of mortar to be used in setting tile; and some basic installation items. None of these would ever appear otherwise on drawings. Materials selections were on drawing schedules. The format used CSI section numbers, but no and parts, but no other hierarchy. There were editor’s notes embedded, and interiors staff knew how to edit it and use it (after I trained them). It worked fantastically.