Which of the following examples is the preferred sentence and why?
“Do not use wood screws.”
“Wood screws are not acceptable.”
“Wood screws: not accepted.”
Thanks.
None of the above.
I prefer “Wood screws will not be acceptable.”
-
it immediately identifies the subject (wood screws).
-
it uses a verb tense that indicates a future action, which is actually the case.
-
it includes a negative so that those who are not strong readers get the idea that wood screws are a no-no.
However, if you’re being paid by the word, I suggest:
“Contractor shall not under any circumstances, implicit or explicit, procure and/or utilize threaded fasteners designed and manufactured for securing products and assemblies that include wood materials, unless it’s cheaper and easier to do so and the inspector is looking the other way.”
I prefer “Do not use wood screws.” It is the imperative mood; less words and without implication that it is subject to some form of approval.
In John’s last paragraph he forgot “unless otherwise indicated on the drawings” which would work fine after explicit.
David, David, David - Is this a trick question?
How about NONE OF THE ABOVE.
I’ve always operated under the philosophy that the intent of the specifications is to state the qualitative requirements for that which IS to be provided or included in the Project. The specifications are NOT to be used as a forum to list all that is NOT to be provided. If so, then - by the example above - pop rivets, stickum, binder clips, and kotter pins are not listed as being unacceptable, therefore they are allowed?? How dangerous is that?
If we start getting into the habit of listing all the items that are NOT to be provided, imagine how large the Project Manual would become! And God forbid we should inadvertently miss something. By stating the requirements of that which is to be provided, we are thereby excluding everything else. To create a listing (which would undoubtedly be incomplete) would be redundant, and sets a very dangerous precedent.
Basically, if its not on the Drawings or in the Specifications, its not allowed on the Project. Period. So providing any type of fastener other than what was specified is considered nonconforming work, and should be rejected accordingly.
Mr. Combs, I agree with you whole-heartedly, but only idealistically. I’ve encountered, as probably Mr. Axt and others, the repeated substitution requests (and surreptious attempts) for providing other than what is “specified”. True, realistically one shouldn’t try to attempt and list ALL items “not accceptable”, but be selective in those areas that tend to problematic. I don’t think that in this case that an omission (of what’s not acceptable) limits one ability to reject a substitution.
The question is not a trick question. I used wood screws as an example because I happened to be working on the wood door section talking about thru bolting.
I am merely asking the question of what is the best way to tell the contractor not to use something.
I agree that the specifications should tell the contractor what to use and not tell the contractor what not to use. In the real world we know that certain items will be used unless we explicitly tell the contractor not to use it. We get the excuse of “Well you did not tell me that I could not use it.”
Many times “negative” language creeps into our specs because some contractor on a previous job botched something up. In order to ensure that this does not happen again we say don’t do it.
This applies to execution methods as well as materials.
To make respond to the firstAnonymous comment. BTW is “Alcoholic” your first name?
I think it is a real “weasel clause” when the specs read something like.
“Do not under any circumstances use wood screws under penalty of death…unless indicated on the Drawings.”
To me that language indicates the specifier has not looked at the Drawings and is trying to CYA.
David:
It is just a version of “Read my lips; NO NEW SCREWS”
This is the correct way to do what you are asking about:
- Wood Screws: Not permitted.
I learned early in my spec writing career - from the best spec writer in the business - that it is entirely appropriate to tell the contractor what not to do.
anon
I also occasionally spec what not to use when it adds to clarity, and where experience has indicated confusion (or bad intent) is likely.
I disagree with the “1. Wood Screws: Not permitted.” format, only because of the proable context - it’s not a stand alone paragraph. Hopefully, this prohibition is being used in the context of telling what is acceptable, with this qualifier added for clarity. I would use something like this,
- Fasteners: Galvanized lag bolts. Wood screws not permitted.
John,
What the heck are you talking about? I am showing preferred, streamlined specification language! Here is the same thing, in context:
2.5 FASTENERS
A. Nails, Brads, and Staples: ASTM F 1667.
B. Power-Driven Fasteners: CABO NER-272.
C. Wood Screws: Not permitted.
anon
David,
I would use “Thanks.”
anon
So who is this “best in the business” mystery person?
Its me.
Me, too!
Anon, (whichever one of you it is): Calm down. We can disagree without getting cranky. I guess when one is logged in anonymously, one need not be constrained by any social graces - who’s to know?
As the 2nd anon in this thread, I feel that I can be forthcoming without any fears that my boss or fellow workers “easily” discovering my “non-productive” activities. Unfortunately, there will always be others that use the anon disguise for personal agendas. When discussions become more personal attacks is when I think Colin needs to consider removing the ability to be anon in these discussions?
I have the ability to place 2 restrictions on the use of the discussion forum.
-
No anon postings - I think this is not needed for the reason just stated by the posting above.
-
Approval of all postings before adding to forum - except for registered users. I have not seen a need to do this so I have not.
This discussion forum has run very cleanly with only a few off-topic postings by manufacturers or anon postings that were marginal. Approval of each message before posting will slow down the discussion as they will not be seen by the public until I or others approve them. I do not want to slow down the discussion unless needed as fast timely responses can be valuable when confronting a problem.
With all do respect to everyone above that cares about how they write specifications, I have had a difficult time caring about the issue that started this thread. If some have chosen to be a smart aleck, and not post their name, I understand.
It really does not matter how you say no. Weak enforcement of specifications is not a result of the language, it is a result of poor content, poor personnel and/or poor project management.
As I have often heard, what part of “No” don’t you understand.
I feel a need to jump back into the discussion …
Right now, I have projects with two project architects / project directors / project designers (whatever they’re called these days) who I believe are functionally illiterate. They can hardly read. And these are people who supposedly graduated from accredited architectural schools.
Looking at the construction side of the equation, the situation is even darker. I think those who actually construct buildings are very intelligent. They take ideas and turn them into tangible construction. But they are not as skilled when it comes to reading complex documents.
Then there are those who intentionally misconstrue specified requirements, believing there is financial advantage in fouling up the contract documents.
That’s why David Axt’s question is one to take seriously, although I couldn’t resist a little humor.
I have a cousin who worked for a high-tech electronics company. He has two masters degrees and worked with PhD’s. He received many appreciative remarks from the very well educated PhD’s about how clearly his memos were written. He never told them that he used the Grammatik grammar checking program with his ol’ WordPerfect 5.1 software to bring his writing style down to 8th grade level!
The challenge … and this is directed to me as much as anyone … is to write simply … and clearly and concisely. This is a simple challenge but certainly not easy.