I’ll help too, Ron.
Maybe this will draw others–
ALPHABET SOUP-- ICC; IBC; CSI; CDs…YA, YAH!!!
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Cincinnati, OH
Grabbing the bull by the horns and striking while the iron is hot are both commendable tasks, as they face the risks but make attempts to resolve and make things better. They are the types of things that quite often simply must be done to make any progress at all.
The long-standing anxiety between contractors and specifications continues, unabated, and in need of attention. The task here is to elevate understanding of specifications, and have them both respected for what they are, but also for what they contribute to project work-- and to defang, forever, the idea of punitive and gotcha implications that are attached to them.
In a generally parallel situation, there is need for similar efforts to infuse the code administration community with the value of specifications, and what they do in assisting plan review and ensuring better understanding of, control of, and archiving of projects within all jurisdictions.
As code administration has matured and become more sophisticated over the last few decades, it is rather amazing that specifications have received so little attention by the code officials. As more and more of the cue personnel have become registered design professionals, it would seem that specifications should become less of a lost item in the work. But apparently not so.
We all have been touched by and impacted by some code officials who choose to act beyond their authority, and outside the propriety of their office. We have all seen personal opinions, personal agendas, patently misinterpretations, and unwarranted and unsubstantiated demands made by code officers. Too often, for the sake of other aspects of the work, we have acquiesced to their requirements, when in fact they were wrong.
In addition, we all have received multiple page letters of code discrepancies, many of which ask about aspects of the project under review, that in reality are covered fully, in the specifications. In fact, the contract documents sent in for review, SHOULD include the specifications, as it is ONLY the combination of drawing and specification information that completely addresses the project-- one or the other is not sufficient. And that is by long-held definition of contract documents.
On the code side, applications for permits are often submitted prior to completion. In that the applicant is eager to get on with it, and is pushing for quick approval. But in that, too, are the gaps and glitches in the documentation that often confounds good and rapid plan review. Its hard to understand the reluctance to request and use the specifications, even if they too are incomplete. Most all Plan Examiners are quite astute in their work and their understanding of construction and its documentation. So, again, why the quirky attitude in regard to specifications-- in whatever form they may befull length, short form, drawing notes, etc.
Projects cannot be reviewed with information contained only in the minds of the design professionals, the D/B folks, or the contractors. Specifications are specifically formulated and created to augment and expand drawing information, including that which is code-related.
A near impasse perhaps, but certainly a very fertile field for CSI to engage [and apparently has done with ICC]. The knowledge of specifications resides in CSI, so maybe there is both a need and an obligation to urgently reach out and engage the code administrators and provide a full array of pertinent specifications insight and assistance for their benefit.
Now one caution-- there will ALWAYS be rogue personnel out there who will not embrace specifications for love, money, or the issuance of a permit!
Their loss.