Those that don’t fall under the category of “Favorite Typos” that is.
Received a request from a project architect the other day for a specification for a two-ply EPDM roofing system (and NO - it had nothing to do with a desire for redundancy).
Any others out there?
Mechanical specs guy wanted me to revise our long-standing master for Field Painting and insert references to some of his Sections where he referenced my Section, which had none of the information he needed [and should have submitted as to work items, systems, materials, types, etc.], in it regarding the painting he was indicating.
Ralph,
Say what?
“I want you to list in the specs all of the locations where code requires safety glazing, so I don’t have to figure it out and to show it on the drawings.”
From an institution’s “Standard” Division 1, yes not 01, but 1…and all of the Sections are numbered in MF 1988. HELP!!!
The Contractor has the option of using a standard “Rent-a-Fence” with a minimum height of 7 feet provided that the fence is reinforced as required to deter vandalism.
By a kid throwing rocks?
By a car being run into it?
The sound you hear is my head banging against my desk. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
EDUCATE, my friend-- EDUCATE!!!
Well, if the owner is requiring its use, go ahead and use it. Advise them of a proposed alternative text, if you like, but it’s their project and they ultimately bear the risk that comes with it. If I make a suggestion to the owner and she doesn’t accept it, I don’t loose any sleep over it.
It was more than a few years ago at a design oriented world class firm that I was told:
“Okay, you have explained that it is not to code and probably not buildable, but we want you to leave it in as a record of the design process”.
Meaning the spec writer, project tech leader and the harried CA team would be left responsible for messing up the design principals brilliant design.