tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post8769590997981775957..comments2024-02-28T02:23:50.477-06:00Comments on Constructive Thoughts: Where do bad specifications come from? Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13799057838622646083noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-84780445914215087892017-08-27T18:15:47.502-05:002017-08-27T18:15:47.502-05:00Thanks for the comments, Leo. In a few sentences, ...Thanks for the comments, Leo. In a few sentences, you have addressed a number of the problems we have in communicating design intent to contractors, manufacturers, suppliers, and installers. <br /><br />Your comments suggest you deal only with architectural precast and cast stone, and that you limit yourself to bidding those things you are familiar with; I applaud your policy of limiting your work to those things you understand. This seems like an obvious approach, but too often we find suppliers and installers, and even prime contractors, bidding on things for which they are not qualified. <br /><br />The specifier's job is easy: Know everything about everything. Unfortunately, with the thousands of products used in construction, that simply isn't possible, as you acknowledge. There is no way a specifier can gain the knowledge you have from working daily with your products, from knowing and ordering the materials, from fabrication and installation of the product, and from correcting problems that have occurred. You live your product - you may even love your product - and you get your hands dirty. <br /><br />Specifiers rely on a number of things in their efforts to create specifications that adequately describe the work: Commercial guide specifications, codes, reference standards, manufacturers' specifications, manufacturers' literature, manufacturers' installation instructions and recommendations, manufacturers' representatives, advice from other specifiers, and experience. Note the frequent occurrence of the word "manufacturer" in this list, which could be expanded to include "installer." <br /><br />We do the best we can, and to do that we must contact manufacturers and installers directly to learn about the products, and, at the same time, to learn what they need to see in the specifications. Specifiers often do learn a great deal about a handful of things (usually because of problems during construction), but that extensive knowledge is limited to a specific aspect of a specific product. <br /><br />Many firms will tell you they start with master specifications for every project. In practice, it's quite common to do as you said, that is, copy from a previous project. As long as the specifier knows exactly what was in the previous project and exactly what is required for the new project, and edits the specifications accordingly, that should work. The problems frequently arise when what the specifier understood to be "just like the previous project" is something different. <br /><br />However, contractors and subcontractors can't simply ignore the specifications, which are part of the contract. They are responsible for understanding the drawings and specifications before they submit a bid, and, in fact, they typically sign a form that says they have examined the bidding documents and understand them. If they don't understand them, they must either get clarification or not submit a bid. Otherwise, they are required to comply with the documents. I understand your frustration with incomplete or incorrect bidding documents, and I believe the designer must do what is necessary to correct them. Not only that, but the designer must not try to force contractors to cover the costs of fixing problems caused by the documents. <br /><br />Architects are equally frustrated when contractors ignore the documents and say, "We didn't bid it that way because that's not the way we do it." When that happens, designers are entitled to require compliance with the documents and require the contractor to pay the costs of fixing the problems. <br /><br />For an interesting story of what can happen when specifications are recycled from a previous project, see http://swspecificthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/10/it-worked-last-time-perils-of-recycling.html. Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799057838622646083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-33427813286141709452017-08-23T08:51:57.828-05:002017-08-23T08:51:57.828-05:00Amen. As a narrowly focused supplier I need to be ...Amen. As a narrowly focused supplier I need to be acutely aware of the content of each spec and where I will and will not comply. My standards are probably higher than yours. I work only within precast concrete 03400 and it's close cousin, cast stone (04720). But I do not get involved with most of 03400 and would not consider myself competent to review a spec for precast I was not deeply familiar with (such as prestressed items, or pipe). I am at risk for serious dollar loss if I do not understand every line in the spec. Spec writers are held to a very different standard (and not unreasonably, how could they actually have knowledge that was both broad and deep and also applicable to the particulars of a project?). A typical concern for me is not the unnecessary text, but the applicability of the project-specific info. More often than not the spec was copied from another project, with for example fascia panels, and this one is planter walls, but the project reference is unchanged. Leo Schlosberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05967603450005390614noreply@blogger.com