tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post5076261282059132869..comments2024-02-28T02:23:50.477-06:00Comments on Constructive Thoughts: Tell me again, part 1Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13799057838622646083noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-72299912432868760122015-09-22T16:10:20.375-05:002015-09-22T16:10:20.375-05:00I am a small (two person) spec consulting firm and...I am a small (two person) spec consulting firm and I maintain hundreds of up-to-date standards that I need for my work. The expense is simply the cost of doing business. Any design, construction, or manufacturing firm, large or small, would be neglect to not have current standards applicable to the conduct or operation of their business. It would be like doing their taxes based on outdated tax laws?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01696098119505345547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-24307094860751657452015-08-31T15:09:45.277-05:002015-08-31T15:09:45.277-05:00http://www.astm.org/BOOKSTORE/BOS/section4.htm sug...http://www.astm.org/BOOKSTORE/BOS/section4.htm suggests that the cost for the Construction-related ASTM standards is almost $3,000. That's a huge pill to swallow for a small architectural practice, on top of whatever one might pay for a subscription to a "prepared" master specification product.<br /><br />I agree that errors in citing a reference are a problem, but to use the whole ASTM nomenclature is a challenge. Unless you have the book with you, or have memorized the ins and outs of what you specify, how does one know if the item in front of you on the job site is the Type III or the Type VI version? Perhaps it's printed on the container or package ... and we hope they got it right. For me, a little bit of plain English, As Long As It Is Correct, goes a long ways.<br /><br />I agree that "References" is often overused. Many specification preparers seem to think that the more standards mentioned, the more likely someone will be able to "catch" the contractor ... bad approach.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561237529461778296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-17379353822191479892015-08-20T07:51:01.377-05:002015-08-20T07:51:01.377-05:00Why, indeed! Although the References article is of...Why, indeed! Although the References article is often used, it is not universal. With SpecLink and other automated specification software it's no longer a problem to have a correct list of the references used in section, but many specifiers do not include that article unless required by the owner. <br /><br />The Related Sections article has a somewhat different problem in that judgment is required to compile that list. Too many people don't understand that this article should be limited to those things "the reader might expect to find in this section", and instead generate what sometimes appears to be a table of contents. Taken literally, "related sections" would include all spec sections and drawings, but that would hardly be useful. <br /><br />Thanks for the comments, Hans!Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799057838622646083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-19177861522174324492015-08-20T07:18:03.528-05:002015-08-20T07:18:03.528-05:00This is an issue I am working through right now wh...This is an issue I am working through right now when I review designer contract documents for work on our Memphis UTHSC campus. Another related problem is the specifier will list reference standards applicable to the section in Part 1, many of which are NOT related to the section. I would prefer the designer not list anything if they are not willing to do the research to ascertain if the reference does indeed apply to the specification section. Another issue in Part 1 is "Related Sections", also suffering from the same malady. I am all for coordinated documentation but when the specifier fails to confirm if those sections listed are actually related then why list them at all? Hans Faulhaberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16088436490362152713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-56600282420860319002015-08-18T09:47:33.990-05:002015-08-18T09:47:33.990-05:00I welcome the effort of PublicResource.org. Also, ...I welcome the effort of PublicResource.org. Also, I applaud NFPA for making their standards available without cost.Michael@Chusid.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02539490607555267490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-71492532875947370352015-08-18T08:18:30.804-05:002015-08-18T08:18:30.804-05:00Excellent points, Leo. I've been a specifier f...Excellent points, Leo. I've been a specifier for nearly thirty years, and I still haven't read - let alone understood - but a relative few of the standards I use. Soon after I became a specifier I realized I would never know everything I need to know to do my job (http://bit.ly/1JeGXoN), and each day the gap widens. <br /><br />And, as noted in "Faith-based specifications" http://bit.ly/1E2ZCrz, there is little rational basis for criteria established by standards, making them even harder to understand. Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799057838622646083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-24925222957026677202015-08-18T03:50:31.180-05:002015-08-18T03:50:31.180-05:001. Totally agreeable and sensible. 2. An office ma...1. Totally agreeable and sensible. 2. An office may be able to afford to buy the books, but they cannot typically afford to read and understand them. Most standards reflect a political process that in turn reflects the interest of both the "common good" and the interest of the stakeholders that sat on the committee that developed the standards.. These are subtle details that seem unimportant (and often unintelligible without a lot of background) in the absence of a lawsuit or other serious conflict. Your example mentioned measurement methods, typically something understood by few of those who write or are governed by the spec. <br />Leo Schlosberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05967603450005390614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-74236447311082816692015-08-17T21:53:19.672-05:002015-08-17T21:53:19.672-05:00That's something even large firms have trouble...That's something even large firms have trouble with. I work in an office of about 140, and we cannot afford to buy every standard. However, ASTM's "ASTM Standards in Building Codes" is affordable, at $1,000 in hardcopy to about $1,500 for the online version. As the title suggests, this reference library contains the vast majority of ASTM standards used in construction.<br /><br />Many standards are free downloads, and many project representatives purchase standards and give them to the designers they work with. <br /><br />While it is extremely difficult for a designer or contractor to have copies of everything, there is no excuse for manufacturers or subcontractors to not have copies of the much smaller number of standards that apply to their work. <br /><br />Why should anyone have to pay for building codes, or standards they are required to follow? They are, in essence, laws, so they should be free. Look up Carl Malamud and his PublicResource.org; he has been fighting for years to make state laws available at no cost - and winning. http://bit.ly/1wwoH4B.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13799057838622646083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416426589713285085.post-34319038274456979792015-08-17T11:02:08.180-05:002015-08-17T11:02:08.180-05:00Thank you for discussing concerns about how to use...Thank you for discussing concerns about how to use industry standards in construction specifications. One of the reasons for errors is that few specifiers and contractors have copies of the thousands of standards used in construction. I would welcome your thoughts how small architectural, engineering, and construction firms can get affordable access to standards.Michael@Chusid.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02539490607555267490noreply@blogger.com