Contributed by Liz O'Sullivan
Recently, I was preparing a masonry architectural specification section for a remodel project. The project has an existing CMU wall which is to receive a small area of new CMU infill. It’s an exterior structural wall, and the architectural drawings indicate that the infill CMU is to be grouted solid.
I asked the structural engineer if we need reinforcing bars (rebar) in the cores of the CMU. I told him that I would delete rebar from the spec section if we don’t need rebar, so that the Contractor knows he doesn’t need to provide it.
The engineer said, “You can just leave it in the specs. If the rebar isn’t on the Drawings, they’ll know they don’t need it.”
Drawings and Specifications are complementary and what is called for by one shall be as binding as if called for by both.”
This is according to the General Conditions of the Contract for this project. This is a typical provision in construction contracts. (1)
So, if rebar isn’t required for that wall, there should be no rebar in the spec or on the drawings. If rebar is in the specs, even if it’s not on the drawings, rebar is required by the contract. If rebar is on the drawings, even if it’s not in the specs, rebar is required by the contract.
Design professionals need to completely comprehend this concept, and for some unknown reason, many don’t. Contractors need to completely comprehend this requirement, and for an understandable reason (it’s not in their best interest at times) they don’t always seem to grasp this.
The lead design professional on the project, the entity who is performing construction contract administration, is the party who must enforce the contract documents, including the specifications. This party has to understand the relationships among contract documents before he or she can properly enforce them. If the specifications and drawings have been prepared to be complementary, and are clear, concise, correct, and complete, they will be easy to understand (for all parties) and easy to enforce.
Contributed by Cherise Lakeside
I have one goal with this blog. One crazy idea that if I can get some people to read this, they will change the way they work.
That goal? READ the DIVISION 01 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS in the specifications of your project.
I know what some of my friendly compatriots are going to say when they see that sentence. They are going to say “Cherise, that’s a no brainer!” I mean, really, am I writing a blog about something so simple? Damned right I am.
A few years ago, I wrapped up almost six years of working for an MEP engineering firm. This was a very unique opportunity to work on yet another side of the fence in AEC: to see how the other half lives. It was an opportunity to see why some of the breakdowns I saw were happening between the Architect and the Consultants.
It was both an eye opening experience and a wake-up call. Many of the things that I had complained about during my previous 23 years at an architectural firm, when it came to communicating and coordinating with consultants, were actually my fault. I got to look in the mirror and admit that I had been wrong. It was my job to coordinate the appropriate information with consultants, but because I didn’t understand how they worked and what knowledge they had, I did not do that coordination thoroughly or effectively.
Once I realized that there was a much more limited exposure to the entirety of the documents for consultants, no education in contract documents and almost no appropriate sharing of knowledge from the Architect to the consultants, I knew I had to change something.
That was when I created my first “Specs 101” class. The very first one was geared toward consultants and engineers. A 50,000 foot view to understanding all the pieces and parts of the Specifications that were not being shared with them, the common places that need coordination and just general education on where the information belongs and who is responsible for that information. It also covered how that information will sometimes clash. Can you say, “Access Panels”?!?!
The class was very well received and I took it even further in developing an Architect/Consultant Coordination checklist for the most common things that created conflict, missing information or repeated information.
Contributed by Keith Robinson
Actually estimators do not dislike specifiers, they dislike what specifiers produce when timely and productive research is not done during the documentation of project requirements.
I never cease to be amazed at the way people read and interpret our specifications. Each reader has a different perspective; and depending on the that individual’s point of view, the subsequent communication essential to the reasons why we spend so much time and effort creating specifications.
There are many readers who view the specification as “just a listing of products”; a few weeks ago I discussed with estimators their needs, and was stunned by their assertion that the specification content does not work for them --> that the specifier did understand what they needed to do their work more effectively. Being a naturally inquisitive person; I saw this as an opportunity to as “why do you believe that?”, and sought out an answer.
There were several outcomes to this conversation; one of the most prominent points being that there needs to be a relationship established between specifiers and estimators, and the other being that the people who read the specifications are consumers. Consumers look to the product quality; the specification product is information, meaning that better information leads to a better product for the consumer.
The Issue with Product Orientated Specifications
So what are the estimators saying they need for a better product? Turns out that there are people out in the wide world of document preparation (and who may not be real specifiers) that insist on making their specifications “fair” to the greatest number of potential installers/suppliers/manufacturers/fabricators as possible. These types of specifications typically include soup-to-nuts, and throw in the kitchen sink to round things out… and perhaps the nuts aren’t edible --> they are actually fasteners.
There is also the mistake of being overly specific and considering only one product; the one that was last seen in the manufacturer’s trade show, the one we’d just love to find a home for… and that may be specialized to the point that the estimators do not know where or how to obtain the product.
Estimators and specifiers look to product listings as being examples of the performance aspects required for the project. They are not a shopping list --- pick one, any one --- product listings must be thoroughly researched and compared to the needs of the project. Fairness is achieved using a thorough investigative approach to the product listings, and realization that there may be other products in the marketplace that can deliver the needs of the project --> and is the reason why proposed substitutions should be considered when presented by the constructor (more on that topic in a different posting).
Once in a long while --- the concept of a single product specification can work; there are always exceptions to what we do, but the success of the few instances should not be seen as solution for all situations.
The Issue with Manufacturer’s Installation Instructions
The other aspect of Product Oriented Specifications is that they are usually accompanied by a simplified execution requirement stated as “Install in accordance with manufacturer’s written instructions”.
Again, once in a long while this is fine, and is appropriate when there is a very specialized item that does not depend on or influence any other elements of the building… as long as the assembly actually has manufacturer’s installation instructions, so again research – research --- research. In the usual trail of events, however, creating the statement “Install in accordance with manufacturer’s installation instructions” is not enough information.
Manufacturer’s instructions include several different and perhaps conflicting instructions, which the specifier needs to select to make appropriate to the project, or by describing enough of the actual installation instructions for the consumer to understand what is intended or required without actually stating precise site installation requirements.
Sometimes several different manufacturers are acceptable, and they may have slightly different installation instructions. That’s the main reason that specifications often rely on “Install in accordance with…” statements. Research must be done to compare installation instructions and compile common requirements and identify those that are different; enough information is provided to clearly communicate which of the different installation instructions are intended to be used in the project --> and which then makes the estimator a very happy person.
As a for instance --- a statement like “apply primer at a rate required by the manufacturer appropriate to the substrate” is preferable over a statement such as “apply primer at a rate of 400 mL/m2 for gypsum sheathing or 300 mL/m2 for concrete masonry units”. There is a point where one manufacturer could require X grams per m2 coverage and the other manufacturer needs Y grams per m2, and where the manufacturer’s rate of installation curing is directly related to a site condition.
This is also a good reason to allow drawing notes to reflect only the layer description and forego any additional descriptors. We often encounter drawing notes that pretend to be instructions rather than an indication of intent, causing a note such as “APPLY AIR/VAPOR BARRIER TO PRIMED SUBSTRATES”. The drawing note in this case should read “AIR/VAPOR MEMBRANE” --- apply the KISS Principle. Overly detailed drawing notes that are not coordinated with the specification is a sure way to drive the estimator batty --> particularly when the drawing note has potential to contradict the manufacturers written instructions where a primer is not specifically required for a particular substrate.
My conversation with the estimators had a positive outcome, we are going to work together to bring about industry accepted limits to interpretation, recognize that the various parties consuming the specification have different needs. The estimator needs clear direction to product selection and substitution procedures with project specific installation requirements that could affect price; the designer needs to see that an appropriate number of pre-construction meetings and mock-ups are listed to confirm that the owner’s design program is met; the contract administrator needs to see that shop drawings are submitted when appropriate (shop drawings indicate a design solutions) and when meetings are to occur; lawyers need to confirm that language in the specification match terminology in the contract; and so on --- with each subsequent consumer taking away specific kernels of information that lead to a complete understanding of project needs.
One of my new found peers called estimators and specifiers doppelgangers of each other --> we share similar office requirements (a square box with a door --- door contains a round hole at the top to insert drawings and a square slot at the bottom to output the specification or estimate). It was meant in jest of course, but was a good metaphor to the similar roles we perform on opposite sides of the Bid Period.
If the estimator and the specifier could actually sit in the same room during document production, or estimate preparation... a multitude of issues could be solved. There are a number of concepts surrounding these two specific skills sets that are mutually compatible, and could provide the Owner (our client) with a timelier, better quality and perhaps less costly project. Only time will tell --- it is truly amazing what a conversation can lead to... stay tuned for updates.
Contributed by Vivian Volz
Are you communicating with your specifier during construction administration? Are you, perhaps, a little afraid to tell your specifier about something that didn’t get built according to the spec?
I will tell you, that’s exactly the kind of feedback we specifiers most need, in order to serve you better. Don’t be afraid.
What’s the point of communicating with your specifier once the specs are done? Well, there are a few points, and many of them can make your project better and your work better.
It’s precisely because of the feedback I get on my specs that I make myself available for construction administration consultation for every project. I also feel that this service improves my clients’ spec literacy, which makes the next project go more smoothly.
What if your specifier gets shocked or offended when you don’t enforce their spec? It’s worth examining your relationship. Think back on how you told her first, and see if it’s reasonable for her to have thought you devalued or ignored her hard work. If that’s a reasonable interpretation, apologize. A happy consultant is a faithful, dedicated consultant, after all. On the other hand, if you have a specifier who is hostile or unreceptive to your feedback, you have a choice: find out whether the relationship can be improved, or go shopping for a more collaborative specifier.
When you're a good teammate, and so is your specifier, you have the specifier you deserve. And good teammates have nothing to fear in working together.
Let's Fix Construction is an avenue to offer creative solutions, separate myths from facts and erase misconceptions about the architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) industry.
Get blog post notifications here