Let's Fix Construction
  • Blog
  • Why & Who?
  • Workshops
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • A & E Coordination
    • CDT Education Program
    • Let's Fix Construction
    • Social Media & AEC
    • Specifier/Product Rep
    • Specs 101
    • Young Professionals
    • Past Workshops
  • Contributors
  • Submit
  • Accolades
  • Donate
  • Contact

Tell Me Again: Say it Once in the Right Place

10/30/2017

3 Comments

 
Picture
Contributed by Sheldon Wolfe
I’m sure you’ve heard the Army way of presenting information: Tell them what you’re going to tell them; tell them; tell them what you told them.
 
While that may be a practical way of doing some things, it has no place in construction documents. For those, we have a different rule: Say it once in the right place. I think it’s safe to say that specifiers believe this rule, though convincing those who create the drawings is difficult; the result often is that the specifications may state things but once, while it’s common for drawings to repeat things many times, and it’s also common for drawing notes to repeat what is stated in the specifications.
 
So what’s the big deal? Why not repeat things?  I believe the intent is good, and that everyone working on drawings or specifications simply wants to make sure the contractor knows what is needed. That’s the theory, but what really happens?
 
Let’s start with specifications; it’s quite common for a specification section to say the same thing twice. Here’s an example I have used when teaching specification writing classes. It’s from a specification I found online, but the same problems are found in manufacturers’ specifications and in commercial guide specifications.

2.02    Materials
 
A.    Flat roof board insulation: Extruded polystyrene board to ASTM C578, Type IV, rigid, closed cell type.

  1. Thermal resistance (ASTM C518): R-5 per 1 inch of thickness.
  2. Board size: 24” x 96”.
  3. Board thickness: As indicated on the Drawings.
  4. Compressive strength (ASTM D1621): Minimum 25 psi.
  5. Water absorption: 0.7% by volume maximum.
  6. Edges: Square.   
  7. Water vapor permeance (ASTM E96): Maximum 1.1 perms.
 
That looks pretty good, right? Not really. Here’s the problem: Much of the information in the numbered paragraphs is already required by ASTM C578, and is, therefore, redundant.
2.02A. ASTM C578 – Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular Polystyrene Thermal Insulation, is, as the title states, for rigid polystyrene insulation. The standard states that the insulation shall “have essentially closed cells.” The standard also states the following requirements for Type IV insulation:
  • R value: 5 per inch.
  • Compressive strength: Minimum 25 psi.
  • Water vapor permeance: Maximum 1.1 perms.
 
The stated water absorption is a bit of a mystery; ASTM C578 allows only 0.3 percent, while the specification allows 0.7 percent. I can’t tell if this is a typo, or if it’s measured by the same standard.
 
If we remove the redundancies, along with 2.02A.3 – a needless statement – we’re left with this:

A.    Flat roof insulation: ASTM C578, Type IV.
  1. Board size: 24” x 96”.
  2. Edges: Square. 

And that could be further reduced to a single statement by including the subparagraphs in the main paragraph. Instead of 9 paragraphs and 71 words, the insulation can be specified in a single paragraph using 14 words.
 
The usual objection I get is, “So what? What’s a few extra words? They’re correct, aren’t they?”
 
They are, but why are the requirements restated? Doing so adds nothing; more important, one could argue that because only those performance criteria are stated, the specifier doesn’t care about the other things required by ASTM C578, such as density, flexural strength, dimensional stability, oxygen index, the test temperature for the R value test, or acceptable defects. Part of the problem is that specifiers often state requirements that don’t matter, simply because they’re in a manufacturer’s specification.
 
The usual counter is, “Of course we want all that, too. The contractor has to provide it because it’s part of the standard.” If that’s the argument, then why list any of the properties required by the standard?
 
Another argument is that specifying those properties makes it easier to review submittals. I suppose that’s true, but again I ask, what about the other properties?
 
Another problem with restating parts of the reference standard is that doing so introduces another possibility for conflict. In this case, it’s quite possible that the specified water absorption is a typo. Another possible problem arises when a person unfamiliar with the standard changes the Type, say, from Type IV to Type V, and doesn’t change the compressive strength.
 
Virtually any reference standard contains a multitude of requirement, some stated, some incorporated by reference. Their value lies in the fact that requiring compliance with them automatically makes the entire standard part of the contract documents. Selectively restating selected parts of those standards is not only unnecessary, but it suggests that the few things cited are the only ones that are important.
 
Another redundancy in specification sections is created when a manufacturer’s instructions are included in the section. A simple “Comply with manufacturer’s instructions” makes those instructions part of the contract documents. It also avoids problems created by incorrect copying, and by changes in the manufacturer’s instructions.
 
Further complicating the issue is the fact that different manufacturers may well have different instructions. If a specification section is based on Really Great Coatings Super Stuff, which is applied at 30 mils, but you get Coatings-R-Us, which goes on at 60 mils, the specification is simply wrong. You could address the problem by specifying requirement for one product, followed by “Or other as required by manufacturer” but why not take it a step further, and simply require compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions?
 
Of course, your personal experience may have been that you want something other than what the manufacturer requires. If that’s the case, you may be justified in changing the manufacturer’s instructions. Be aware, though, that if something goes awry, the contractor may well blame the problem on you.
3 Comments
Keith Robinson
11/2/2017 09:11:11 pm

Spot on Sheldon. I usually refer to this as Fat, Lean or PHAT... and if referring to the correct meaning of phat - meaning excellent, rather than the derogatory urban dictionary slang term. Maybe the three bears approach of too hot, cold or just right. Basically listing only those properties that are necessary to describe the product. In saying that I have to admit being responsible for my share of fat specs. Fortunately experience gives us the guidance we need to come up with the just write (pun intended) spec needed to convey the right level of information needed by the constructor.

Reply
Sheldon link
11/4/2017 02:34:16 am

Thanks for the comments, Keith. Despite many years of working toward the Goldilocks optimum, I find I have not achieved my goal. Worse, I recently switched from the specifications I had been working with for nearly thirty years to a commercial guide specification system; suddenly, I'm back to square one. It's amazing that producers of commercial guide specifications ignore so much of the Manual of Practice/PRM/Practice Guides.

Reply
Paul Gerber link
2/10/2018 12:06:25 pm

While brevity can be next to godliness in writing specifications, if we follow industry best practices (ideals) to the letter. I would like to point out that while “fat” specs can cause the problems stated by my esteemed colleague and curmudgeonly friend, I also would suggest that “emaciated” specs like the “ideal” example can potentially cause problems as well; and not necessarily the legal time.

While being longer in the tooth than some, and having written specs for a good number of years (not as many as others); I would have to say that even with this experience, I would have to spend some time trying to figure out exactly is required for roof insulation based on the “ideal” example. Now put this into the hands of a Contractor, Subcontractor or Contract Administrator and consider how much money it is costing on the project for different people to “research” what the project requirements really are to ensure compliance with the Contract Documents. I think the only people that may know exactly what is required employing this amount of brevity is a roofing or insulation Product Representative. Most people’s eyes glaze over at the first mention of a reference standard, let alone have access to a copy of the referenced standard to figure out what the requirements really are. Yes, I know this is not an excuse, but it is reality; and supports the experience factor Keith mentions!

I also like to think (maybe I’m stretching it a little here) that our specifications can be a bit of an extension of the Specifier’s typical mandate of being an educator to the project team and extending it past the design team. Maybe, just maybe, this knowledge will stick with some people moving forward if they read it, because if we rely on them looking in a standard it is pretty certain that this knowledge will never be attained.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    About

    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.


    Check out Cherise's latest podcast
    Picture


    Get blog post notifications here

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    RSS Feed


    Archives

    March 2022
    May 2021
    May 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016

    Categories

    All
    Architecture
    Certification
    Collaboration
    Communication
    Concrete
    Construction
    Construction Administration
    Contract Documents
    CSI
    Education
    Estimators
    Fabrication
    Fix
    Manufacturing
    Misconception
    Myths & Facts
    Podcast
    Refresh
    Specifications
    Subcontractors
    Technology
    Training

    Tweets by FixConstruction
© COPYRIGHT 2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • Blog
  • Why & Who?
  • Workshops
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • A & E Coordination
    • CDT Education Program
    • Let's Fix Construction
    • Social Media & AEC
    • Specifier/Product Rep
    • Specs 101
    • Young Professionals
    • Past Workshops
  • Contributors
  • Submit
  • Accolades
  • Donate
  • Contact