The CSI Specifying Practice Group this month was led by Keith Pardoe, Director of Technical Services for the Door and Hardware Institute (DHI). Keith explained the role that DHI is taking to promote good specification practices. DHI teaches hardware consultant the principles espoused by the CSI Project Resource Manual to help ensure hardware specifications conform to the recognized industry best practices.
Despite the DHI efforts, Keith was able to share examples of poorly written hardware specifications prepared by hardware consultants.
Keith advised the group to read what consultants provide and to be aware of what the specs contain. These deficiencies affect the reader's perception of the quality of the spec and the quality control of the project architect over the spec writing process. The examples would certainly result in confusion about the specifier's intent. Ultimately, RFIs and potential change orders would be required to clarify what should have been clear without additional explanation.
Additional examples showed the specifier's attempt to shift responsibility from the specifier to the general contractor and the hardware supplier. These examples included text that required the contractor and hardware supplier to be responsible for constructing a complete and correct hardware installation, regardless whether the spec was correct or not. The examples also prevented the contractor from requesting change orders to account for inadequacies of the spec. The example specs circumvented the idea of requesting a clarification from the architect if the contractor found a conflict or discrepancy by requiring the contractor to furnish the best quality and most costly solution to meet the spec intent.
Practice group members agreed that these practices of shifting responsibility were inappropriate and that the spec should be tailored to fit the particular project needs. When the spec carefully and thoroughly documents the project requirements, shifting responsibility is not necessary. The group members also agreed that these types of requirements are generally unenforceable, especially when the project is publicly bid. Public bidding may actually cause the situation to be worse because the contractor will search the spec to find the conflicting and missing information, bid what is specified to ensure a low price, and then open the door for future change orders when the project scope is actually defined.
Read more about the practice group meetings at the CSI Blog.
The Specifying Practice Group meets for one hour the first Thursday of every month. Join the Group! It is free. Everyone that reads or writes specifications is welcome. Come participate and share your opinions so all may learn from your point of view.
Despite the DHI efforts, Keith was able to share examples of poorly written hardware specifications prepared by hardware consultants.
- Specs with sentences that ignored many grammatical rules.
- Specs that relied on spell check instead of proofreading.
- Specs that did not follow CSI's standards of practice.
Keith advised the group to read what consultants provide and to be aware of what the specs contain. These deficiencies affect the reader's perception of the quality of the spec and the quality control of the project architect over the spec writing process. The examples would certainly result in confusion about the specifier's intent. Ultimately, RFIs and potential change orders would be required to clarify what should have been clear without additional explanation.
Additional examples showed the specifier's attempt to shift responsibility from the specifier to the general contractor and the hardware supplier. These examples included text that required the contractor and hardware supplier to be responsible for constructing a complete and correct hardware installation, regardless whether the spec was correct or not. The examples also prevented the contractor from requesting change orders to account for inadequacies of the spec. The example specs circumvented the idea of requesting a clarification from the architect if the contractor found a conflict or discrepancy by requiring the contractor to furnish the best quality and most costly solution to meet the spec intent.
Practice group members agreed that these practices of shifting responsibility were inappropriate and that the spec should be tailored to fit the particular project needs. When the spec carefully and thoroughly documents the project requirements, shifting responsibility is not necessary. The group members also agreed that these types of requirements are generally unenforceable, especially when the project is publicly bid. Public bidding may actually cause the situation to be worse because the contractor will search the spec to find the conflicting and missing information, bid what is specified to ensure a low price, and then open the door for future change orders when the project scope is actually defined.
Read more about the practice group meetings at the CSI Blog.
The Specifying Practice Group meets for one hour the first Thursday of every month. Join the Group! It is free. Everyone that reads or writes specifications is welcome. Come participate and share your opinions so all may learn from your point of view.
Leave a comment