Bad Specs: January 2012 Archives

Consultant specifications delivered to architects for inclusion in project manuals can produce some interesting coordination issues, especially when there is no time to make corrections before the scheduled publication.

Food Service Equipment Spec
The following (edited for brevity) was received from a food service consultant. I am not sure why order of precedence is considered a performance requirement.

1.04    Performance Requirements

A. Where architectural and engineering drawing and specifications differ from food service drawings and specifications, the food service documents govern.

B. Where food service drawings differ from food service specifications, the specifications govern.

C. Where food service equipment specifications differ from food service specifications, the equipment specifications govern.

D. Where food service detail drawings differ from other drawings and specifications, the detail drawings govern.

Were the documents really created giving the highest priority greatest scrutiny to those that are highest in the order of precedence? Probably not.

So What's the Problem?
That is just it. There is no problem!

The documents, through order of precedence, resolve all the problems, automatically. No intervention by the architect, engineers, food service consultant or owner is required. The order of precedence resolves the conflict without need of clarification by the design team. Potentially dangerous? You bet!

What if the detail drawings are wrong? Too bad! The contractor's price and contract relies on the detail drawings as the governing documents. If the design team finds the detail drawings are wrong after the contract is signed, the owner will pay for the change. If the condition is discovered late in construction, the owner may pay dearly, with a delayed opening and lost revenue.

A Better Course
When (Not IF but WHEN) discrepancies in the documents are discovered, the best course is always to require the contractor to ask the architect to interpret the documents' intent. Hopefully the contractor will ask questions sooner (during bidding) rather than later (while constructing the affected work). Requests for Interpretations (RFIs) give the contractor an opportunity to suggest a solution.

Then the architect has an opportunity to evaluate the discrepancy and make a decision about what was intended. He can choose the contractor's solution or issue one of his own.

Even if the solution results in a change, at least the result will be best for the project - not an arbitrary resolution based on the prescribed relative importance of the project documents.

Plan and Share
Draft your specifications early enough to circulate among the project team members for proper coordination. Minimal effort before documents are issued for bidding can save significant effort during construction administration.

"All work shall be of the highest quality, in accordance with the best trade practices, and performed by skilled workmen. All work shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Architect and Owner."

This is text that was suggested by a prominent building envelope consulting firm to be inserted into a curtain wall specification. As I read it, I could only think CSI's Construction Document Technologist (CDT) certification program and the basics it teaches.

Fraught with Questions
If the work must be completed to the highest quality and best practices, then how can the results be measured? The required results have never been achieved before, not if they are indeed the best. So there is no basis for comparison. If this statement is included in every contract and actually enforced, we would soon be resorting to checking for nicks on screw threads to distinguish a difference to make the current project the best.

What happens when the Architect and Owner disagree about what is satisfactory? The contractor is obligated to satisfy both. If the work is satisfactory to the Architect and the Owner, does that relieve the obligation to be the best? Why would the contractor do more to be best if the work is deemed satisfactory?

CDT Specifying Fundamentals
Construction documents must be enforceable. Requirements must be measurable. Superlatives are not measurable; they are relative. Facts are measurable. Specify a test method and an acceptable (not necessarily the best) result. Whatever the result, it must be appropriate for the project and a measurable fact - a dimensional tolerance, a load resistance, a thermal performance.

Construction documents must be biddable. Requirements must be clearly defined. Contractors can only imagine what will satisfy the Architect and Owner. And each contractor will have a different opinion, depending on how badly they want the work. Expectations must be specified. Specify a test method and an acceptable result. Seems there is a pattern here.

Avoid Generalities
The suggested text is an expedient, but useless, way to specify apparent excellence. Superlatives are a temptation, a way to fool the uninitiated into believing the results will be superlative just because the specifications are full of them.

Avoid unmeasurable superlatives. Highest and best performance is unattainable, or will be after only a few projects with the same performance standard.

Think twice about insisting that the mason lay the concrete block with both partition faces perfectly flush and in plane. It just can't be done.

We receive the following suggestion from a building envelope consultant to include in a specification for sealant adhesion testing provided by the contractor.

A. Perform test every 100 feet for the first 1000 feet of joint length for each kind of sealant and joint substrate.

B. If no failures have been found during (A), test every 1000 feet of joint length thereafter or 1 test per each floor per elevation.

C. Additional testing and replacement of non-conforming sealant shall be performed at no cost to the Owner.

My Questions
What is the consequence of failing the first test specified in (A)? No other testing is required because testing specified in (B) is required only when no failures are found by (A).

Does the contractor have a choice between the two testing frequencies in (B)? As written, he does. The spec specifies Frequency 1 "OR" Frequency 2, giving the contractor the option to select the method to use.

Is the contractor obligated to repair the sealant joints damaged by the adhesion testing? The sealant is cut and pulled from the joint during the test. If not repaired the joint will leak.

What is the additional testing in (C) that the owner need not pay for? Is this retesting of areas that are repaired after initial tests fail? Is this testing at more frequent intervals than specified? Who determines the extent of additional testing and when it may be required?

I am sure the owner-contractor agreement does not permit the contractor to deliver defective work as the final product. So is there really a need to say in (C) that the owner does not pay for replacement of non-conforming work?

Should the Contractor Ask?
There are no apparent conflicts in the proposed testing requirements. So there is no need for the contractor to ask for clarification by addendum or RFI.

The best plan for the contractor may be to ensure he installs 900 of the first 1,000 feet of sealant correctly and passes 9 of the 10 initial adhesion tests. The contractor must replace the defective sealant in the area of the failed test. Then the installation can proceed without any additional sealant testing.

Can You Say Change Order?
I am certain the intent is not to stop testing when one of the initial tests fails. But that is not what the spec would say if the consultant's proposed text is included. When the architect or consultant demand the testing be continued, the contractor would be right to request a change order.

There is no requirement that the contractor repair the joints after testing. Will the owner be facing a charge to make these repairs?

Clear, Complete, Concise, Correct
The choice of words is so important to convey true intent. It is easy to analyze what is said, and more difficult to imagine what is not. However, the missing words may well be the key to a complete understanding.

Construct specifications carefully. Say what you mean. Keep it concise so ensure the meaning is clear. Imagine what others may find in what is not said. Above all, be certain the scope is complete.

Proposed Rewrite
How might the text be rewritten to achieve the intended results? Here is my suggestion to the architect. The test method was specified separately.

A. Adhesion Testing: For each type sealant and each joint substrate perform tests at following frequencies:

1. Initial Testing: One test for every 100 feet until 10 successive acceptable tests are completed.

2. Subsequent Testing: One test for every 1000 feet with minimum one test for each floor of each building elevation.

B. Replace and retest defective sealant joints. Perform one adhesion test for each contiguous length of replaced sealant joint, minimum one test for every 50 feet of replacement.

C. Repair sealant joints damaged by testing.