Recently in Professional Practice Category

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.

Do we, as specifiers and architects, have an obligation to ensure public safety? I think we do.

The following is an edited version of a letter I wrote to a building owner. The building owner acknowledged receiving the letter, so I am protecting their identity while they address the issue.

When trying to leave one of your buildings, I found a locked exit door that is in violation of the building code and a hazard to the building occupants. Being an architect myself, I could not let this issue go without notifying someone at a significant level of authority. So I am writing to you in hopes that you will deliver this message to someone responsible for your facilities to make the necessary corrections for the building to be code compliant and safe for your students, faculty, and visitors.

                   
Photo #1                                           Photo #2                                            Photo #3

Click photos for larger image so the signs are legible.

The door is marked as an emergency exit by the lighted EXIT sign above the door. Both door leaves are fitted with panic devices, indicating the doors are intended for emergency exiting. However the doors are locked by magnetic locks at the top of each door leaf at the center of the opening. All these conditions can be seen in Photo #1.

The magnetic locks are released by swiping a photo ID in the keypad next to the door, shown in Photo #2. I imagine the locks are also released when the fire alarm or the sprinkler system is activated as required by code, but there was no visible way to tell.

Photo #3 shows a sign that one leaf of the emergency exit door is an entry door only, although it is clearly marked as an exit door.

Because of the ID Card/Keypad and magnetic locks, the door is considered an access-controlled egress door. Therefore, the door must comply with Section 1008.1.3.4 of the ICC Building Code. The code requires a sensor on the egress side to detect an occupant approaching the door and to unlock as a result. The allowable sensors include a motion detector or presence detector. The code also requires a clearly identified emergency PUSH TO EXIT switch within five feet of the door to manually release the magnetic locks in case the sensor fails. Neither a sensor nor an emergency switch exists to release the magnetic locks. In an emergency, a visitor without a photo ID and any panicked student or faculty unable to find and swipe an ID will not be able to exit the building.

This same condition may be repeated for other access-controlled emergency egress doors on campus. I did not attempt to find other code violations. I do suggest that whomever addresses this particular door should survey the other access-controlled doors on campus to determine what other corrective actions are required, if any.

Because the current condition of this door is a significant safety hazard, I expect you to acknowledge receiving this message. I also expect you to tell me what steps will be taken to correct the condition to make the building safe to occupy and when the corrections will be completed.

Thank you for your help to make your buildings safe for students, faculty, and the public. I await your response.

"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 may have solved the mystery why Outlook email signature images are replaced by a Red X. Thanks to a valuable input from Joe Minarik, our unofficial IT guru.

I have been battling this problem for a while. I temporarily solved the problem by recreating my email signature multiple times. But the solution was temporary and required time, always at the wrong time.

Finding Help
I searched for help on the subject. Perhaps I used the wrong search string or just did not dig deep enough in the Google results. It is hard to force yourself to go past the first results page. This is where Joe came to the rescue. He did find something about this mystery earlier. He thinks it was on the 57th search page. (He was persistent.) I would have given up much sooner than that.

Apparently Outlook saves multiple versions of the email images in the temporary internet files folder. Each time the file is saved, the name is indexed such as image001 (1), then image001 (2).  When it reaches some magic number, believed to be 99, it can no longer index the files. Then it simply replaces the image with the infamous Red X.

What's the Fix?
It involves some daring. You must open and navigate the machine registry to find the folder containing all the temporary internet files.

1. Open the registry by going to Start button, select Run, enter "regedit" then click OK

2. Navigate the Registry tree in the left pane to locate the following. Substitute your latest version of Office for the "11.0" shown in the path below.

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Office\11.0\Outlook\Security

3. Find the folder path shown in OutlookSecureTempFolder registry key (See below). This folder will have a unique name and location for each machine.

4. Right-click the registry key name and select Modify. Copy the folder path and click Cancel.
5. Right-click the Start button and select Explore.  Paste the folder path into the address bar and hit Enter. The window will open the Temporary Internet Files folder.
6. Delete the entire contents of the Temporary Internet Files folder.
7. Create a shortcut to the folder location and put it where you can find it. Then you can skip navigating the registry when emptying the folder in the future.

Read more at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/817878.  Retaining temporary files in the SecureTempFolder is a known problem. There is no automatic deletion option that I have found. Manual deletion is easy, but takes some effort to remember.

The Result
My temporary folder had nearly 4,000 files taking up nearly 650 MB of disc space. There were many image files indexed into the 90s. After emptying the folder, Outlook is keeping the email images intact, at least for the moment.

I'll keep my fingers crossed and planning to empty the temporary folder regularly.

What was my first project after graduating college with an architectural degree? A prominent design? No, measuring and documenting 65 existing buildings at Letterkenny Army Depot; calculating energy savings; estimating construction costs; and finally writing the project specifications using the Corps of Engineers master specs.

Did school prepare me for this assignment? YES and NO. I could certainly measure and document the existing buildings. Thanks to 4 years of MEP engineering in school, I could do the calculations. Estimating was a joint effort with the project manager, so I got by.

The Specs, Oh the Specs!
I heard specs mentioned once in school. It was in one class of the professional practice course - the 30 hour course to teach students everything they need to know about running an architecture business, including writing specs. Still I had never seen a spec and had no clue what it was.

Career Lessons
Joe Shatto, the project manager, guided me while I wrote my first spec. Joe was a great help. He was a long term CSI member and the president of the Central Penn Chapter of CSI at the time. He taught me what would become the content of CSI's Certified Document Technologist (CDT) program. Invaluable lessons early in my career.

Today, it is easier for many to learn the CDT concepts. There is no need for one-on-one teaching as for me. CSI has a well established program. CSI chapters help students prepare for the exam with local classes. Even on-line help is available.

Important Dates
Early Registration (discounted) February 2, 2012
Final Registration March 2, 2012
Test Dates April 2 to April 28, 2012

Registration
www.csinet.org/Main-Menu-Category/Events_1/CSI-Exam--2012-Spring-National-Exam-4212--42812.aspx

Basic Information
CDT - Certified Document Technologist www.csinet.org/cdt
CCS - Certified Construction Specifier www.csinet.org/ccs
CCCA - Certified Construction Contract Administrator www.csinet.org/ccca
CCPR - Certified Construction Product Representative www.csinet.org/ccpr

Choose Your Battles; Win the War
I must admit that I completed my CCS certification before CDT was conceived. But I must tell you that the certification gave me credibility as an architect specifier in an engineering company. When I challenged the engineers' specifications, there was a sense of authority. I could cite the CSI Manual of Practice. The engineers could not. I could provide reasons for writing as I did. The engineers could not. Did I win every battle? Certainly not. But the war was mine with a studious determination to make the specifications better.

The Challenge
Now I pass the challenge to you, as I have to my staff, to earn your certification and to bring the same credibility and respect to your work in construction. Begin with the CDT, the basis for all other certifications.

Last business day before Christmas, I received two email messages about a project that will be issued for construction the first week of January. The architect's office always closes for Christmas week. So I called to find out if replies were needed, immediately. No, they could wait until the new year, I was told.

A Sore Point
The conversation revealed what was not in the email. An on-going confrontation was continuing between a purchasing agent and the architect. The agent was expecting written confirmation of fire code requirements that applied to the finishes and furnishings the agent was to provide.

By talking and listening (rather than emailing), I understood this issue was the source of much stress. An immediate solution would be best.

The Stress Source
The agent listed fire testing requirements that she believed to be commonly required for hotel guest rooms. However, the listed requirements were not entirely correct. Carpet was expected to be ASTM E84, Class A. This test is meant for wall finishes, not for floor finishes. Carpet cushion was expected to meet ASTM E648 and ASTM E662. Neither test is cited by the code. The code requires the cushion and carpet to be tested by NFPA 253. And the list goes on for several more similar items.

The Relief
I spent about an hour. I read the purchasing agent's comments; researched the California Building Code; and responded to the email. I provided details, including the applicable code citations, for each response. I recommended a solution for each condition. Some affected the construction specs. Some affected the interior design specs. Each solution was simple.

The Result
Near the end of my day, I received this reply from the architect.

"Quite impressive. It's a privilege to work with someone of such great knowledge. You make our business so much easier. I learn a lot from you.
I will pass this back to all parties.
Thank you again and have a great holiday weekend." - Rafael Velazquez, WATG

What a great way to end the day, the week, and begin the holiday season. I was glad I could help. And the recognition? It makes me want to help again, the right attitude to bring to the New Year.

In my career, I have heard this phrase many times. Architects begin to describe a new project in terms of a previous project. It may be an attempt:

• To promote a better instant understanding.
• To reduce the specifications fee.
• To reduce the time required to produce the specifications.
• To avoid repeating product and system decisions.

The Dangers
Regardless the intention, trying to apply previous project specifications to a current project is fraught with danger - even if for the same owner, in the same facility, immediately after completing the first project. No two projects are ever the same, similar, but never the same. If the architects fail to mention all the exceptions, the specifications may never be accurate.

The Realities
Specifications are, well, specific - specific to an individual project's particular circumstances. Project nuances discovered during data gathering and product research are captured in the final specifications. So will those original nuances:

• Be equally applicable to a new project? Probably not.
• Be completely removed for the new project? Unlikely.

These embedded nuances may be right, not quite right, or absolutely wrong for the new project. Unless each one is appropriate and right, there is potential for misunderstanding between the architect and contractor. Those misunderstandings can be costly, depending on when they are discovered.

The Best Practices
The best approach is always to begin a new project with the office master specifications. These documents contain the knowledge, as instructional or cautionary notes documenting firm experience, gained over years of professional practice. That knowledge does not exist in project specifications. Those notes are removed as the specifications are tailored to a project. Editing a project specification to document a new project deprives the specifier the opportunity to carefully customize the specifications based on the complete firm experience.

The Potential Results
The time "saved" by trying to use specifications from the previous project will seem a pittance compared to the time required to correct a misunderstanding discovered after it was too late to be corrected, easily. Even if corrections can be made to the documents, will your reputation survive the potential embarrassment?

Have you found yourself thinking or possibly yelling, "I hate specs!" as though you have been cursed by the task? Then think about this:

"The writing of architects' specifications is a task approached by many with trepidation, by some with the careless confidence of ignorance and by a few with studious determination to succeed."

This quote is the opening paragraph of Goldwin Goldsmith, AIA's 1940 book "Architectural Specifications How to Write Them." Goldsmith states the quote is taken from "Ready Written Specifications" a series of 1918 lectures presented by Holland and Parker.

So What's the Point?
The quote is nearly a century old, but is still applicable today. Many things in the construction industry have changed during the last century - materials, technology, and knowledge of building science. However, some things remain the same. Many architects view specs with disdain - a dreaded chore rather than a necessary part of design.

Commercial master specifications such as MasterSpec, SpecText, and Speclink were not available to Goldsmith. His specifications were hand crafted for each project. Did he reuse previous project specs? No. He created master specification clauses from which he could draw to write project specifications - the same approach commercial masters offer.

Today, most specifiers rely on commercial master specifications to create project specifications. There is an inherent danger in this practice. The apparent simplicity of deleting what does not apply can easily contribute to careless confidence of ignorance.

Casual or occasional project specifiers are not writing their own master clauses like Goldsmith. These specifiers do not engage in the same degree of research and resulting understanding of construction materials and systems that is required to develop and maintain master clauses. This responsibility is delegated to others that are producing the commercial masters.

The Distinction Is Important
When specifiers do not know why clauses exist in commercial masters, the clauses may be edited incorrectly. Lists of manufacturers and products offered in commercial masters, while convenient, may not be correct or appropriate for a particular project. These products may not be able to meet the specifications once the masters are edited for a project.

Careless confidence of ignorance can create unintended results. At the very least, architects may be required to explain what the specs mean during a project meeting in a trailer filled with contractors. The result may well be a Change Order.

Be determined to succeed at writing specifications. Do your own research to understand the master specifications you use. Know why each clause exists. Record the results as notes in your own office masters to help others understand, too. Then read the notes every time when creating project specifications rather than relying on memory. Make informed decisions.

It has been a couple of weeks since attending Arc-US in Boca Raton, FL. I think I recovered, or nearly so.

I was not sitting on the beach enjoying the southern sun. The weather was dreary, rainy, and windy, very windy - certainly unusual for Florida, except perhaps for hurricane season.

Meetings, Meetings, Meetings
I was exhausted after two days of non-stop meetings with product manufacturers and attending educational seminars. Arc-US is described as speed dating between architects (including specifiers) and manufacturers. The meetings are one-on-one. Okay, sometimes the manufactures had more than one. They are allowed since they finance the event. Architects attend free.

As a result of 24 meetings, I met the most senior manufacturers' representatives handling national and international accounts. What a blessing since we work for clients and projects across the US. Now I have reliable contacts when the local support is not enough. And I had an opportunity to comment on new and upcoming products. What a great way to interact.

I was looking forward to the dinner cruise, but remember the wind? The boat never left the dock. Oh well maybe next time.

First Time & Hopefully Another
This was the first time I attended the invitation only event. Thanks to Mike Hoffman, the Sales Manager Eastern Division at Bradley Corporation for making certain I had a chance to attend. I will gladly attend again, if invited. The experience was great.

CSI Members Abound
What struck me about the group of 104 architects was the abundance of CSI members. I recognized so many from attending the CSI national convention and region events. It certainly reinforces how influential CSI is within the industry. Here are the top architects in the country, representing CSI well.

What are the architectural design phases? SD - schematic design, DD - design development, and CD - construction documents.

Where Does Design Stop?
Did you notice that CD is the only phase that does not mention design? Design is completed during DD. CD is used to document the design. I am not naive. Of course design occurs during the CD phase. As details are developed, some design elements must change to be sure the project can be built and perform as intended.

The AIA Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice states: "While most design issues should be resolved by the end o f design development, some will continue to be refined, resolved, or modified during the construction documentation, bidding and negotiation, and construction phases of the project." This design is described as occurring during the implementation phases. (emphasis added)

A New Meaning for CD
However, CD has taken on a new meaning within the architectural community. CD, it seems, now means continue designing. I see early project design (SD and DD phases) attempting to set scope for pricing purposes. "Just be sure we have the cost covered" is the new mantra. Design decisions are not completed until later, after the project pricing is known. Then materials and sometimes complete systems may be discarded in favor of other design solutions.

So what is the problem?
Well, there would likely not be a problem, except that the entire design team is forced to produce biddable documents before the design is completed. Contractors are pricing projects and providing owners a GMP at 50% CD phase, at 100% DD phase, and sometimes at 50% DD. The result is potentially wasted effort - effort spent documenting decisions that are destined to substantial revision.

The difficulty lies in delaying significant design decisions until the CD phase. The later the decisions are made, the more challenging it becomes to coordinate the documents and ensure everything is working together. Finding every detail, every spec paragraph that may be affected by a changed decision late in the process is unrealistic. So the drawings and specifications when finished may not be as well coordinated as they should be.

A Lesson From Another Perspective
Otto Dacosta, an architect client, makes decisions when asked and stays true to his decisions. How is he able to do this? It's in the training. Otto played major league baseball, as a catcher, before becoming an architect. As he tells it, he had to know what he would do with the ball before the ball touched his mitt. He made the best decision he could with the information he had at the time. Then he moved on - moved on to the next decision rather than revisiting previous decisions.

What does CD phase mean to you? Can we strive to be like Otto?