Recently in Specifying Practice Group Category

The CSI Specifying Practice Group met to discuss concepts, tips and tricks to make producing specifications (and other word processing documents) easier and more efficient. Join the group to be notified of each meeting. It's free. More Members means More Sharing and More Learning. I learn something new every meeting.

See and hear the recorded session at the Practice Group Archives.

Group Poll Results
Here are the results of our poll questions with 87 participants. This is pretty much as expected.

99%    Use Microsoft Word as their word processor
69%    Use Microsoft Word 2007 and later
64%    Use page view to display documents on screen
49%    Use styles to control formatting
42%    Use software options to customize work environment
39%    Use templates to apply formatting
17%    Use macros for repetitive tasks

Since most are using Word 2007 and later, the discussion did not review earlier versions. Although the concepts are the same and can be applied to earlier versions.

Styles and Templates
I explained that no one should be manually formatting specifications. All commercial master spec systems provide files that are formatted using styles. Styles are a powerful formatting tool. If a client requires a unique look for specifications, modify the styles to change the entire document at once.

But wait, you say, I must make the same changes in 200 specifications that make up the project manual. No you don't. Once a single document's styles are modified correctly, save the document as a template to define your client's required format. Then simply apply the saved template to the other specifications files and automatically update the styles to match the template.

The applied template can be changed at any time. Louis Medcalf pointed out this allows specifiers to use one template for draft documents and another for final documents.

All paragraphs with the same style can be selected at the same time using the styles pane. This can be convenient for making specific changes to a single document or for simply highlighting a group of paragraphs to help navigate the document.

Eliminate Unwanted Formatting
When text is copied and pasted from one document to another, unwanted styles and formatting may remain attached to the pasted text. One method of avoiding this is to use Paste Special for inserting unformatted text. Then the pasted text will assume the formatting of the paragraph where it is inserted.

Text within a paragraph may be formatted with a character style, bold, underline, italic, font, font size or other attribute. All of these attributes can be reset with a keyboard command. Unwanted paragraph formatting can likewise be reset to the underlying paragraph style settings with a keyboard command. Simply select the text or paragraph and use the following.

Keystroke	Result
Ctrl-Space	Resets text attributes to underlying style
Ctrl-Q	Resets paragraph attributes to underlying style

Text Selection
Work in the left margin for paragraph selection. The cursor will turn to a upward-right-pointing cursor. Then double click to select entire paragraphs. Select multiple paragraphs by holding the Ctrl key as you click. The paragraphs need not be consecutive to be selected.

Linton Stables, CSI, CCS, LEED AP of Perkins Eastman in New York City offered another suggestion for deleting manual paragraph numbers when pasting text into a formatted document. Hold the Alt key while selecting text. This allows text to be selected in a vertical column across multiple paragraphs. Be careful. All text in the selection box will be affected.

Navigating Documents
I like to use the Navigation Pane (Document Map for older Word versions). Louis likes to use the outline view. Both methods have advantages. Both rely on the outline structure used in specifications. You can set the display to a specific outline level and then expand and collapse the view as needed. Louis and I both work with the outline level set to show Part and Article titles only.

Navigation Pane allows you to move about the document quickly. Leave the pane open and click on an article title. Instantly you are there. This is especially handy when fielding questions from clients and they are citing a specific paragraph in the document. Just click. No scrolling.

Unfortunately, Word 2007 and 2010 open the Navigation Pane with the default setting showing 3 outline levels. There is no way to modify this default. So the display must be set manually to show 2 outline levels every time you open a document if you want to view only Part and Article titles.

Outline View displays the entire document outline structure. In outline view, when you select one paragraph you are actually selecting an outline branch (current paragraph and all subparagraphs) whether displayed or not. Use outline view for your first pass edit. Show the file with article titles only. Don't need an article? Select the line and hit delete. Done. No need to look at or scroll through the lower level paragraphs.

For those that want some convenience, here is a macro that will toggle the Navigation Pane on and off.  It will also set the Outline View to show two levels only - Part and Article titles. I wish it could set the outline levels in the Navigation Pane, but Word does not support that function. I have this macro set as a keyboard command so I can use it every time I open a document.

Sub DocMapToggle()
 'toggles document map on and off
 ActiveWindow.DocumentMap = Not ActiveWindow.DocumentMap
 'Set outline view display to 2 levels - Part and Article titles only
 ActiveWindow.View.ShowHeading 2
End Sub

Beware that in outline view promoting and demoting paragraphs and branches to a different outline level will not work if any paragraph is not part of the outline branch. If specifier notes or other text occurs within the outline branch, the paragraph levels must be changed individually. Also in outline view using Tab and Back-Tab (Shift-Tab) will not change a paragraph's outline level as it will in other page views.

Formatting Documents
Avoid the need for blank paragraphs at the end of a page to force text to the next page. Rely on Keep Together and Keep with Next paragraph controls. These controls can be set as part of a paragraph style. Louis and I use Keep with Next for Part Titles and Article Titles. This prevents these lines from appearing alone at the bottom of a page.

Keep Together prevents a paragraph from being split onto two pages. Since most specification paragraphs are relatively short this may be helpful as a control page breaks. Another method can be more effective without creating a lot of white space at the bottom of a page. Set the paragraph formatting by turning Widow and Orphan control on. This prevents the first and last line of a paragraph from appearing on a page by itself.

Keep characters together on the same line of a paragraph so they are easier to read. Standard designation such as ASTM A 53 use spaces between the characters. To be sure the entire name stays on the same line, use non-breaking spaces within the designation. The same can be done with hyphens.

Keystroke	Result
Ctrl-Shift-Space	Non-breaking space
Ctrl-Shift-Hyphen	Non-breaking hyphen

Text Insertion
Louis explained how he uses Auto Text and Auto Correct features to insert text that is commonly repeated in many locations. Simply type the text you wish to use. Then highlight the text and create an Auto Text or Auto Correct entry to represent the text. Then whenever you type the name of the entry, Microsoft will replace the entry with the assigned text. These entries can be a single word or multiple paragraphs.

Auto Correct is especially helpful if you consistently misspell a word while typing. Although it does nothing to improve your typing skills; it does help prevent common errors without relying on spell check.

Keyboard Commands
I, for one, use keyboard commands where ever possible. Reaching for the mouse just slows me down. If you do use the mouse, try watching those dropdown menus. Many of the commands you access routinely have a keyboard command already assigned. And those that don't? You can make your own assignments. Me? I use Shift-Alt plus a key for my specially assigned commands. These do not generally interfere with Microsoft defined commands and I can still do it with one hand.

I recommend learning or assigning one at a time. Then use it so it becomes ingrained. Then add another, building your command arsenal slowly so you remember. Assigning every task to a keyboard command and then stopping to look up what key combination was assigned does no good. It must be intuitive and memorable.

J. Mark Schmidt, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP, senior architect and specifications writer from Invision in Des Moines, Iowa submitted his cheat sheet of Microsoft Word standard keyboard commands. Keyboard shortcuts 08-25-11 Descr Alpha.doc. Thank you Mark.

Comments?
Add your comment to share your tips and tricks. We will continue this discussion in January to review some of the more advanced features.
 

So what is the future? Hard to know, but Louis Medcalf presented ideas shared at CONSTRUCT2011 in Chicago with the Specifying Practice Group.

CSI asked the BIM, Sustainable Design, and Specifying Practice Group leaders to provide a panel discussion at the CSI national convention in Chicago. I managed to stick Louis with the job, when I learned that Hanley Wood double booked my presentation at the same time as the Practice Groups.

Louis pointed out that there is a new emphasis on information. BIM, building information model, and PIM project information management software is available for the design team's use. Louis proposed that the specifier's role will shift to become the information manager as reliance on data increases. The current state is that many firms have not fully adopted BIM. Some are not using BIM at all. And still others are on the bleeding edge of technology pushing the envelope every day.

So what is to be done with all the data? The specifier will leverage the project data to make rational decisions based on facts rather than intuition or guessing about the design intent. But pure data is meaningless without structure. Structure allows users to find data and imply meaning because of the context within the structure. Understanding structure and applying structure uniformly and consistently to data make the data meaningful. The structure is provided by CSI formats as interpreted by the project specifier.

The goal is to develop data once and cumulatively, adding information as the project progresses through each design phase and through construction. Data is reused throughout the project, never duplicated or recreated. This is a shift from current practice where data is developed to suit the current project development phase, and often recreated.

The specifier is seen as the organizer and keeper of the data. Specifiers will develop data that can be presented in multiple ways. Data will be viewed through UniFormat as systems and assemblies for preliminary project descriptions and through MasterFormat as work results for construction specifications.

But wait, there is more.  This is a never-ending story because the industry, technology, and design processes are constantly evolving. So rest assured, what you know today will be obsolete tomorrow. And what is required for tomorrow has not yet been conceived.

Join the group at http://www.csinet.org/Main-Menu-Category/Communities-2109-14280/Practice-Group.aspx.  Louis and I both hope to see you at the next meeting.

Practice Group Co-host Louis Medcalf contributed this description of the last group meeting

This two-part session had discussions on the opportunities and possible pitfalls in using published master specification systems such as MasterSpec and SpecText. Specification masters are not intended to be used without editing for specific project needs.  See http://www.conspectusinc.com/blog/2011/08/the-csi-specifying-practice-group.html for Part 1.

Why are spec masters the way they are?
David Stutzman, who was principal author of SpecText for several years, began by explaining that master specifications have to contain everything conceivable to serve the widest range of projects. It has to have a level of formality and detail appropriate for publicly-bid GSA projects that are not needed for small, privately-funded, negotiated contract projects. The level of detail must be adjusted for the size and complexity of the project.

Similarly, master sections need to have paragraphs suitable for different methods of specifying, such as non-proprietary descriptive specs and delegated design specs, as well as the simple proprietary specifications. Bottom line: it is possible to edit each spec master section in different ways for different methods of specifying, and the resulting specs would look different from each other.

For example, if a manufacturer or fabricator is producing a custom product for which certain performance requirements have been specified, then the specifier may ask for pre-installation testing and reports and for certification by the manufacturer to verify that the products meet the performance requirements. Certification is desirable because the item is not a standard manufactured product for which there is printed technical literature. Examples of products that would be specified this way are architectural woodwork and manufacturer-engineered elements such as custom decorative monumental stairs or glass roof canopies. If rated steel doors of a large size that have not been tested are required, manufacturer's certification is appropriate for those doors that is not needed for standard size, UL-labeled doors. Notarized manufacturer certifications are meaningful for items where consistency in manufacturing is critical, such as strength requirements for loadbearing masonry units.

Certification of standard manufactured products for which there are printed technical data that includes tested performances is unnecessary and those paragraphs should be deleted. After all, if we don't trust the manufacturers specified by name to tell the truth about their products in the Product Data, why specify them?

What are common pitfalls and their consequences?
Many specifiers when confronted with requirements that they don't fully understand have a natural tendency to leave such requirements in, assuming that they may need these things during construction. After all, the professional specifiers put them in the spec for a reason, didn't they? The problem is that leaving these things in can result in unnecessary costs both to the owner and to the design team's contract administration activities. There is also the very real problem of being embarrassed if the owner or contractor question why such requirements were deemed important. David's advice, seconded by Louis, was: when in doubt, leave it out.

Louis explained how testing requirements that might be needed for a hospital or high-rise building may be excessive for smaller, simpler projects. Requirements for pre-installation meetings should be adjusted to the size and complexity of the project. David pointed out that excessive submittals not only may result in unnecessary review costs, but can increase the design team's liability without corresponding benefit to the project.

Where do I start? Part 2--where else?
This portion of the discussion started with the reminder that most spec sections are easier to edit if the specifier starts with Part 2, goes on to Part 3, and edits Part 1 last after decisions have been made as to what products are required and what field quality controls are appropriate. The next thing is to decide what will be the appropriate method of specifying the products in the section for the specific project so that the client gets the products it is paying for. In some cases, such as commodity products, final product selection can be left to the contractor. For example, as long as the Portland cement meets the requirements of ASTM C150 (reference method of specifying), do we care what manufacturer produces it? On the other hand, if the interior designers and the owner want an acoustical ceiling with appearance characteristics unique to a single manufacturer, the proprietary method of specifying should be used. In such cases, a similar product with equivalent acoustical or light reflecting performance is not acceptable, and requiring documentation of product performance attributes in submittals is superfluous.

Next there was discussion as to when delegated design is needed. Requiring the contractor to employ or arrange for shop drawings to be prepared by a registered Professional Engineer adds cost to the project. Whether or not to require a registered Professional Engineer to prepare the delegated design of certain elements is a question of judgment related to the size, complexity, or location of the project. Although appropriate for curtain wall specs for a high-rise building, it may be unnecessary for a curtain wall system for, say, a 3- or 4-story suburban office building using a standard manufactured system. Storefront framing does not generally need delegated design by a PE, but if the storefront is facing the beach in Miami, Florida or is used for fixed windows in a multi-story building, delegated design would be appropriate.

Part 3 Requirements
Because published specification masters need to include requirements for every conceivable situation, they may include field quality control testing requirements that are needed only for high-rise buildings, federal jobs, and mega-projects. Field testing is costly for the owner, contractor, and the design team, and should only be required when really needed. An institutional owner may want more testing than a developer client.
Items for which field quality control testing are usually needed include: horizontal waterproofing for slabs over occupied spaces, critical safety items, and site-fabricated products (such as concrete tilt-up wall panels).

Part 1 Requirements
It is very easy to specify excessive numbers of submittals. The specifier should ask what is likely to go wrong and what products need to have selections made for appearance attributes.
Installer qualifications can be specified without asking for qualification statement submittals. On the other hand, if there is extensive field welding it may be appropriate to get copies of welder certificates as informational submittals.

Manufacturer qualifications are generally only meaningful for specifications using the descriptive method of specifying where manufacturers are not listed and the manufacturer is selected by the contractor. Where specific manufacturers or products are specified by name Part 2 of the section, this kind of submittal is a waste of time for everyone: owner, design team, contractor, subcontractor, and supplier.

Requiring excessive pre-installation meetings is a common problem. Louis stated that he had seen specs with requirements for preconstruction meetings for vinyl composition tile for a few small utility areas, a small quantity of ordinary steel storage shelving, and a handful of refrigerators and microwaves in break rooms. Not only did the specifications require the architect's staff to attend the meetings, but the submittals articles in these specs committed the architect to reviewing the minutes from these meetings. Spec masters have such standard requirements for preinstallation meetings because they are needed for extensive shelving systems for warehouse projects and appliances in a large apartment or condominium project.

Adapting Master Specifications for My Practice
Specification masters can have preliminary editing to delete products or other requirements not used in a firm's normal practice, and to add specialized products and requirements. Hard-won experience from past projects, whether product research or field experience, should be embodied in spec masters as part of the firm's corporate knowledge base.

Specification masters with very broad content can be edited into shorter sections with fewer products to save time in editing. The concept is to have lots of very narrow spec sections so that the specifier does not waste time going through pages and pages of irrelevant requirements. This is especially helpful for fast-track projects with multiple work packages. Instead of revising sections with broad scope as the project progresses, divide the sections as appropriate for work package content. For example, the glazing section might be divided into exterior glazing for the shell and core work package, interior glazing for the interior architecture work package, and specialty glazing for the interior design work package.

Conclusion
Published spec masters are a valuable resource, but they require professional judgment for editing to be project-specific. Every section contains large amounts of text that are unnecessary for most projects, but are included for the few projects that need them. All the paragraphs in these spec masters should be regarded as optional, and specifiers for each project should always go back to the masters. Leaving in requirements that are not understood is not a prudent approach, and almost always is not in the best interests of the architect or the project.

The CSI Specifying Practice Group met to discuss editing master specifications for construction projects. Listen to the recoded session or view the presentation below.



To understand how to edit the master specs, be sure to know how these specs are developed. Each master spec is written to be nearly all things, to nearly all specifiers, for nearly every project. So why "nearly?" Well, it is impossible for master spec writers to conceive every possible scenario and include it in the masters. They do attempt to capture about 80 percent of what may be required for most construction projects. Master specs try to be inclusive. Project specs result from judicious deletion and thoughtful addition.

Masters are written to accommodate varying degrees of project complexity and different methods of specifying. A single spec document will be the starting point for writing a two story wood framed townhouse and a 800,000 sf state of the art medical facility. Not all the requirements in the master should reasonably apply to both projects. And if the specifier chooses to use a proprietary instead of performance specifying method, most of Part 2 of the spec could be eliminated.

The scale, quality, and approach to writing specs differ for every project. These differences are responsible for the major pitfall in using master specifications: If in Doubt - Take It Out. Excesses in specifications will add unnecessary costs and may injure your reputation, especially when the excess becomes apparent by a busted budget.

Excessive testing, submittals, meetings, and mockups are commonly specified by not removing a master requirement. After all, it is master written by highly qualified specifiers, so it must be appropriate to include. Well, not always. Remember scale. Including a mockup for a material with a small installed quantity will greatly inflate the cost of the material.

Deciding what to retain or delete from a master spec can be decided more easily by editing the product information in Part 2 first. Once the products are defined, then the administrative and execution requirements in Part 1 and Part 3 can be tailored to fit the products. Editing the spec beginning in Part 1, may result in more excesses, just because the scope of the section will not be understood until Part 2 is completed.

To specify products, determine what is important to the project. Just because a product has specific performance, it may not be relevant to the project. Acoustic ceiling panels may be selected for light reflectance and surface texture, without consideration of the acoustic properties. Just because the master spec lists noise reduction coefficient (NRC) for the ceiling panel, does not mean it must be specified.

Carefully consider those delegated design requirements that are passed along to the contractor. When specifying standard products, designed and tested for a purpose and supported by published test data, delegated design is probably not required. Storefront for example is usually installed within a defined opening that is designed by the architect or engineer.

Manufacturers typically publish span and load tables for storefront, so designers can select the appropriate system for the project. Delegated design should not be required. Master specs include delegated design requirements for virtually every exterior envelope component. Be careful to remove delegated design when not required.

When using a proprietary method to specify products, then descriptions, performance, and reference standards may be deleted. However, some description other then the model number and manufacturer's name may be necessary if alternative products will be considered. There must be enough information to base a decision for accepting alternative products.

With all the great conversation, there was no time to review the Part 1 and Part 3 considerations or the ways to adapt a master to a design practice. This discussion topic will be continued at the September meeting.  See http://www.conspectusinc.com/blog/2011/09/editing-master-specifications---part-2.html for Part 2.

Join the group and listen to the finale to this session.

This month the CSI Specifying Practice Group discussed the results of a group survey about product submittals. The intent was to learn how the group processed contractor submittals for products that are not specified by name. Listen to the recorded session.

A five-question survey was sent to more than 600 members and 96 responded - a fabulous response rate. So, thank you to all those that participated. See the survey summary results here: SurveySummary_07182011.pdf.

Louis Medcalf and I are not professional pollsters. We tried to write the survey questions without inserting our bias. We also tried to word the questions to apply generally to all master spec systems.

The results were a bit surprising. Most people treat unnamed product submittals as substitutions. Most people agree that approval of products that are not specified should be documented as a contract modification. Yet, the majority does not process the submittal as a Change Order.

AIA A101 the Standard Form of Agreement between the Owner and the Contractor requires substitutions to be processed as a construction modification. Only two methods of documenting changes are permitted: a Change Order and an Architect's Supplemental Instruction (ASI). Change Orders must be used when the Contract Time and the Contract Sum are modified. Otherwise ASIs can be used to authorize minor changes to the Work not affecting time or cost, such ass accepting non-specified products.

Change Orders require the Owner's signature; ASIs do not. There are incentives to minimize the number of Change Orders on projects. Often Change Orders are used as a method to judge the quality of the documents. Writing Change Orders to accept non-specified products may skew the Owner's perception of the documents, just by the number of Change Orders that may be required.

The majority agreed that separate procedures should be specified for accepting products that are not specified. The survey and discussion did not attempt to identify what those procedures should be.

The only firm conclusion from the discussion seemed to be that additional discussion of substitutions is probably needed.

See additional discussion of this topic including AIA A101 provisions affecting substitution provisions.

"Why is it that Architects specify 'Intent' and can not specify what products they require? I have a real problem trying to price an Architect's intent." This statement started a discussion on LinkedIn. The message was that the Architect's Intent is nebulous leaving serious questions about what is actually required.

The CSI Specifying Practice Group took up the discussion. I submitted that architects have a duty to specify their intent so contractors know exactly what is required.

Specification sections typically begin with a Summary article and a "Section Includes" statement. Section Includes has been relegated to a simple list of materials, products, and assemblies that are contained within the each section. These lists offer no insight as to intent.

The commercially available master specifications have promulgated Section Includes as materials lists. The writers for these masters have no way of knowing what the intent of any project will be. So, the Unit Masonry master spec Section Includes lists CMU, multiple kinds of brick, anchors, ties, and other products. For project specifications, the products that are not required are simply deleted. The lists are rarely embellished except to add a new product.

CSI's MasterFormat® states the specifications master list of numbers and titles is classified by work results, not by products. Logically, one could expect specifications organized by MasterFormat® to specify work results. So I propose to replace those Section Includes product lists with statements of the Architect's Intent to describe the required work results.

Specifiers are likely the best ones suited to the task. The specifier infers and confirms the intent through the writing process. Specifiers review drawings, interview the architect, take notes, and collect data. Then specifiers restate the intent as specified requirements.

Stating intent with short explicit descriptions will paint a mental picture drawn from the reader's experience. The association with previous experience will allow instant understanding and will promote better retention.

I proposed the Architect's Intent statements should be constructed with three elements and in the following order:
1. What product will be installed.
2. How the product will be installed.
3. Where the product will be installed.

Now back to Section Includes. For unit masonry, I propose replacing the list of products with the Architect's Intent:

Section Includes: Face brick veneer with CMU backup at exterior cavity walls.

Got the picture? So will the contractor's estimator, the contractor's field superintendent, and the A/E's contract administrator. The intent is clear. And the intent, through the mental image, infers, by experience, the other components that will be required to complete a cavity wall, without listing each product.

Section Includes cannot capture every nuance of the project. Most projects do have drawings, and sometimes they actually help. (Every time I say that, I must think of a client, Paul Lyons. As I was writing the very first job for Paul 10 years ago, he told me, "Dave, I don't care what the drawings say. Give me a good spec and I will get what I want.") I try to capture the essence of the design as the Architect's Intent. If there are two different types of brick veneer construction, I would write an intent statement about both. Cavity wall and composite wall, for instance, will be used in different location and will invoke different mental images.

Positively specify what is required instead of specifying by exception and the dreaded "unless otherwise indicated." When making notes about a project before beginning to specify, I search for the common and the unusual. The common are easy to recognize because they are pervasive and usually have details devoted just to that condition. The unusual may be designated by a note, with no detail provided.

Write the Section Includes by the adage "the least shall be first." Specify the unusual first and finish with the common. The reasoning is that the common condition may be simplified to products that are installed at "other locations." This approach is borrowed from law and is known as the "residuary legatee."

As an analogy, think of the executor reading the dearly departed's will. The will starts by leaving the car to the son, the yacht to the daughter and everything else to the family cat. The least and specific items were cited first. As a result, there is no need to cite every item that will be left to the cat and risk the possibility of missing something.

Harold Rosen described how the concept applies to specifications in his 1974 book "Construction Specifications Writing Principles and Procedures." Rosen offers as one example in specifying concrete:

2500 psi concrete - concrete foundations
3000 psi concrete - concrete pavements
3500 psi concrete - all other concrete work

Then Rosen states: "If this method is followed, some material will always be specified for every part of the building, whereas any other plan obliges the specifier to check all his listings most carefully for fear of not including some minor portion."

Try constructing these statements of intent. It will take practice, patience, and probably multiple edits to get the intent right. But once stated correctly, the work results and the Architect's Intent for each spec section will clear.

CSI's Specifying Practice Group
First Thursday of the month, 3:00 - 4:00 PM eastern.
Join the group. It's free.

1. Make Contract Documents more user friendly.
2. Avoid unnecessary RFIs and Change Orders.

When documents are well coordinated information is easy to find. This helps the contractor's estimator immensely. Estimators have only a short time to review and comprehend construction documents before submitting a bid. Making estimator's jobs easier will help ensure an accurate bid.

Direct conflicts between drawings and specs must be resolved and ambiguities must be clarified. "The minimum cost of processing an RFI is $250," said Louis Medcalf. And I added, "the average time to receive, research, and respond to an RFI is 8 hours." Now do the math for the number of RFIs for a typical construction project. Hopefully it is nowhere near the one I mentioned with over 800 RFIs before the project was out of the ground.


What are some of the ways to help ensure the drawing notes and specifications are coordinated? Here are the top four of the 12 suggestions for improving coordination between the drawing notes and the specs:

1. Develop and maintain a table of contents.
2. Repeat the drawing terms in the "Section Includes" and Part 2 article titles.
3. Create an office standard list of notes.
4. Provide notation training.

Tables of contents can be more than just a section number and title. Include a list of the principle items to be specified in each section. Identify the items by the terms that will be used on the drawings and in the specs. Circulate the contents to the entire project team. And keep the contents current with the design. This is not a static document. Update and redistribute when needed.

"Section Includes" and Part 2 article titles are the principle navigation tools to know what will be found in each spec section. Since "Section Includes" appears at the beginning of each specification section, it should name the products, materials, systems, and assemblies that will be specified in Part 2. The terms used in "Section Includes" to identify these items must match the terms used on the drawings and the terms used in Part 2.

Standardization of drawing notes can help, but only with thoughtful application. Every project is not identical, so standard notes may need to be modified to be appropriate for a specific project. Beginning with a standard set of notes rather creating a completely new list for every project will help bring consistency to the construction documents the design team produces. Consistency is good because it improves understanding and ease of use.

Russell Wooten and Bob Johnson both commented that their firms use a keynote database integrated with the CAD drawing platform. This ensures that drafters use only notes that are designated for the particular project. Russell adds, "the PA is in charge of managing the notes database, not the drafter. If a note needs to change during the documentation phase, then the PA can change the note in the database and it changes all the instances throughout the drawings."

Notation training, like any other training, will improve understanding. Training does not mean memorizing a list of standard notes. It does mean teaching the concepts of drawing notation and coordination with the specifications. It also means explaining why coordination is important and showing the results when coordination is ignored. Let's see 800 RFIs at 8 hours - that is 3 man-years to answer RFI and the job is not out of the ground. Can a design team afford this effort during construction administration?

Corinne Golding commented, "I know that my message about consistency of terminology is getting through when the CAD techs come to me and say 'what are you calling this in the spec'." Whether by training or pure persistence, coordination can happen. John Horner added, "Unless a drawing term is EXACTLY the same as used in the specs, it is not the same thing," emphasizing coordination is critical.

And finally, Bob Johnson adds the big wish, "Shouldn't we try to establish a standard for terminology that integrates drawings & specs.  If we got all the master spec providers to participate and agree to use the agreed upon terminology we would make a big step towards a consensus terminology across the industry." Bob, there is always hope that ARCOM and CSI will get together and establish a standard set of terms for MasterSpec, SpecText, and Speclink that the industry can also use for the drawings.

CSI's Specifying Practice Group is gaining recognition and attendance. This month a record 74 members attended the session discussing coordinating drawing notes and specs. Join the fun. It's free. Sign up for the Practice Group so you receive notices of each meeting.

This month 50 CSI Specifying Practice Group members gathered to continue the discussion about using manufacturer's product specifications. Phil Kabza, SpecGuy, helped again, presenting the manufacturer specifier's point of view. At the end of the program Phil announced that he now has a list of ideas for improving manufacturer's specs.

If you missed it, just to refresh, check the summary of the first part of the discussion, including the complete presentation.

After a brief review of last month's discussion, Phil took the lead to review Part 2. Of course Part 2 is first, followed by Part 3 and Part 1, just like writing a spec. We need to understand what we are specifying before we can specify the installation and administrative requirements.

Part 2 - Products, led by Phil Kabza
Product should be specified sufficiently to capture the design intent. Retaining the full detail that manufacturers include in their specs can make the spec proprietary. Manufacturers may describe features or options that only they offer. These can be gotcha clauses. Phil stated that he encourages manufacturers to include editor's notes for the specifiers when including a particular feature may make the spec proprietary.

If you are unsure the spec will allow competition, Phil advises to send the draft spec to product reps for competing products. The other reps will be happy to tell you what changes must be made so the spec allows competition.

Be careful the detail. Some manufacturers list every size, thickness, and configuration describing the product. Dimensional information, especially, is best shown on the drawings and omitted from the spec.

Are test results current and relevant? Pay attention to the cited references. Verify the test and the result applies to the project. Most can be checked easily through on-line searches. ASTM is the most cited standards publisher in all commercial master specifications. ASTM provides an on-line searchable database that shows complete standard titles, the abstract and scope of each document at http://www.astm.org/Standard/index.shtml. It also shows historic, discontinued, and replaced standards.

Watch out for product accessories that are listed by manufacturer's product name only. These names will never appear on drawings. The terms used on the drawings and in the spec should match so the intent is understood.

Be sure accessories that are needed to complete the installation are included in the spec. Sometimes manufacturers are reluctant to include products in their specs when they do not manufacturer the product, even though it is essential to the installation. So visualize the complete installation and be sure all the parts are specified.

On to Part 3 - Execution, led by yours truly
Check the substrate. Be sure the spec requires conditions to ensure a successful installation. Manufacturers do not want to assume responsibility for the substrates. Surface testing and preparation may not be included, but may be essential to ensure a bond or avoid moisture problems.

Be careful of NIC and work exclusions. Manufacturers may state accessory work is NIC (not in contract). But what they mean is the work is not part of the scope of their spec section. Flagging work as NIC may cause the contractor to exclude it entirely instead of assigning it to another trade.

The single poll for today's discussion showed the majority agreed that work exclusions must be removed from manufacturer's specs. Close behind the majority, was "it depends," leaving the possibility that some work exclusions may be acceptable for some project conditions.

Installation specs are often brief, often relying on compliance with the manufacturer's installation instructions. Know what those instructions are. And specify what is important to the project. Consider specifying installation by reference to an industry standard. For architects, fit, finish, and aesthetics are real concerns and may need to be specified. Don't ignore equipment utility connections and startup to ensure it is operating correctly.

Remember the testing! If the products are subject to special code required tests and inspections, be sure the responsibility is defined. Check to see if manufacturers will provide field inspection when products are critical to the building performance. Then write the requirements into the spec. Unless the manufacturer has a formal field quality assurance program, this service will not be routine.

And Finally Part 1 - General, led by Louis Medcalf
Coordinate manufacturer's specs with the project manual. Manufacturers cannot possibly know what will be included in a project manual. Check referenced sections to ensure the sections exist and to ensure the section numbers and titles match the citation. Referencing non-existent spec section will simply add to the RFI pile.

Do those lists of references really add substance? Exhaustive lists of reference standards in Part 1 does not require the contractor to do anything. The list serves as a bibliography, a convenience for the reader. References are applicable only to the extent they are cited for a specific purpose. If references are included, be sure reference is a standard and not a publisher.

Coordinate the administrative provisions of Part 1 with Division 01 sections. Manufacturers can only guess what requirements may be included in Division 01. Their specs are written to generally comply with accepted practice, but not project specifics. Louis cited the example of Action and Informational submittals used by MasterSpec. Most manufacturer's specs will not separate submittals by type.

Some, but not all, manufacturers have installer training or certification programs. When training is available, it can be advantageous to specify. Proper training will help ensure satisfactory results.

Be cautious of excessive detail in Part 1 that may add cost without improving the constructed work. Part 1 includes administrative procedures. Overhead. Time and costs. Not constructed work.

Do specified warranties protect the Owner or the Manufacturer? Extended warranties, those for longer than one year can provide additional coverage to the Owner. One year warranties may severely limit the Owner's protection provided by the construction contract. Review the warranty provisions to ensure the entire system or assembly is covered not just constituent parts.

The majority of this month's more than 50 CSI Specifying Practice Group members was specifiers that have used manufacturer's specifications to create construction specifications. The discussion was lively and caused the meeting to run overtime before reaching the mid point of the planned presentation. And debate continued by email after the group meeting ended and may continue here by leaving a comment to this posting.

So next month's meeting will continue the discussion, and conclude, perhaps. Be sure to join us April 7 for Part the Second. Join the group, now, to share your thoughts.

Louis Medcalf and I invited Phil Kabza, SpecGuy, to help present this month's topic. Phil is a specifier who routinely writes manufacturer's specifications. This is a perspective that many specifiers do not have. So we gladly welcomed this alternative viewpoint.

The group polls confirmed what we believed to be true. The majority use manufacturer's guide specs:

• Frequently
• As information for writing spec sections from scratch
• Never as written without major editing
• And are compelled to add competing products

Since the group majority was specifiers, this may not represent the industry as a whole. It is believed that architects and engineers that are not dedicated specifiers are more likely to use manufacturer's specifications as written or with some modifications to suit a project's conditions.

Manufacturers have mixed purposes for their specifications. Other than getting their product specified, they tend to establish limitations for liability, competition, and responsibility. Retaining these limits in a project spec can have adverse effects on the project. The most troubling may be inadvertent exclusion of work from the contract when the spec requires work to be "by others" or defines work that is not included.

Formatting can give an instant clue to the age of manufacturer's specifications. Most manufacturers have not adopted the latest SectionFormat, published in 2008. Some still exist using MasterFormat 1995, 5-digit, 16-division numbers and titles. This format was replaced in 2004. Of course nothing has changed since 2004, like codes and standards, so just changing the number and title may only give the illusion the information is current.

Manufacturer's specs will rarely be well coordinated with the other specifications, especially Division 01 - General Requirements. Before using manufacturer's specs for a project, they should be coordinated with Division 01 and drawing terminology. Editing decisions must be made and product options must be selected to suit the project conditions.

Phil reviewed what manufacturers include in Part 2 - Products of the specifications. The most contentious: the competition. Most manufacturers do not want to name their competition in their own spec. The perception seems to be that naming competitors may keep them from getting the work. The poll showed most specifiers will add competitors if they are not named. For a manufacturer's spec, it seems logical that the manufacturer should want to control the competition, naming only products that create fair competition. If the competition is not named, the manufacturers give up control to the specifier, and the result may not be fair.

The group asked about "gotcha" clauses. Of course, the classic gotcha is the single requirement that makes the spec proprietary. It is often difficult to recognize gotcha clauses because they are subtle and innocuous. Test standards with specific results, minimum dimensions, and minimum performance can make specs proprietary if not compared with the competition. Avoid gotcha clauses by asking the named competitors to review the spec. Every good product rep has seen the manufacturer's spec before and knows the pitfalls.

What questions do you have that should be discussed in Part the Second? Post your questions here to to share with the Group.

We all know Specifiers are responsible for documenting product decisions, but who should be making the decisions? When should product decisions be made? Why do people put off making product decisions? What general principles affect product decisions?

Fifty members of the CSI Specifying Practice Group shared ideas and experiences about deciding what products to specify in construction projects.

The group overwhelmingly indicated that they frequently have trouble getting design teams to make timely product decisions that they should be making.
One in-house specifier surprised the group, saying he never has difficulty getting decisions. The Reason: He IS the design team. Most specifiers are not that lucky.



So what did the group say... Listen to the meeting recording.

Coercing timely decisions requires tact, especially when the decision maker is your employer. Product decisions for a firm principal may not be a priority item when working to submit a proposal, making payroll, or starting monthly billings.

Project managers, project architects, and other production personnel are often at the mercy of the designers for product decisions. The production staff understands the need to decide and document the products. However the designers resist commitment, especially early in the design process.

CADD was seen as a detriment to product decisions. It is easy to copy details from past projects, even when they don't fit the current project. Having the detail gives the impression the decision is made, when in fact, it is not. Erroneous details erode confidence in the documents and require additional time to discover the correct, undocumented information.

Only 10% of the group uses Preliminary Project Descriptions (PPD). Co-leader, Louis Medcalf, and I both promote the use of PPDs as a valuable tool to collect design data and decisions throughout the design process. Tables of Contents and Spec Work Plans were also promoted as other tools to help document decisions. All the tools work as checklists to help prompt and record decisions. And when developed early, these tools add the benefit of helping coordinate terms between the drawings and specifications.

Download a copy of the presentation for your own use.
Specifying Practice Group 2011.02.pdf