Practice Management Member Conversations

I can understand many project architects' frustration with specifications that require extensive editing on each project.  Those architects who work with a single repeat building type and have a standardized practice may be able to work from pre-edited masters or simplified master systems that only require updated standards and product names for many sections.  But most architectural firms work on a variety of projects and under a variety of project delivery systems, from negotiated developer/contractor relationships through federal design-bid-build, and require more complex specification resources in order to create adequate construction contract documents that support enforcement of design intent.

When I read about the challenges of asking firm project architects to pick up a specification system once or twice a year and successfully edit its contents to fit a project, I ask whether the firm considers this practice something they would want to defend in event of a legal dispute?  Graduate architects arrive at a firm with hundreds or thousands of hours' experience with digital design software, and no training in specifications editing or product selection and evaluation whatsoever.  The architects' intern years may provide some on-the-job training in this area; most architects are software savvy and can pick up the limited demands of spec editing software very quickly.

Not so with specification content knowledge.  It's no wonder many project architects find it difficult to edit specifications and long for simple solutions.  They get three screens into a database editor such as MasterSpec's LINX or BSD SpecLink and can't answer the question in front of them because they don't know the difference between Insulated-Core Metal Wall Panels and Composite Wall Panels.  They certainly don't know that you don't use ASTM D 2178 Type VI roofing felts in a cold-applied BUR system, and no software will tell them that.  And if they spend 99 percent of their labor budget behind their CAD or BIM machine, and then expect to bang out the specs in the last 20 or 30 hours before the project goes to print, well ... god bless them!

Ease of software use is one of several issues with specifications systems.  Another is matching the scope of the section to the project type.  And the third is the adequacy of the section content once published.  Manufacturers and their suppliers still have to guess what is needed in order to price a large percentage of US projects because the specification content was so poorly edited, if it was edited at all. 

AE firm construction contract administrators are the people who should be consulted about how extensive the language should be and what specification system should be used.  Those I have worked with over the decades don't want short form language, especially in Division 01.  They want everything they can get to be able to enforce quality and performance, if it gets down to that.  And it does.  They need to be able to reject inadequate submittals, define and reject defective work, and decertify payment on uncorrected work.  If your specifications, once edited, enable them to do that on all your projects, then you are in good hands.

The cost of a single change order that gets directed back to an AE firm by an owner claiming design professional negligence far exceeds the savings realized in editing boilerplate-style automated specifications or flipping specifications from one project to the next.

-------------------------------------------
Philip Kabza AIA
Partner and Dir Technical Services
SpecGuy
Charlotte NC
-------------------------------------------

I agree with all of what Phil said.  I really like Masterspec, and find Linx a valuable tool, but no software package is going to be a reasonable substitute for knowledge.

In addition to being an independent specification writer, I also consult with attorneys in cases involving construction, and I often see inadequately prepared project documents, including specifications.  It appears to me that all too often architects (and engineers and landscape architects) rely on junior staff to prepare project specifications, and then do not properly review what has been written or edited.  The same could be said in regard to drawings of course.  CADD can make drawings look like they are more accurate than they really are simply due to machine production, and computer-produced specifications from a master can have the same problem.  It is absolutely essential that specifications are produced, or at least very carefully reviewed, by the most experienced architects on staff who are fully familiar with the project, not the least experienced staff.  We all need to start sometime, but supervision is a key element in the use of less experienced project personnel.

Regardless of what system a firm uses to produce construction specifications, as Phil pointed out, they should be produced for a particular project, not simply copied from one project to the next.  There is no "Easy Button" for specs, regardless of the master system used.  My favorite system is Masterspec, and I have found it to be a reliable and accurate production tool for doing project specifications, with excellent resource information (known as "Supporting Documents"), but just like any system, it must be used carefully.  It is also good to remember that there is no master system that will have all of the sections needed, especially for large projects, and that some sections will need to be written, not just edited from a master.  It takes an experienced writer to produce a spec section "from scratch," regardless of what master system one uses.

I continue to be surprised at the number of architects (and engineers) who simply have no concept of how much time it takes to produce a good Project Manual, regardless of the system used.  Tools can save a spec writer time here and there, but experience is the only way to save significant amounts of time.  "Time is money," as the saying goes, but half-edited or poorly-edited master specs are an open invitation into a courtroom at some point in the future, or at the very least a breeding ground for unhappy clients and problem projects. 

-------------------------------------------
Christopher McClure AIA
Principal
Christopher E. McClure, AIA, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Raleigh NC
-------------------------------------------