Regarding Arlen's "many more references to standards without including what in the standard is critical for the application" comment:
a. For ASTM or other standards referring to products, the key is that the item meets those standards. Packaging should say that. Contractor should tell his supplier "sell me stuff that meets this criteria". If you happen to be at the job and see otherwise, then start talking about "non-conforming materials" being used.
b. For basic residential work, there will be no submittals, Contractor will buy what they like to work with or what is in-stock. Architect will probably not be aware of the discrepancy.
c. For ASTM or other standards describing how to execute the work - like, maybe drywall finishing or tile setting - sub-contractor will probably just do it like they always have. Application instructions on the packaging are in too-small font to read, if they had the time.
d. And, yes, Civil and Structural drawings often include "General Notes" pages covered with "Contractor shall" messages. I think these are intended to get drawings approved by plan reviewers. It could be possible to create something like that for the architectural sections, in an extremely abbreviated version.
e. I can't remember a building plan reviewer asking for a copy of a Project Manual.
For those looking for a simple specification master, I recommend seeing if you can locate "SpexPlus" on a way-back search of the internet. It was free, until it wasn't - I think that the Masterspec behemoth bought the rights. Kind of like the original MSpec "Short Language Version" but even more condensed. My latest master dates to 2017. Yes, a lot of products have appeared since then, but it is a solid foundation to build on. I have used it for projects bigger than houses - no houses yet - but it probably could be distilled to become "Sheet specs".
And, related to an earlier suggestion about binding details in the project manual - 35 or so years ago the firm I was with did that for a high school project; 11x17 detail pages. Naturally, since no one purging archives at the school district or at the firm recognized that they were something a bit more special than just "more spec pages", all of those original 11x17s and copies were discarded. 15 years later, when it was time to do a small addition -- matching details became a guessing game. According to those who worked on the project, 11x17 copies were very handy for installers to use. Today, iPads, etc. take care of that.
------------------------------
Joel Niemi AIA
Joel Niemi Architect
Snohomish, WA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-14-2025 10:23 PM
From: Arlen Solochek
Subject: Public/hi-ed and Multi-Family/Residential (development) and how to use specifications for the work.
Looking backwards as well as forward, I'd like to add a couple of comments.
1. My own theory about the attitude and approach from the residential contractors is that they have generally come from very developer/contractor centric product and process selection for their projects. We might indicate a type of light fixture, a plumbing fixture, a particular type of finish, maybe even supplemented by a few sentence broad description, but with the contractor making a final selection. But so much of the final project was left in the hands contractor that the residential industry didn't want or need to grow up to full commercial construction.
2. It's usually pretty clear what the rules (the "Contract") say about the role and need for specifications. It's both frustrating and expensive that the design professional has to expend so much effort to "educate" the contractor about the specifications. I'm not generally in the realm of ignoring rules, but there should be a way and effort to meet the problem halfway. At one time, we often saw a keynote variety where the numbering started with a spec section number. At another time, some of us expanded some of the keynotes slightly to include more relevant information but then we were disciplined to only provide the briefest of information with the statement or implication to "see specs." Our civil, structural, plumbing, and electrical sets seem to include a great deal more "spec" type information than we do on architecture sets. Can we do this?
3. To our detriment, our specs have become less readable, more encyclopedic, and less useful to field tradespeople. They are longer, more complicated, many more references to standards without including what in the standard is critical for the application (or even where to find the standard on line, because no one except Ron G has copies of everything or where/if it can be found on-line without a purchase or subscription). I wrote specs for years in an office and I'm doing forensic work now in retirement. Even with my knowledge base, it's just damn hard to find anything and once we find it, to find its utility. Imagine the poor carpenter or painter or plumber, or even the superintendent, trying to find or follow what they need. Is it worth the blasphenous discussion regarding maybe it's time to bifurcate the specs into what the office, the project manager and engineer, the supplier need for the very technical information (the "what") and have a second field version for the doers (the "how")?
4. Will technology save us? Look at how far we've come in handling field documents. How often are we seeing IPads, augmented or virtual reality, etc. being used in the field, all documents being electronic files? Should all drawings hyperlink keynotes or details to the specification information? What about QR codes and similar smart scan capabilities being built into our drawings and details? Our BIM models and software already can hyperlink between a detail cut symbol on one drawing sheet and that detail, or from a bubbled ASI to the new detail and information? Can we spend our time making our documents more useful and less time trying to roll a boulder up a hill, job after job?
Original Message:
Sent: 4/11/2025 7:39:00 PM
From: Sean Catherall AIA
Subject: RE: Public/hi-ed and Multi-Family/Residential (development) and how to use specifications for the work.
I have found an unbelievable disparity between the document-literacy of commercial contractors and residential contractors. Understanding this, I have chosen options that are primarily designed to get the job done--and secondarily may cause contractors to become more document-literate (at least I hoped that).
One (not very successful) attempt included printing specifications on full-size drawing sheets--6 to 12 pages of specs per sheet, depending on drawing sheet size.
Another practice I have considered, but never attempted, was printing all details in the Project Manual--one detail per page--instead of in the drawing set. I learned about this from a firm practicing in Southern California in the 1980's. I believe their objective was to ensure that the Project Manual was used consistently throughout construction and to get builders used to using a Project Manual. And perhaps to save money on printing? I've always been concerned that this might add details to the list of ignored contract documents.
------------------------------
Sean Catherall AIA
Murray UT
Original Message:
Sent: 04-09-2025 11:15 PM
From: Janene K. Christopher AIA
Subject: Public/hi-ed and Multi-Family/Residential (development) and how to use specifications for the work.
Do you find a difference between public/hi-ed and multi-fam/residential (development) projects for the CCA phase ? We do both types of work, but when it comes to CCA there seems to be a lack of understanding on how to use specifications for the work. For the Multi-Fam GC it's purely a vehicle for submittals. All other scope requirements are ignored. They want all these "directions" noted in the drawings! The specs are ignored and they say they don't read it! It's not a huge spec either 350 pages for Architectural sections.
This is my example- this is the situation for Multi-Family/Residential work:- The exposed steel equipment supports on the roof were not primed nor painted by GC. It's now rusting, (as exposed steel would here in So Cal). We pointed this out in the AFOR and indicated it needed to be primed and painted. Spec section 05 0513 - Shop Applied Steel Primer ; Section on Surface Preparation indicates the Application & Surface Preparation. Section 09 9100 - Painting states "Unless otherwise indicated, paint all surfaces throughout the Project, except the following.
a. Concrete.
b. Steel decking.
c. Roofing.
d. Insulation and its facing.
e. Finish hardware, except items specified with a USP finish.
f. Prefinished metal surfaces, including anodized aluminum, chrome plating, powder coatings, and similar pre-finished materials.
g. Natural finish metal surfaces, including mill finish aluminum, stainless steel, copper, bronze, brass and similar finished materials.
h. Walls or ceilings in concealed and inaccessible areas, including furred areas, chases, and shafts.
i. Moving, mechanical, or electrical parts of operating units, including valve and damper operator linkages, sensing devices, motor and fan shafts..
j. Nameplates and required labels, including UL, FM, and other equipment identification, performance rating, or name plates.
Where surfaces are not specifically indicated, paint them to match adjacent similar materials or areas. "
The GC has the Owner convinced we are at fault as there wasn't a "note" on the drawings. We believe the specification above is a sufficient, requiring priming for steel & painting of the exposed steel. The GC submitting a CO to the Owner & the Architect being blamed, (apparently the spec was never read to that level of detail, so it doesn't count!). This would not be the case for the public work. They read and comply. Steel in the same location on a public project is painted! Any thoughts on this or am I just dealing with "bad" actors (meaning a lesser quality of contractor than those doing public/commercial work). We have been documenting and copying the Owner to insure the liability paper-trail.
------------------------------
Janene Christopher AIA
Steinberg Hart
San Diego CA
------------------------------