Why Is The Project Manual So Big?

“Do you spec writers get paid by the pound?”

Sooner or later, on almost every construction project, somebody in a meeting comments on the size of the project spec, to general guffaws all around.  Each participant tries to outdo the other in displaying a dismissive attitude toward construction specs.

Then, within a few days, someone locates and distributes a grainy tenth-generation photocopy of that seventies-era cartoon showing a construction-site outhouse with a speech balloon saying “Damn!  We’re out of specs.”

But the minute that any of the actors in a construction project need support for a position they’re taking, where do they look?

The spec. 

If the spec has information that settles the issue, everything’s fine.  But if the answer can’t be found in the spec, the spec writer puts on his or her thinking cap and wordsmiths something to make the documents better on the next project.

That’s why the spec book is so big. We spec writers get a lot of feedback.  And we’re driven by the need to strive for a loophole-proof set of construction documents.

The inevitable result of such feedback is more words and more pages in the Project Manual. 

Ultimately, though, we’ve got about as much chance of eliminating contract document document loopholes as the IRS has of eliminating tax law loopholes. Why? 

• Numero Uno, The Last War Syndrome:  No two projects are really the same, and the solution to the last project’s problem may not quite cut it for the current project.  Frequent criticism of the military is that they’re always fighting the last war.  Same thing for spec writers and loopholes.
• Numero Two-o, Contractor Attitude:  No two projects have the same cast of characters.  Project A’s contractor may be super-cooperative and dedicated to really satisfying the owner and getting continuing business.  Project B’s contractor may have bid the job low, always intending to make up the difference on change orders, in which case even a good set of contract documents will be under constant attack.  Contractor B might challenge provisions in the documents that contractor A would accept without question.
• Numero-Three-o, BIM!:  Whenever we emerge from this ghastly depression, BIM usage will take off like a rocket.  As entranced as I am with the idea of BIM and it’s possibilities for improving AE/spec writer productivity and document coordination, contractors will certainly find ways of exploiting information in the BIM model for all kinds of embarrassing change orders. Which leads me to…
• Numero-Four-o, Contractor Creativity:  The loophole-exploiting creativity of contractors, like that of tax lawyers, seems to be boundless.

Even though it’s a never-ending task, eliminating contract document loopholes remains an ideal we have to strive for, kind of like the holy grail.  Hence big spec books are here to stay.

Oh, by the way, the numero-uno, numero two-o thing.  I borrowed it from one of my favorite writers, the late Molly Ivins, who was fond of using this device for lists in her newspaper articles about Texas politics.

REVENGE OF THE NERDS?

For years I’ve carped about the shallowness and triviality of TV news and the human interest pieces they air rather than telling us what’s really happening in the world.

Imagine my surprise when I found myself liking one of Jeanne Moos’ goofy little stories on CNN the other day.  It was an amusing story about Peter Orszag, the White House Budget irector. 

Although the story was typical TV dreck, I found it weirdly heartening, not for anything Mr. Orszag is doing in connection with the budget, but for it’s possible implications for the reputations of spec writers.

The gist of Jeanne Moos’ story was that Mr. Orszag, who is reputed to be a brilliant economist but who bears a striking resemblance to some of the characters in the 1984 movie “Revenge of the Nerds”, has somehow finally succeeded in making it sexy to be a nerd.   The story focused on the divorced Mr. Orszag’s romantic entanglements and the fact that he was apparently considered to be one of Washington’s most eligible bachelors until he recently announced he would marry again.

So if the nerdy Mr. Orszag is considered sexy, can spec writers be far behind?  We’re the quintessential nerds, absorbed in the business of creating contract documents.  Not quite as nerdy as the algorithm-writing engineers at Google, but close.  (Full disclosure:  In college I did indeed have a pocket protector bursting with pens.  This was when I was an architecture student, even before I knew what specs were. I didn’t clip my slide rule on my belt like the engineering students, though.)

Mind you, we spec writers aren’t looking for romantic entanglements or groupies as a reward for our nerdiness, but it would be nice to get wider attention and acknowledgement for our contributions to the architecture and engineering professions.

Why I like MASTERFORMAT 2004, Numero Uno

Anecdotal reports, along with conversations in CSI gatherings seem to indicate that many architects, engineers and specifiers are lingering with the old, no-longer-supported-by-CSI, 16-division MASTERFORMAT 1995, instead of using the new (actually five years old now) 50-division MASTERFORMAT 2004.

I suppose old habits are hard to change, especially given the near-geriatric profile of CSI’s membership.  Full disclosure:  I’m getting close to this demographic myself, but I have enthusiastically embraced the use of MASTERFORMAT 2004.  I’d support MF04 anyway, just because it’s the product of the volunteer-driven consensus standard process that’s at the heart of professionalism and good professional societies. 

But here’s another reason:  It’s easier to produce HVAC, plumbing and fire protection specs with MF04 than with MF95.

Remember the interminable tussles between plumbing engineers, fire protection engineers, and HVAC engineers over the content of the so-called common requirements of the old Division 15 – Mechanical?

The various engineers could never seem to agree on what valves to include, or what insulation to include, or what pipe sizes and types to include, or what to say about painting or concrete equipment bases, or what to say about firestopping penetrations.  And on and on…

Division 15 could never be wrapped up until all three disciplines had edited the common spec sections. 

These problems were exacerbated when one or more of these engineering disciplines was contracted to an outside firm or firms.  The situation was almost hard-wired to create gaps and/or overlaps in bidding and contract documents, resulting in addendum items and change orders.

In contrast, MF 04 gives each of the three engineering disciplines their own Division, 21 for Fire Protection, 22 for Plumbing, and 23 for HVAC.  Each of these Divisions is self-contained, intended to include all of the components necessary to bid and build that work.

Thus MF 04 makes it easier for each of the three engineering disciplines to wrap up their specs.  Yes, it’s true that this means at least some redundant text in each of the three divisions, but I think it’s a small price to pay.

APPLIED CLAIRVOYANCE – WRITING SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE THE DRAWINGS ARE DONE

Clairvoyance:  perceiving things beyond the natural range of the senses (from Google Dictionary)

I don’t really believe in clairvoyance, but writing specs often seems to require something of the sort.  When drawings and specifications have to be produced simultaneously and within a short time, and the project schedule doesn’t allow time for a spec writer to see and coordinate with a complete set of the drawings before bidding, it’s a real challenge to get the documents right.

Everyone who has studied CSI’s Project Resource Manual or taken a CSI certification course has gotten the message that drawings and specifications should agree, or at least not disagree.  Clients have a right to expect no less, because flawed bidding and construction documents reflect poorly on their design-professional authors, complicate the bidding process and, if the flaws aren’t corrected by addendum before a contract is signed, subject the client to extra costs during construction.

Herewith a few clairvoyance-simulating tips and tricks I’ve learned over the years:

• Don’t wait for an official copy of the drawings. You’re better off starting project specs early even if you have to start with an in-progress “snapshot” of the drawings rather than an official “DD”, or “50% CD” or whatever the milestone is.  If you wait for an official printing milestone of some sort, you may not have time to understand the project adequately.  Ask the team for sketches, perspectives, or whatever materials the team has developed to explain the project to the client or to themselves.  If you can get your hands on viewer software that will allow you to view in-progress CAD drawings, do it.  If you can participate in contributing information to BIM models, do it.  I haven’t been able to get involved with BIM yet but I sure intend to do so as soon as I can, because that will put me into the project loop.
• Comb the drawings, project memos and emails for pertinent factoids, and mark up a copy of your master spec table of contents.  This usually generates questions you should ask the team.
• Ferret out a copy of the Owner/AE Agreement and read it.  Ditto consultant agreements and the Owner/CM Agreement if applicable. Start the bidding and contract requirements and Division 01 first (before the Division 02 through 14 sections) and send a draft copy to your AE project manager for in-house and client review.  Point out known issues, assumptions, wild guesses, etc., and ask for direction.
• Question!  Pepper members of the project team with questions.  Do plan drawings disagree with elevations?  Do schedules disagree with details?  Do drawings disagree with project memos and emails?  Do details agree with AE office policy?  Ask the team to clarify each apparent contradiction, preferably by email so you can keep track of responses.  I love email for its immediacy, but watch out and don’t depend on it too much. Keep the focus of each email narrow, and send multiple emails – one for each major subject.  People have a tendency to absorb only one thought from an email message and then fire off a response, so if you send a complicated message with many questions, you may not get all the answers you need.
• Interior Finishes:  Often interior finish material choices are made late in the CD process.  If you delay editing the spec sections for finishes until final selections are made, you may have difficulty finishing the Project Manual on time.  Talk to your interior designer and see if they will consider specifying proprietary color choices in a finish schedule on the drawings.  Then the spec section can focus on installation and workmanship standards and just refer to the finish schedule on the drawings for the actual product and color.  Thus any delay in finalizing finish materials will affect only the drawings and not the specs.