Project Specifications 7

[VA-Struct-Engr]

Hello everyone.
I have a general, industry standard question. On a typical (non-public) project, who is responsible for project specifications? Architects (the Prime) will compile the specifications, but do structural engineers produce specs for the structural sections? I am curious, because there are several sub-sections within the Masterspecs structural specs that are best formatted by an architect. For example, in the Cast In Place Concrete spec section (033000), criteria for level of slab flatness and levelness is provided which are not structural in nature. What do other structural engineers out there do when it comes to project specifications?
Thank you for your help in advance!

 

[dik]

NorthCivil; "What are the implications of the spec, if you as the engineer did not write the spec, and did not receive the spec?"

I wouldn't hang my hat on that... maybe the person was negligent in not asking to review them?

Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

I would think it would be preferable for the Arch. to write the spec. that covers everything, based in part on the structural requirements from your design. That way, the contractor has all the requirements together, but it doesn't require you to delve into aspects that aren't your concern or within your purview.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[dik]

Even if Architect prepared, I'd still review them; my experience is that most Architects are not up to it. I've encountered several extremely good spec writers... and, they still have engineers vet their works. Best not to rely on giving a monkey a typewriter in the chance he might get something right.

Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

In regard to the hierarchy of specs and drawings. Our construction specifications book (for the DOT) lists an order of precedence. I'll list what I think are those that may be relevant to the discussion:

Contract Amendments (most recent first)
Special Provisions
Contract Plans
Standard Plans
Standard specifications (spec book)
Electronic CADD files




Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[dik]

In Canada for a Stipulated Sum Contract (Standard CCDC-2), the hierarchy is:
The Agreement (aka Contract),
The Definitions,
Supplementary Conditions,
General Conditions,
Division 1 of the Specifications,
Technical Specifications,
Material and Finishing schedules, and
The Drawings

You can see that the Drawings are at the bottom of the list... the least important. Must have been prepared by lawyers and not engineers.

Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

Seems there are significant differences in the hierarchy depending on where you are. I guess that's why we define it for ourselves.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[BAretired]

I have, upon occasion seen the note "Drawings on this project will take precedence over specifications." or words to that effect. I wonder how much significance the courts would put on such a note.

BA

 

[r13]

I think lawyers have seen more specs than engineers do. Only at two companies I had chances to practice spec writing skill, one was an AE firm, the other was a start-up office for a design-built contractor.

 

[dik]

"I have, upon occasion seen the note "Drawings on this project will take precedence over specifications." or words to that effect. I wonder how much significance the courts would put on such a note."

With normal CCDC 2 Contracts... if the note is on the drawings, it may not mean anything... it would have to be covered by a Supplementary Condition, likely.

On a recent project I was looking at, the engineer spec'd CISC/CPMA 1-73a primer and a double coating in the crawlspace. I should have noted that the primer is a performance primer that has to last at least 6 months, and using a double coat doesn't improve very much...

Dik

 

[r13]

The note is meant to guide the construction professionals and contractors shall minor technical conflict arise.

 

[NorthCivil]

dik - The CCDC2 is a standard template agreement between an owner and general contractor. As one engineering company that forms part of the army of consultants typically involved on the job, I have never been party to a CCDC2. My contracts are always a service agreement that was drafted by our own office or the office of the client.

Not my contract, not my responsibility? I believe

 

[NorthCivil]

I will backpedal on my words a bit - I do think it would be prudent to ask to review the spec for a hospital, aged care facility, school, prison. But for everyday residential and commercial design, I would not bother with reviewing project specs

 

[dik]

Residential I don't often do, but for commercial, etc. I would normally review specs if there are any... I think the expression is, 'not my circus, not my monkeys'(from an old Polish expression, I understand). My understanding is that as a key technical professional on a project your feet can be held to the fire if you are the only one skilled in that particular area of expertise, even if you didn't have anything to do with it.

I don't think I've ever had a project where they have asked me not look at the specs... and if so instructed, I'd probably look at them anyway...(I'm aware of the liability involved) that's the way I am.

Dik

 

[MrHershey]

We always contribute to specs unless the architect goes rogue on us and submits something without our knowledge. Is about 50/50 on starting from our own version of Masterspec (or whatever spec system is being used) vs editing the architect's spec which is often also just plain Masterspec.

For items where we collaborate with architect, I just leave what they have if they've edited it unless I need something more stringent. If they haven't edited I leave the blanks/brackets from the default spec rather than take a guess. Would rather we look like idiots or have to answer an RFI than spec the wrong thing and end up with a problem.

I try to always do specs fresh and try not to copy over from previous jobs. Once you've done it a few times it really doesn't take that long. People above are correct that usually no one reads them. But when they do get read, it's usually because there's been a problem or a disagreement. So not doing specs because they're rarely used isn't really a great stance given the circumstances in which they tend to get used. I've been burned a few times by bad specs that were just copied from older jobs and missing key items (or had a lot of extra items we didn't need). I've also been saved or had my stance against a contractor strengthened many times by good specifications. I very much prefer being saved to being burned.