I'm involved in a project where our firm is not the architect-of-record. The lead firm is a small shop filled with less sophisticated architects than I am used to working with. They are disorganized, frequently show up late and unprepared to meetings and are incapable of efficiently and effectively moving the project forward. In essence, they are the type of architects being described below.

I recently read two separate pieces on similar themes of where we are headed as an architecture profession and how we see our role in the larger building team. Those of us who spend a lot of time and energy thinking about the practice of architecture, the construction process or even just the management of our offices have encountered some if not all of thoughts contained in this blog posting. I could not have put these thoughts into a better or more cohesive argument than these two colleagues, so I asked permission to link their recent blogs.

Liz O'Sullivan, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C, NCARB is an architect and specifications consultant in Denver, CO. Her firm, Liz O'Sullivan Architecture, LLC offers specification services o architects and her blog, "Comments From A Spec Writer," is a must read. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT is a Senior Architect for Specifications with Hixson in Cincinnati, OH. His weekly newsletter, Per-SPEC-tives, is available via email and on 4specs.com. It is welcomed in my Inbox each Wednesday and is full of insights into our industry. Enjoy the work these colleagues and I hope to spark some thought and further discussion into these important issues.

To read "Comments From A Spec Writer," click here. The posting I'm interested in is from February 6, 2012 and is titled "Architects, Take Back The Reins."

Here is Ralph's newsletter from February 22, 2012:

PLAYING "LET’S PRETEND" by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Cincinnati, OH

Playing "Let’s Pretend", of course, is really ignoring the facts [or not knowing them] or substituting your view of things despite reality [although you are fully aware]. It’s a sham, suitable and understandable only for youngsters who make their own world. But our world is quite different. Some people have a pretend mindset that they are the best; the prettiest; the strongest; the most ingenious;, the fastest;, the doer of the perfect crime [even billionaires do this]; the smartest…………etc. Sorry! Pretend is not going to get you there.

Today far too many architects are playing "Let’s Pretend". You immediately recognize them when you see a bunch of architectural hind-ends up in the air [heads beneath the sand]

It wasn’t always like this! In times past, but still within a reasonable career, architects were the Captains of the teams. Usually first hired, back then, the architect was allowed to create the design team, by hiring appropriate consultants as deemed necessary. Mainly, the consultants were those used most often-- even to exclusivity—so there was a level of confidence immediately installed in the team and its ability.

Some projects were complex as well as extensive, but today's projects seem to be overly complex. This appears to be a function of several things-- client needs, client indecision, new and complex technology, increased security, excessive scrutiny, unreasonable time frames, often inadequate budgets, etc. Now that is not to say that these items are insurmountable, but to overcome them takes ingenuity-- and often added time and money. Truly a Catch-22 by definition.

But, over the years, architects have gotten to the place where they are continually made to play defense! In lieu of team leadership, they quite often are reduced to necessary evils, or perceived as idealistic dreamers. Many see them as inadequate of creating budget abiding design concepts, reasonable accurate estimates, proper constructability in the work, and contract documents that are correct, reasonable, informative and enforceable. They are made to defend what they do, in good faith, as their service to their client.

Owners particularly dismayed by the problems with estimates and schedules have moved to other delivery systems. Here the owner can come by almost absolute control to a level that satisfies them-- highly accurate estimates; can-do schedules; and single-point responsibility. The tendency all too often is to regard architects as necessary to a point, but baggage afterward-- they can create decent solutions, but just can’t seem to "pull them off".

In the traditional delivery systems, the architect is "odd-man out" since the second construction contract [Owner-Contractor] has been elevated to primary position. The Contractor can easily gain the owner’s ear, make good estimates based on documented unit prices, knows construction methods and materials better than anyone else, and can run rough-shod [push and shove sub-contracts, and material orders, etc] to meet schedules-- adding work force, working overtime, etc. The architect does not have the same variety of "ammunition" available and has only a small supply in a few of these areas; they can and do work overtime. So the architect plays defense-- and practices to prevent things from happening! This leads to caution, conservatism, mild-manner actions, high ethics and professionalism, but not the semblances of "offense"-- the "let’s-go-get-‘em" drive.

After decades of challenges, reduction of status, replacement by other professions, architects of more recent times have taken to more aggressive tactics. They have become even better at what they do best and have improved their other ancillary skills. But the ground that was lost in the past-- i.e., the close, confident, "agency" relationship with owners has not been fully repaired. Too often still, the contractors persist in a doom-sayer profile, "dissing" the design professionals, and whispering conflicting information in owner ears.

To play better "offense", architects, in particular, need to establish better understanding and fully open discussions and communications with owners, up-front and early on. This is NOT an effort at combative competition with the contractor but rather setting distinct limits on who does what, and what the owner can expect from each party. There needs to be a reinforcement that teams play BOTH defense and offense, and in so doing, with equal vigor, common intent, mutual support and complete confidence in each other, projects can be better produced.

Oh, by the way, this includes recognizing that architectural education is a mess and in dire need of betterment—and soon. BIM is fine, but not the cure-all and has diluted and diverted the thinking of far too many practitioners. BUT despite what it contains, it DOES NOT generate or select construction information, or adaptations. The need remains to get necessary information and knowledge into the students.

Let’s quite pretending we are an elite group of talented and well trained professionals, when in reality we have a hollow [of knowledge] that needs filling. Shamefully, that is all basic, fundamental and requisite information for quality construction the owner desires-- and pays for!

New and Withdrawn ASTM Standards July 2011 through December 2011

Below is an annotated list of new and withdrawn ASTM Standards related to the built environment. They are derived from weekly ASTM Tracker updates from July to December 2011. For more information on the standards listed, or information on obtaining ASTM International Standards Tracker service, go to www.astm.org.

New Standards

A1066/A1066M - Standard Specification for High-Strength Low-Alloy Structural Steel Plate Produced by Thermo-Mechanical Controlled Process (TMCP).

A1072/A1072M - Standard Specification for Zinc-5 % Aluminum (Hot-Dip) Coatings on Iron and Steel Products.

A1074 - Standard Specification for Hot Tin and Hot Tin/Lead Dip on Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metals.

C1675 - Standard Practice for Installation of Precast Reinforced Concrete Monolithic Box Sections for Culverts, Storm Drains, and Sewers.

C1708 - Standard Test Methods for Self-leveling Mortars Containing Hydraulic Cements.

C1709 - Standard Guide for Evaluation of Alternative Supplementary Cementitious Materials (ASCM) for Use in Concrete.

C1719 - Standard Test Method for Installed Precast Concrete Tanks and Accessories by the Negative Air Pressure (Vacuum) Test Prior to Backfill.

C1722 - Standard Guide for Repair and Restoration of Dimension Stone.

C1735 - Standard Test Method for Measuring the Time Dependent Modulus of Sealants Using Stress Relaxation.

C1736 - Standard Practice for Non-Destructive Evaluation of Adhesion of Installed Weatherproofing Sealant Joints Using a Rolling Device.

C1745/C1745M - Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydraulic Characteristics of Hydrodynamic Stormwater Separators and Underground Settling Devices.

C1751 - Standard Guide for Sampling Radioactive Tank Waste.

C1756 - Standard Guide for Comparing Sealant Behavior to Reference Photographs.

D7181 - Method for Consolidated Drained Triaxial Compression Test for Soils.

D7588 - Standard Guide for FT-IR Fingerprinting of a Non-Aqueous Liquid Paint as Supplied in the Manufacturer's Container.

D7602 - Standard Practice for Installation of Vulcanized Rubber Linings.

D7636/D7636M - Standard Practice for Sampling and Analysis of Modified Bitumen Roof Systems.

D7701 - Standard Test Method for Determining the Flow Rate of Water and Suspended Solids from a Geotextile Bag.

D7703 - Standard Practice for Electrical Leak Location on Exposed Geomembranes Using the Water Lance System.

D7735 - Standard Test Method for Type A Durometer Hardness Testing of Road Marking Thermoplastic at Elevated Temperatures.

D7737 - Standard Test Method for Individual Geogrid Junction Strength.

D7744/D7744M - Standard Test Methods for Tensile Testing of High Performance Polyethylene Tapes.

D7745 - Standard Practice for Testing Pultruded Composites.

D7747 - Standard Test Method for Determining Integrity of Seams Produced Using Thermo- Fusion Methods for Reinforced Geomembranes by the Strip Tensile Method.

E2713 - Standard Guide to Forensic Engineering.

E2751 - Standard Practice for Design and Performance of Supported Glass Walkways.

E2768 - Standard Test Method for Extended Duration Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials (30 min Tunnel Test).

E2775 - Standard Practice for Guided Wave Testing of Above Ground Steel Pipework Using Piezoelectric Effect Transduction.

E2792 - Standard Test Method for Determination of Hydrogen in Aluminum and Aluminum Alloys by Inert Gas Fusion.

E2812 - Standard Practice for Uniform Data Management in Asset Management Records Systems.

E2814 - Standard Guide for Industrial Woven Wire Filter Cloth.

E2817 - Standard Test Method for Test Fueling Masonry Heaters.

E2818 - Standard Practice for Determination of Quasistatic Fracture Toughness of Welds.

E2831/E2831M - Standard Guide for Deployment of Blast Resistant Trash Receptacles in Crowded Places.

E2837 - Standard Test Method for Determining the Fire Resistance of Continuity Head-of-Wall Joint Systems Installed Between Rated Wall Assemblies and Nonrated Horizontal Assemblies.

E2840 - Standard Practice for Pavement Condition Index Surveys for Interlocking Concrete Roads and Parking Lots.

E2848 - Standard Test Method for Reporting Photovoltaic Non-Concentrator System Performance.

F2863 - Standard Specification for Central Vacuum Hose Inlet Valve Socket Dimensions.

F2896 - Standard Specification for Reinforced Polyethylene Composite Pipe For The Transport Of Oil And Gas And Hazardous Liquids.

F2912 - Standard Specification for Glazing and Glazing Systems Subject to Airblast Loadings.

F2916 - Standard Practice for Environmental Impact Analysis of Commercial Food Service Equipment.

F2918 - Standard Test Method for Weighing a Bicycle.

Withdrawn Standards

C1631 - Standard Specification for Cellular Polypropylene Thermal Insulation has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D1523 - Standard Specification for Synthetic Rubber Insulation for Wire and Cable, 90°C Operation has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D3485 - Standard Specification for Smooth-Wall Coilable Polyethylene (PE) Conduit (Duct) for Preassembled Wire and Cable has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D6848 - Standard Specification for Aluminum Pigmented Emulsified Asphalt Used as a Protective Coating for Roofing has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D7712 - Standard Terminology for Sampling and Analysis of Asbestos has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

E1472 - Standard Guide for Documenting Computer Software for Fire Models has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

E1895 - Standard Guide for Determining Uses and Limitations of Deterministic Fire Models has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

E2238 - Standard Guide for Evacuation Route Diagrams has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

E2405 - Standard Test Method for Determination of Fire and Thermal Parameters of Materials Using an Intermediate Scale Test with Vertically Oriented Specimen has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

F1335 - Standard Specification for Pressure-Rated Composite Pipe and Fittings for Elevated Temperature Service has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

F2307 - Standard Specification for Series 10 Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Closed Profile Gravity Pipe and Fittings Based on Controlled Inside Diameter has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

F471 - Standard Terminology Relating to Combination Locks has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

F476 - Standard Test Methods for Security of Swinging Door Assemblies has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

The Time to Join CSI is NOW!

by Marvin Kemp, AIA, CSI, CDT
Chapter Secretary

CSI's Marketing Dept is in the midst of a full-out membership blitz! The time to join CSI is NOW - 9:00 AM EST Friday, October 28, 2011 through midnight EST, Monday, October 31, 2011. Join and save 20% off the national dues!

Here are the details from CSI: Don't miss this special offer! Join CSI by October 31 and pay only $192 for national dues -- a 20% savings.

1.    Visit www.csinet.org/joincsi
2.    Select "Join Now", and then click "Sign Up as a New Member"
3.    Enter Promotion Code 1220ARCH when prompted
4.    Click the "Add Discount" button

We recommend you also join a chapter, where you can attend local education sessions and networking opportunities (chapter dues are not included in this promotional offer).


Why join? In my 11 years of membership in CSI and the Baltimore Chapter, I have learned a greater appreciation for the other members of the construction team. I went from the typical architect who thought the construction process was adversarial and there was no way around it. By meeting other construction professionals, discussing the industry with them and becoming friends with many of them, I 've learned an appreciation for their position in the process and what their motivations are in their work. This in invaluable knowledge and these are invaluable relationships for me in how I conduct my business each day.

Each month at our chapter meetings, I have the opportunity to gain important knowledge that makes me better at doing my job. Through panel discussions and presentations by experts in their fields, the Baltimore Chapter offers outstanding learning opportunities each month. Combine that with the outstanding networking over dinner and drinks and attending the monthly meetings is a no-brainer!

So, come join us! Take advantage of a 20% savings off your national dues. When you join on-line, designate the Baltimore Chapter as your home chapter so you'll recieve our newsletter and other announcements. Our dues are comparatively low for chapters in our area. Do this for you and your career. The education and networking opportunites alone are worth far more than our dues.

A Decent Meal

by Marvin Kemp, AIA,  CSI, CDT

I recently completed a long and arduous project. It was a renovation at a major university's residence hall that was primarily to provide air conditioning. Despite being an almost purely mechanical project, my firm was hired to lead the design team. Since it was a residence hall, construction could only take place during the summer months when the building could be vacant which led to numerous changes in the construction manager's field staff and the university’s inspection group. About the only constant throughout the project was the CM's senior project manager, the university’s project manager, the design engineers and myself.
 
Across the project, I built a good working relationship with the CM’s senior project manager. At times, our relationship was tense, but for the most part, we got along with each other and worked towards a common goal. The same could not always be said for the CM’s field personnel, especially during this final summer. The field staff this summer was very green and fairly combative in how they dealt with me. The senior PM was involved in the project but not on a daily basis.
 
On the day I certified Substantial Completion in August, the university organized a luncheon for the project team. As the team sat down at one large table at the restaurant, the university's PM gave us a strict “no talk about the project” message: we were to enjoy each other’s company and end the project on a high note. It was a pleasant luncheon and we talked sports, family and what projects we were moving on to next. There was some gentle ribbing and the usual digs about alma maters, shared clients and construction versus design.
 
Following the luncheon, I began to think about how nice it was to spend some time with the Owner’s team, the Builder’s team and our team. We truly enjoyed each other’s company and walked away as something more than colleagues, but perhaps not quite friends. I began to think about all of the western traditions that revolve around a meal: some religious and some cultural. Shared meals seem to be a part of our culture that should be recognized and embraced.
 
I wondered aloud why we waited until the project was over to enjoy a meal together. If not a meal, perhaps we should have met at a diner or coffee shop and at least had a cup of coffee and got to know each other. I thought back on other times across my career when tense moments were diffused across lunch or when a reasonable understanding was created over a cup of coffee. It seems the decent thing to do, rather than instantly jumping into the adversarial relationships that have governed our industry for far too long. We all talk about the "Come to Jesus" meetings but why not the "common grounds" of a cup of coffee?
 
I have another project that is just about to start construction. We have a meeting on Monday morning. I think I'll take my own advice and ask the contractor's team out to lunch.

Changing the Specification Writing Paradigm

A case for improving architectural and engineering construction document quality through improved specification production protocols

By Michael C. King, RA, CSI

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

                                        Albert Einstein (attributed)
                                                     US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

Stating the Issue

An internet search of the phrase “Construction Document Quality” will yield an extensive list of surveys, reports and student theses confirming the notion that there is a general decline in the quality of architectural and engineering construction documents being produced by design professionals across the world.  It is the opinion of many in the industry including design professionals, contractors and building owners that the trend has followed a downward trajectory for the past 15 to 20 years. 

Not wishing to dwell on the statement of the problem, the following quote will suffice:

“Survey respondents made it clear the value of well-crafted drawings, specifications and contracts cannot be overstated. When asked to rate the quality of construction documents today, nearly 60 percent of owners, architects, engineers, planners and construction managers surveyed said quality was “deteriorating.” An additional one-quarter of those who responded rated document quality as no worse but no better than in the recent past.”

Quote from an annual survey conducted by the Department of Engineering Professional Development in the College of Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Design professionals are acutely aware of this trend and are in a constant struggle to improve documentation quality.  They confront a daunting list of factors to overcome which obstruct the path to improvement including:

·         Constricted delivery schedules

·         Expanding owner expectations

·         Stagnant fee structures

·         Inadequately trained work force

·         Increased building systems complexity

·         Increased regulatory compliance requirements

Toward a Solution

QM/QC

In the mid-90’s “Total Quality Management” (TQM) came into vogue in A/E/C practice.  This improvement effort was based largely on the successful implementation of the teachings and philosophy of Dr. W. Edwards Deming in the Japanese auto industry.  Deming offered fourteen key management principles for transforming business effectiveness.  The fifth principle is:

“Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.”

Design professionals quickly implemented Quality Management / Quality Control procedures.  While sound in principle these management practices have fallen by the wayside primarily because of scheduling pressures.  To underline the point consider the following:

·         List the initiatives taken by your firm in the past five years that are now part of your “Design Process” and that have improved the accuracy, completeness and constructability of your deliverables.

·         Since implementing these initiatives has there been a reduction in project RFI’s and Change Orders?

CAD / BIM

A/E firms for the past three decades have been driven by competitive necessity and occasionally client mandate to maintain current versions of CAD software and the hardware to run it.  Costs to operate and maintain this technology have soared.  Highly specialized network managers are increasingly relied upon to keep the systems operational.

Then, just when we thought we had CAD standards resolved the cycle begins again.

As with CAD before it, BIM is being touted by vendors, academics and practitioners as the next “Must Have” the panacea that will save the architects from their documentation woes.

Here again the question arises:  Has CAD and will BIM improve the accuracy, completeness and constructability of Construction Documents.  History would suggest not.

A Personal Reflection

In 1971 I stepped through the threshold of my first architectural office and began my career as a draftsman (a currently politically incorrect title).  Standing over a Hamilton drafting table I spent my first month completing Door and Finish Schedules using a mechanical pencil on 1000H Clearprint (translucent drafting paper).  Lettering technique, line weight and correct use of triangles and parallel rules were critical and work was done under the watch full eye of the Project Architect.  Then as now designs needed to be changed and details corrected.  An old office adage was, “Don’t draw more in the morning than you can erase in the afternoon.”  At the time I knew little about construction documents and even less about specifications.

Over the course of the next several years I continued to work in architectural offices both part and full time.  My undergraduate degree was in Graphic Design followed by a Master of Architecture degree in 1978.  I became a registered architect in 1981.  My ability to draft and assemble working drawings had improved significantly.  Still, however, specifications were completed by some “old guy” written out by hand on a yellow pad or cut and pasted from past projects to be transcribed and typed on a typewriter.

The irony is that little has changed!  In the past and architect’s work product included two piles of paper, working drawings and specifications.  We are still producing those two deliverables.  The point is that we, as a profession, are relying on what Jo Drummond, FCSI, CCS calls “paraprofessional drafters” with limited experience to detail projects.  I was one of them!

“Until recently, CAD systems in most firms have been operated not by a computer-literate design professional but by (at best) a paraprofessional drafter who knows far more about the tool (CAD program) than the output (architect and engineering).”

Specification production has been impacted as well.  Mr. Drummond continues:

“In the arena of specifications production, as firm principals have become less involved in document production, text editing and specifications usually fall to one of the project architects or engineers, who is also responsible for production of the drawings.  Urgency and expediency join together and, unfortunately, it has become common practice to simply modify previous project specifications rather than think through the need of the project and make the most appropriate selections of material and products.”

To the Point

Turning the corner and affecting gains in construction document quality is essential and most surely possible.  A step in that direction is to expand the specification specialist’s role in the design team. Specification writers have developed a level of x-ray vision as far as construction detailing is concerned.  Using this resource to assist design/drafters seems appropriate and acceptable.  The specification writer needs to come out of the back room and assume an appropriate role with the design team on the studio floor.

Larger design firms with staffs in excess of 200 employees are typically able to retain the services of a full-time spec writer.  Medium sized firms in the 50 to 200 employee range may commonly assign a senior staff member the role of specification coordination along with other duties.  However, 80 percent of the architectural firms in the US have staffs of 6 employees or less.  They are clearly not is a position to employee a fulltime senior level specification writer.  The assignment is delegated to the principal or project architect who has other responsibilities which distract them from writing specifications.

Using a contract spec writer in an expanded role can be of significant benefit.  The spec writer’s contract might include:

·         Preparation of technical specification sections (Divisions 2 – 14)

·         Verification and preparation of Bidding Requirements, Supplemental Conditions and Division 01 with Owner

·         Coordination of engineering sections

·         Coordinate Submittals, Testing Requirements and Product Warranties

·         Edit LEED requirements to project requirements

·         Coordinate naming conventions with the drawings

·         Assist in construction detailing for consistency with products specified

·         Participate in constructability reviews

Advantages of contracting with a Spec Writer

Using an experienced spec writer on a contract basis has the following advantages:

·         Active knowledge of technically complex materials and building systems

·         Familiarity with master specification systems including appropriate editing required for specific projects

·         Proficiency in the efficient production of project specifications from masters

·         Ability to write custom sections required by a specific project

·         Ability to adapt manufacturers specification to non-proprietary requirements

·         Used only when needed

·         QC reviewer

·         Cost effective (Fixed Fee Contract)

Conclusion

A single change in the design process will not of itself reverse the decline in document quality.  However, making the paradigm shift to a Contracted Spec Writer is a viable consideration in the small to mid-sized architectural firm.  This is especially true in firms seeking opportunities with institutional and larger commercial clients who require more rigorous specifications. 

The systematic and managed application of all design team resources within a well thought design/production process will create synergies leading to higher quality construction documents.

For more information:

The Fifth Annual FMI/CMAA Survey of Owners was conducted by FMI in partnership with the Construction

Management Association of America (CMAA).

Decline in Design Document Quality

The problem of incomplete drawings was mentioned as one of the leading causes of cost overruns. Drawings and construction documents ranked high on the list of concerns for owners in this year’s survey. Seventy-four percent of owners polled said, “yes,” they have experienced a decline in the quality of design documents. In fact, 63% agreed that the quality of design documents has declined to the point where subcontractors, such as electrical and mechanical, are actually completing the design through the shop drawing. Nearly 60% say that approach creates miscommunication and delays, while almost 30% say that it just gets the job done in another way. Nearly 50% of respondents say the construction documents prepared by the design team that are presented to the construction team at the beginning of a project still have “significant information needed.” Another 15% say construction documents are “insufficient with major information needed,” and 5% say these documents are “inadequate with major information needed.” Put another way, only 30% of projects start out with construction documents that are “adequate” or better.

New and Withdrawn ASTM Standards - January 2011 to Jun 2011

Below is an annotated list of new and withdrawn ASTM Standards related to the built Environment. They are derived from weekly ASTM Tracker updates from January to June 2011. For more information on the standards listed, or information on obtaining ASTM International Standards Tracker service, go to

http://www.astm.org./

New Standards

A1068, Standard Practice for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Corrosion Protection Systems on Iron and Steel Products.

A1069/A1069M, Standard Specification for Laser-Fused Stainless Steel Bars, Plates, and Shapes.

A1071/A1071M, Standard Test Method for Evaluating Hygrothermal Corrosion Resistance of Permanent Magnet Alloys.

B976, Standard Specification for Fiber Reinforced Aluminum Matrix Composite (AMC) Core Wire for Aluminum Conductors, Composite Reinforced (ACCR).

C1738, Standard Practice for High-Shear Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes.

C1740, Standard Practice for Evaluating the Condition of Concrete Plates Using the Impulse-Response Method.

C1741, Standard Test Method for Bleed Stability of Cementitious Post-Tensioning Tendon Grout.

D7338, Standard Guide for Assessment Of Fungal Growth in Buildings.

D7444, Standard Practice for Heat and Humidity Aging of Oxidatively Degradable Plastics.

D7475, Standard Test Method for Determining the Aerobic Degradation and Anaerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials under Accelerated Bioreactor Landfill Conditions.

D7488, Standard Test Method for Open Time of Latex Paints.

D7519, Standard Test Method for Internal Bond Strength and Thickness Swell of Cellulosic-Based Fiber and Particle Panels After Repeated Wetting.

D7586/D7586M, Standard Test Method for Quantification of Air Intrusion in Low-Sloped Mechanically Attached Membrane Roof Assemblies.

D7615/D7615M, Standard Practice for Open-Hole Fatigue Response of Polymer Matrix Composite Laminates.

D7616/D7616M, Standard Test Method for Determining Apparent Overlap Splice Shear Strength Properties of Wet Lay-Up Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites Used for Strengthening Civil Structures.

D7617/D7617M, Standard Test Method for Transverse Shear Strength of Fiber-reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars.

D7643, Standard Practice for Determining the Continuous Grading Temperatures and Continuous Grades for PG Graded Asphalt Binders.

D7672, Standard Specification for Evaluating Structural Capacities of Rim Board Products and Assemblies.

D7682, Standard Test Method for Replication and Measurement of Concrete Surface Profiles Using Replica Putty.

D7698, Standard Test Method for In-Place Estimation of Density and Water Content of Soil and Aggregate by Correlation with Complex Impedance Method.

D7702, Standard Guide for Considerations When Evaluating Direct Shear Results Involving Geosynthetics.

D7706, Standard Practice for Rapid Screening of VOC Emissions from Products Using Micro Scale Chambers.

D7726, Standard Guide for The Use of Various Turbidimeter Technologies for Measurement of Turbidity in Water.

E2658, Standard Practices for Verification of Speed for Material Testing Machines.

E2787, Standard Test Method for Determination of Thiodiglycol in Soil Using Pressurized Fluid Extraction Followed by Single Reaction Monitoring Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS).

E2797, Standard Practice for Building Energy Performance Assessment for a Building Involved in a Real Estate Transaction.

E2798, Standard Test Method for Characterization of Performance of Pesticide Spray Drift Reduction Adjuvants for Ground Application.

E2808, Standard Guide for Microspectrophotometry and Color Measurement in Forensic Paint Analysis.

E2811, Standard Practice for Management of Low Risk Property (LRP).

F2707, Standard Safety Performance Specification for Safe Design and Installation of Field Fabricated Suction-Limiting Vent Systems for Suction Entrapment Prevention in Swimming Pools, Spas, Hot Tubs, and Wading Pools.

F2747, Standard Guide for Construction of Sand-based Rootzones for Golf Putting Greens and Tees.

F2762, Standard Specification for 12 to 30 in. [300 to 750 mm] Annular Corrugated Profile-Wall Polyethylene (PE) Pipe and Fittings for Sanitary Sewer Applications.

F2763, Standard Specification for 30 to 60 in. [750 to 1500 mm] Triple Profile-Wall Polyethylene (PE) Pipe and Fittings for Sanitary Sewer Applications.

F2766, Standard Test Method for Boat Barriers.

F2829, Standard Specification for Metric-Sized Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Pipe Systems.

F2830, Standard Specification for Manufacture and Joining of Polyethylene (PE) Gas Pressure Pipe With a Peelable Polypropylene (PP) Outer Layer.

F2831, Standard Practice for Internal Non Structural Epoxy Barrier Coating Material Used In Rehabilitation of Metallic Pressurized Piping Systems.

F2832, Standard Guide for Accelerated Corrosion Testing for Mechanical Fasteners.

F2833, Standard Specification for Corrosion Protective Fastener Coatings with Zinc Rich Base Coat and Aluminum Organic/Inorganic Type.

F2854, Standard Specification for Push-Fit Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Mechanical Fittings for Crosslinked Polyethylene (PEX) Tubing.

F2855, Standard Specification for Chlorinated Poly(Vinyl Chloride)/Aluminum/Chlorinated Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (CPVC-AL-CPVC) Composite Pressure Tubing.

F2875, Standard Guide for Laboratory Requirements Necessary to Test Commercial Cooking and Warming Appliances to ASTM Test Methods.

F2877, Standard Test Method for Shock Testing of Structural Insulation of a Class Divisions Constructed of Steel or Aluminum.

F2881, Standard Specification for 12 to 60 in. [300 to 1500 mm] Polypropylene (PP) Dual Wall Pipe and Fittings for Non-Pressure Storm Sewer Applications.

F2891, Standard Specification for Commercial Bulk Milk Dispensers, Mechanically Refrigerated.

F2897, Standard Specification for Tracking and Traceability Encoding System of Natural Gas Distribution Components (Pipe, Tubing, Fittings, Valves, and Appurtenances).

F2898, Standard Test Method for Permeability of Synthetic Turf Sports Field Base Stone and Surface System by Non-confined Area Flood Test Method.

G198, Standard Test Method for Determining the Relative Corrosion Performance of Driven Fasteners in Contact with Treated Wood.

Withdrawn Standards

A840, Standard Specification for Fully Processed Magnetic Lamination Steel, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

B68M, Standard Specification for Seamless Copper Tube, Bright Annealed [Metric], has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

B102, Standard Specification for Lead- and Tin-Alloy Die Castings, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

B345/B345M, Standard Specification for Aluminum and Aluminum-Alloy Seamless Pipe and Seamless Extruded Tube for Gas and Oil Transmission and Distribution Piping Systems, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

C935, Standard Specification for General Requirements for Prestressed Concrete Poles Statically Cast, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

C1137, Standard Test Method for Degradation of Fine Aggregate Due to Attrition, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

C1404/C1404M, Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems Used with Concrete as Measured by Direct Tension, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D8, Standard Terminology Relating to Materials for Roads and Pavements, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D3455, Standard Test Methods for Compatibility of Construction Material with Electrical Insulating Oil of Petroleum Origin, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D5019, Standard Specification for Reinforced CSM (Chlorosulfonated Polyethylene) Sheet Used in Single-Ply Roof Membrane, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D5271, Standard Test Method for Determining the Aerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials in an Activated-Sludge-Wastewater-Treatment System, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D5714, Standard Specification for Content of Digital Geospatial Metadata, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D5951, Standard Practice for Preparing Residual Solids Obtained After Biodegradability Standard Methods for Plastics in Solid Waste for Toxicity and Compost Quality Testing, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D6002, Standard Guide for Assessing the Compostability of Environmentally Degradable Plastics, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D6041, Standard Specification for Contact-Molded "Fiberglass" (Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Thermosetting Resin) Corrosion Resistant Pipe and Fittings, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D6723, Standard Test Method for Determining the Fracture Properties of Asphalt Binder in Direct Tension (DT), has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D6771, Standard Practice for Low-Flow Purging and Sampling for Wells and Devices Used for Ground-Water Quality Investigations, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D6816, Standard Practice for Determining Low-Temperature Performance Grade (PG) of Asphalt Binders, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D6847, Standard Test Method for Quantitative Extraction and Recovery of Asphalt Binder from Asphalt Mixtures, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

D6852, Standard Guide for Determination of Biobased Content, Resources Consumption, and Environmental Profile of Materials and Products, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

E577, Standard Guide for Dimensional Coordination of Rectilinear Building Parts and Systems, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

E835/E835M, Standard Guide for Modular Coordination of Clay and Concrete Masonry Units has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

E1535, Standard Test Method for Performance Evaluation of Anaerobic Digestion Systems, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

E1864, Standard Practice for Evaluating Quality Systems of Organizations Conducting Facility and Hazard Assessments for Lead in Paint, Dust, Airborne Particulate, and Soil in and around Buildings and Related Structures has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

E2221, Standard Practice for Administrative Control of Property, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

F1343, Standard Specification for Anesthetic Gas Scavenging Systems-Transfer and Receiving Systems, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

F1931, Standard Test Method for Characterization of Gymnastic Landing Mats and Floor Exercise Surfaces, has been withdrawn, with no replacement.

F2196, Standard Specification for Circulating Liquid and Forced Air Patient Temperature Management Devices, has been withdrawn and replaced by ANSI/IEC-80601-2-35

The Need

There are a number of CSI members who blog. One who sends out weekly thoughts on all things design and construction is Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT of Cincinnati, OH. If you do not recieve his weekly perSPECtives, drop him an email and ask to be included.

Recently, Ralph sent out his essay entitled "The Need" which points out the necessity of simple, open and honest communication between architects and their clients. I find most issues within the office, the chapter or on a job site can be solved through simple, open and honest communication. It is not always easy, but most issue can be resolved when all parties come together and talk. I hope you enjoy Ralph's essay!

PER-SPEC-TIVES

OTHER PERSPECTIVES, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS, IMPRESSIONS, THOUGHTS AND IDEAS ABOUT THE NOBLE PROFESSION OF SPECIFICATIONS WRITING-- OPEN FOR, AND SEEKING DISCUSSION

NO. 127  THE NEED

by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT-- Cincinnati, OH

Congratulations! You’ve won the contest and have been awarded the contract. You have rolled out your best marketing effort from "silver-tongued prose" to PowerPoint presentation, to your glitzy brochure, and long list of clients. You have successfully projected your firm in a direct, truthful manner, aimed to the specific needs and project of the prospective client. You have shown that your firm is fully capable of providing all of the services required to produce a successful project for the client. Sorry! But NOW the real work begins!

It is highly advisable [and of increasing importance] that before the Professional Service Agreement is executed, that the design professional and client have in-depth conversations. These should address and resolve the issues of the package of services which are basic to the fee projected; the ability to adjust the scope of services with commensurate adjustments in the fee; the levels of services anticipated; and the creation of a fully understood agreement and relationship between professional and client.

Often with the array of delivery systems, the contractor takes a stronger and more direct route to the client and their relationship too often ignores the appropriate relationship and influence of the professional. While somewhat understandable, this is a most unfortunate situation and places the three primary parties to the project on an uneven basis.

The talks between professional and client, early-on, are not to prevent or obviate those of the contractor, but are advised primarily to ensure that the client is fully aware of the coming events, operations, interfaces, and relationships on the project. In addition, they clarify and set in exacting terms what the professional will do, and how such actions and activities impact the project and the other parties.

For example, a base fee may include a limited number of submittals. These may be only those of a crucial nature, specific to the project, and do not include those for highly standard products [hollow metal doors and frames for example]. It is important for the cline to know this so it does not appear later to be a shortcoming of the professional, but rather are recognition that the standardized work is generally acceptable and does not impact the project in a drastic manner, if slightly varied.

Also in regard to submittals, the client needs to know that in the event that the contractors submit improper or inadequately reviewed submittals, the professional will return them, without necessary action. Should the contractor claim disruption of the project schedule by this action, the professional is in a position to show that, indeed, improper action in submitting the submittals is the cause and not some errant effort by the professional.

Another emerging program is LEED or green building procedures. The professional is well advised to at least broach this topic with the client so there is ample opportunity to incorporate the program or reject it, on the part of the client. The client may have minimal information about the program and the cost and added effort involved, but should at least be offered the chance to consider it. To avoid this conversation could reflect adversely on the professional later in the project.

In essence, the suggested conversations are frank and open talks about aspects of the service contract that need full airing and understanding between the parties. With two separate contracts [minimum] for the project, it is to the mutual benefit of the professional and the client to have these conversations and reach the understanding. Fairness, of course, is a prime issue-- and works in a two-way manner! Certainly, this all serves to minimize if not avoid the vying for position or advantage on the project, and the pitting of one party against another. Cohesiveness and mutual understanding between the three primary parties is crucial to project success, and profitability for all. Mutual thinking and understanding, common goals, and a full "meeting of the minds" is essential to project success-- and IS required in addition to the contract!

The NEED? Simple, straight-forward conversation to reach, perhaps even more importantly, mutual respect!