Dear Subscriber:
 
By your subscription to SPECTEXT®, you have exhibited that you are among the more talented and astute professionals in our industry, and seek the latest and best information for your Practice. Accordingly, there are some thoughts I would like to share with you as to how CSRF may continue to help the industry to improve. I would also welcome any suggestions you might have.

You are probably aware of the recent U.S. Dept. Of Commerce study that determined that more than $15.8 billion is wasted annually by the various processes and programs in design and construction that do not fluidly transfer data from one to another. The result is the entry, the re-entry, and re-entry of the same information on infinitum. As an initial step CSRF has this year made available SPECTEXT® in PDF format. This facilitates the display of specification sections on the CADD screen (and even the issued drawings) for comparison, coordination, and even editing. Specs in PDF form can readily be transmitted to

This is only a first step. CSRF is also working to confirm an XML Schema that will be used to provide SPECTEXT® in XML format. It will be, not only a powerful editing tool, but will make the specification compatible with a multitude of industry programs, CADD, Estimating, Scheduling, etc. This will surely take us another year, but at least it is in progress as we write.

I think that there is a flaw in our planned advancement that is not just a matter of software or database. I have made it a personal crusade, and hope you would join me. Division 1 of SPECTEXT® is adamant that the Contractor must provide "Conformed" Project drawings and specifications before final close-out. In fact he is required to exhibit that he is conforming the documents at each pay request. My observation is that this practice is seldom enforced. The provision of half-way marked up drawings and no spec modifications appears to be the norm.

This makes the documents continued use later in Operations & Maintenance, in retrofit, in expansion almost useless. No one really knows what is in the facility. It negates the use of these documents in programs for those uses that would result in cost savings, and with realistic CADD drawings and XML specs of the final facility. We might say that the Owner would gain the greatest advantage from this and should be the strongest proponent of adequate "conformed" documents. Perhaps it's a way for we professionals to promote a "value-added" service to the owner, with any cost borne by the Contractor.

It is a misnomer that Contractors do not have the expertise to correct drawings, add addendums and conform drawings and specs. It is a remote construction project that does not have a computer and Internet access in the Project Field office anymore. In Project meetings, I see contractors taking notes on laptops, and subs making notes on their PDA's. The talent is there, it's only a matter of dedication. How simple it would be for the Contractor, when he receives that "No Exception Taken" submittal, to tune into the spec section on his computer and "strike-out" extraneous materials or products and identify the correct product utilized. This is an on-going effort, and the costs are really incidental. Costs are probably less than the struggle to put together a "marked-up" set of drawings after the fact. All that is needed is for we as A/E's to enforce the provisions, and be backed up by the owner.

If we can accomplish this, the Conformed documents will then be able to utilize the same efficient data exchange we are working hard to achieve in the design/bid phases. Together, we can make a huge dent in that $15.8 billion waste. We in CSRF are dedicated to that end.

Sincerely,

Arthur J. Miller, P.E.,FCSI
President, CSRF

As a post script to my open letter, one of our SPECTEXT® proponents, Stephen M. Campbell, Associate Vice President of Facilities Services at Cornell University has volunteered to make a "test case" on a $10M facility now in the concept stage at the University. This Project would then follow the guidelines we have stressed and will serve to validate the argument for concept to the obsolescence with fluidity of all documentation throughout. This will take place over at least a two year time span, and we will monitor progress and report periodically on the lessons learned. This is a tremendous opportunity and we are certainly grateful to the University for making it possible.

About the Author: Arthur J. Miller, PE, FFES, FCSI, is President of CSRF and can be reached at amiller28@bellsouth.net

The CSRF newsletter is published for SPECTEXT® subscribers and others involved in design and construction. To obtain your copy of Creating a Common Language®, please contact the CSRF Support Center by telephone at 1-877- SPECTXT or 410-838-7561 or you may e-mail us at supportcenter@csrf.org