Are you tired of specifications yet? 

If you're a contractor - you've long been tired of bad ones; that's for sure.

A month ago now we wrote on the problem: Ideas for Fixing Bad FP Specifications

Then we discussed the goals for an open specification, including being helpful, concise, clear and timely.

We've now incorporated three weeks of great discussion and feedback, and now this week we have our first complete open-specification. All three parts. All in less than ten pages!
​
What do you like? What doesn't work? What's good practice that you'd generally want everyone to be doing?

I'd love to take your last round of feedback on this (for now) and open up the word document next week.

Thanks for being a part of making positive change happen for the industry!

​- Joe

This week we have progress and are continuing the effort to create an open, easy-to-edit and easy-to-digest basic sprinkler specification.

The first week we touched on the need and developed the general criteria. Last week we expanded on the feedback and introduced equipment to the spec.

This week we’ve adapted the specification based on feedback from you (thank you!) and are adding in the ‘means’ portion of the specification.

THE GOAL OF A SPEC
Our goal here is to have a simple baseline specification that answers the most critical questions which a specification should resolve, and otherwise stay out of the way. A great specification should:

• Be clear, unambiguous, and concise
• Address key questions for the scope of work
• Be clear about owner expectations that exceed code minimum
• Not include redundant, extra, unenforceable, or extraneous information

OUR INTENT
This specification is not intended to replace consultant’s own customized specifications that are well thought out, intentional, relevant, and updated.

They are intended to be a free, easy-access alternative to stand in for specifications that are boilerplate, don’t answer critical questions, or haven’t been updated in twenty years.
 
Based on your feedback, this week’s updates include references to water storage tank, using an imperative tone, cleaning up portions of the system, adding standpipe and dry system references, and incorporating your comments.

Don't forget to comment below on the questions we posed. I am very grateful for your input and willingness to push the industry ahead, as always!

​- Joe

Last week I posted the start of an open specification and asked for feedback - and boy did you all not disappoint!

If you haven't read that post, it's where to start. We laid out a few ground rules about what we're trying to achieve.

I genuinely appreciate the review, the comments, and the emails. I'm very encouraged by what we'll be able to build together that can improve things for all of us.

Who knew putting together specifications could be so fun? Joking - sort of.

As you're able to skim through this updated draft, which now includes Part 1 (General) and Part 2 (Products), here are some of the areas worth paying attention in a little more detail:

#1 - CHANGED SECTION NUMBER
We've updated the specification section number to reflect that this isn't just a wet-pipe specification; it's intended to consolidate many pages of redundancy into our main goal; a concise, easy-to-read and easy-to-edit specification.

#2 - NOTE TO NOT FALL BELOW CODE MINIMUM
There's a line added under C in the "1.1 DESCRIPTION OF WORK" that reads "at no time shall work be less than the applicable codes and standards listed below. Proposed alternatives, discrepancies, or questions shall be addressed by written Request for Information."

My goal here is twofold; one is that we're protecting the consultant and enabling the contractor to push back in written form. 

At the end of the day, we need a code-compliant system. The days of turning a cheek or intentionally being above code because a PE said so should be over. 

The concept with this inclusion in the specification is that if the contractor sees something (anywhere) that is less than code, then they have an avenue to have it addressed formally and an opportunity to clean it up in the project.

On the opposite side, the consultant has some relief in that they're clearly not advocating or instructing the contractor to fall below code unless it's in approved written process (such as an approved code-alternative).

I hope this to be a win-win opportunity for code-compliance at the end of the day. Like the others - curious on your take.

#3 - OPTION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO BE AN FPE OR "KNOWLEDGEABLE AND EXPERIENCED" IN FIRE PROTECTION
There's a tangible value to being a Fire Protection Engineer (informally an "FPE") specifically. An over-generalization would be that the Engineer has taken the time to study and pass the Fire Protection P.E. Exam, which itself is no small feat. 

With that effort and focus (which often takes months of preparation even for seasoned Engineers) there's a line in the sand that speaks to that individual 'owning' fire protection as a key area of focus and effort. 

Being an Engineer who passed the Fire Protection P.E. Exam doesn't make someone more knowledgeable (outside of learning many new facets while studying) nor better than another Engineer, but it does reflect a certain level of dedication to the fire protection field specifically.

That said, we as an industry have far fewer Fire Protection Engineers than Professional Engineers in other disciplines (my at least an order of 10-to-1), so mandating that all shop drawings be performed by or under the purview of a Fire Protection Engineer can be impractical.

It's a bigger discussion point for sure, but I've modified the specifications to either call for an FPE specifically, or to mandate a Registered Professional Engineer "who is knowledgeable and has experience in the field of Fire Protection."

I'd be curious on your take with this as well.

#4 - MOVED QUALIFICATIONS TO 1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE
More of a practical shift here, we had a few requests to move the licensing and qualifications to the Quality Assurance section in 1.5 and out of the Submittal section of 1.4. Seems to make more sense here.

#5 - ADDED PART 2 FOR PRODUCTS
Since last week we've also drafted Part 2 where we cover Products. This should add a little more 'meat on the bone' and probably queue up plenty of contention points. 

Let me know what you like and what specifically you would change - all for building a better industry. Click below to view, and thank in advance for helping bring to life a needed resource!

One of the frustrating aspects of bidding a fire sprinkler job in North America is when you're reviewing a job and the specifications that accompany it are simply terrible - boilerplate, don't actually provide any useful information, are conflicting, include irrelevant content, or clearly haven't been updated in decades (list no longer manufactured products).

One of the ideas we kicked around a couple weeks ago was essentially an "open source" specification. One that we build and curate together and post for open use.

This is the first-stab at what "Part I" of an open, basic fire sprinkler specification might look like.

SECTION I OF THREE
Typical specifications include three parts:

1. Conditions: where the scope is described, applicable criteria is communicated, and the 'what is supposed to be done' is addressed.
2. Equipment: what equipment and products are permitted, and what are not.
3. Execution: in what ways must the work be performed.

OUR GOAL
From our collaborations, posts and discussions thus far, we're all really wanting something that is:

1. Helpful: actually provides information the contractor is needing to price a job.
2. Concise: as short as possible, so that it's easier to read and easier to edit. Don't duplicate requirements from other standards (such as NFPA 13), but simply defer back to them. We also want to limit the number of sections (again for simplicity, easy to navigate).
3. Clear: the specifications need to be easy to navigate and explicit in what is being required.
4. Timely: we don't want antiquated methods or products that aren't feasible or achievable.

There are other goals too, but those seem to be the reoccurring themes.

We explicitly do not intend for this specification to replace consultant's who already update and care for the industry. The beauty of consulting is providing unique value to your clients - this is absolutely not intended to be the only specification available. 

Rather, we would hope that it could help provide a baseline open-source template where specifications could at least be of this quality level.

YOUR INPUT
Where we could really use help here is reviewing this initial (very very first) attempt at Part I a basic open spec. 

I have highlighted GREEN and BLUE areas where a specific selection needs to be made (one or the other).

I have highlighted YELLOW additional alternatives which may be less common than a typical, mid-size commercial job.

​All portions of this specification would be editable, though the highlighted areas would be of particular concern to change and update job-to-job.

Take a look, and let us know your thoughts. If you've been long-frustrated about the prevalence of terrible specifications - then this just might be your opportunity to help us clean up the practice:

Part II, which comes next, identifies equipment and products that are allowed or not.

Part III speaks to the execution of the work - that is, any restrictions on what needs to be achieved.

THANK YOU
Just want to say a big thank you in advance for helping us really impact the industry in a positive way. I and many others very much appreciate it!

​- Joe