Ideas for Fixing Bad FP Specifications

4/10/2024

HOW DO WE FIX BAD SPECIFICATIONS?
Last week I touched on a concept of using large language models to instantly review a series of specifications.
Thanks for the comments! I’ll write up the step-by-step and incorporate that in a how-to video for posting here and on YouTube.

A special shout out to Kimberly Olivas, Brian Gerdwagen and Casey Milhorn on their comments in that thread – very helpful and insightful.

The discussion brings me back to two questions I may have inadvertently skipped right over –

Do we, as an industry, want to fix bad specifications?
If we do, and Pre-Bid RFIs are a luxury of the past, then what is the best way to go about improving bad specifications?

A PROBLEM WE CARE TO FIX?
If part of a bidding contractor’s value proposition is using their expertise to sort through bad specifications and give an advantage; either in exclusions or clarifications, or change orders later in the process due to inaccuracies, scope not meeting code, or scope gaps.

In other words, based on a bidding contractor’s position – there might not be any incentive for them to play their cards for competitors to see through the Pre-Bid RFI process other than a smoother project experience for the owner.

A bidding contractor is not a representative of the owner; the consultant is. Ultimately the consultant is responsible for protecting and supporting the owner – which is why they were hired in the first place.

Perhaps many contractors don’t look at it that bluntly – but I can understand the sentiment not to tip a hand at project issues when it could mean losing a bid.

WHAT’S THE ANSWER?
If Pre-Bid RFIs are not the cure-all in today’s pace of estimating – and contractors are not incentivized to be correcting consultant issues – then do we care to actually fix it?

For estimators – are bad specifications purely an annoyance for you – or do they cause issues on your projects?

Would you prefer that specifications actually be well written?

I’m not being facetious – I’d love to know your take on this.

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
If better specifications (and plans) are something we deem better for the industry – and we collectively want better plans and specifications – what is the approach to get there?

More specifically, how do we encourage those who don’t really care about fire protection to put a little more effort into their plans and specifications?

This was last week’s idea:

Use AI (ChatGPT or other) to instantly review specifications for contractors to submit Pre-Bid RFIs that clarify the scope

Here are some alternative from-the-hip ideas that I’d love to kick around with you and see if you find any of these might be viable:

IDEA #1: PUBLISH AN OPEN MICROSOFT WORD FILE BASIC FIRE PROTECTION SPECIFICATION

Community-created/reviewed
Easy to read, easy to edit
Free/Open
Benefits: easy to access, eliminates excuse for costly specification programs
Drawbacks: apathy (those who don’t care may still not use freely-accessible content)

IDEA #2: CREATE AN AI TOOL FOR CONSULTANTS TO QC THEIR OWN SPECIFICATIONS

Basically an AI quality-control tool
Free or low-cost
Benefits: fast, easy to use
Drawbacks: would be mostly mechanical in nature – AI wouldn’t be good at discerning scope compared to plans or the rest of the project. Also, apathy (see above).

IDEA #3: PROMOTE OR CREATE A LOW-COST SPECIFICATION GENERATOR

Even easier to edit
Low cost
Uses today’s products and quickly generates an editable format
Benefits: fast, easy to use, requires little effort
Drawbacks: some cost involved

IDEA #4: HAVE A FORMAL THIRD-PARTY REVIEW PROCESS (A GROUP) FOR SPECIFICATIONS

Real people (estimators and/or manufacturers) who would do reviews of specifications for improvements to a specification template
Would be more of a ‘one-time’ review process, not project-specific
Could involve NDAs to protect consultant’s work
Benefits: real people helping improve templates overall. Would be an easy-to-access and formalized way of having multiple parties review specifications to improve overall quality. Real people helping real people.
Drawbacks: requires time, labor, and possibly some cost - depending on the demand.

IDEA #5: PUBLIC HUMILIATION

Going from a human-positive to human-negative approach: simply collect and post examples of bad documents/specifications in a way for everyone to learn from (but without identifying the people or companies that created them).
Benefits: it may actually encourage real action
Drawbacks: not fun, not an industry-building environment, can get negative quickly

IDEA #6: YOUR IDEAS

What’s your take? How would you improve the process? What do you like or not like?

Do you (1) think this is a problem that should be fixed, and (2) what concepts do you think could make a difference?

Comment below – would love to foster a deeper discussion on how we might solve this problem before skipping ahead and creating something that might not be impactful.

Franck

4/10/2024 11:12:55 am

To the first question, my point of view is Yes we should fix bad specifications.
Bad specifications may result in non properly protected facility and in some cases a potential total loss.
But how?
That’s the difficult question
Bad specifications are mostly done by people that are thinking they are doing it right. Too much self confidence and too little interest to ask for advices.
This means that they might not be interested for looking for help.
It is difficult to imagine, but I am making surveys for Insurance purposes to around 20 to 30 facilities per year. And there is no single year where I don’t find sprinklers installed upside down! Not to speak about obstruction issues, underdesigned installations, poor water supplies….

One of the possible solutions, when available, is to have the loss prevention engineers from the Insurance companies to review the projects.
Some of them, XL or FM Global, just to give 2 examples, have very good knowledge and are able to review and avoid mistakes from contractors.
But this is only for large facilities, insured by these companies…
Issue remains fir smaller facilities.

Chris Miller

4/10/2024 11:17:09 am

I believe everyone should be striving for better specs and plans, including bidding contractors. I am a consultant and I believe the best and SAFEST results for the public and owners are good documents that can be well bid and well executed as indented. Our industry is complex enough that we should not ignore problems we see so we can deal with the unforeseen.
As for how......I think #3 as a chance. If MeyersFire posted a template that could be open commented on by the industry there would be engagement to make it better. Similar to UFGS specs for federal contract work but with open industry involvement. For a fee you can get word file to edit for your project specifics. It can lead to using other Meyers checklist and tools to improve the consulting and bidding product.

Casey Milhorn

4/10/2024 04:18:31 pm

I think it's important to think about why engineers specs are bad first. Like they say, sometimes you have to look at where you've been to see where you are going. I have a few categories I put bad specs in and I think each one has a reason why they are bad.
#1 - Kitchen sink specs - These are specs that include everything AND the kitchen sink. These are an attempt by an engineer to make sure they cover all their bases. The upside for engineers is that they at least "think" that they are well covered by throwing everything at the project. The thought being SURELY we have our bases covered and we will avoid blame or litigation because of not having it covered. The downside is mainly for the contractor and overall project team. It's burdensome to read through and discern what is of actual value and these specs almost always conflict with the drawings and even themselves at times.
#2 - Outdated specs - These specs are self explanatory. They have old/outdated manufacturers, model numbers, protection approaches, and code/standard references. There really is no upside to these type of specs for anyone. They are a liability to the engineer, they reflect badly on the engineer, and leave the sprinkler contractor with tough decisions on how to proceed.
#3 - Vendor/Manufacturer heavy specs - These specs have been massaged, or sometimes completely written, by a specific manufacturer/vendor. The upside is that these specs are typically not bloated or outdated, because manufacturers are typically really good at keeping databases on who they have provided specs for and it's in their best interest to keep these up to date. The downside is that the owner of the project loses out on cost savings of the free market/free choice and sometimes there are technical advantages to other manufacturers products, not to mention that some times there are gaping holes in some manufacturers product lines.
As far as the solution, or the solution that Meyer Fire can provide? I think idea #1 is the way to go, or at least the way to make the most impact in the quickest fashion. I know many many MPEs that would love for someone to hand them a spec and say hey, use this spec and add or delete sections as needed. I would write this spec with a "less is more" approach and let the design intent drawings speak for themselves on any special situations, specific manufacturer/models, or special code/standard approach being required. I do think there is a way forward that will allow you to monopolize this service where you can provide continued support, something in line with one of the other ideas.

Joe Meyer

4/19/2024 08:51:40 am

I've thought a lot about this response Casey - really appreciate the input. Perhaps Idea #1 is the easiest to achieve and therefore the lowest-hanging fruit.

Mike Morey

4/19/2024 08:47:10 am

Over 25 or so years in the business, one of the most important lessons I think I've learned is that at the end of the day doing it right pays off. I've watched people avoid conflict, avoid fixing mistakes, etc, and sure, sometimes you get away with it, but in the end you usually pay the price. Swallowing your pride and fixing a mistake or giving an answer someone doesn't really want to hear is usually better than silence. Twisting bad specs to your favor and/or the change order profit game may work short term, but eventually people want the guy that is going to price it to do it right and do it at the cost they said it would take in the first place.

We've kicked around but not had enough time to work on the idea of a "industry driven" spec that we could peddle to local consultants. I think what would best suit the industry as a whole would be a relatively concise spec based on a "choose your cost/benefit ratio" model. For example, skip the lists of vendors and just make material approved, add FM if they have FM insurance or what not. For pipe maybe schedule X from size Y to Z for each type with 10,40 and listed thinwall as options. Sprinklers do you want concealed or not, do you want white, chrome or chartreuse, etc. Do they want plastic caps on the pipe, painted pipe, labels, etc.

There's so much eye glazing over calling out of numbers, manufacturers and approvals that is just copy pasted or been vendor incentivized into specs that wastes space and distracts from owners actually getting what they want or need it seems like a streamlined and GOOD template would be in the best interest of most contractors.

4/19/2024 08:53:16 am

I really appreciate the input Mike. We might need to work together on this.

Over lunch yesterday I was talking with a few others on exactly this topic - what are the big picture needs, owner preferences, and the rest simply refer back to the listings and standards. A basic, concise specification that could help contractors bid and mostly be able to stay out of the way.

I wonder, if at times when contractors come across a rough specification, if you/they couldn't help make an open spec better known and more accessible too. Could be a win-win in that way.

4/19/2024 09:13:47 am

Hey Joe,
I'd be happy to be involved if you decide to move forward. I think especially if we could get someone like NFSA on board it would be something I and hopefully others could put out there in response to bad specs. A good "here's a nationally recognized organization's suggested spec" helps soften the delivery of "please throw this sprinkler spec in the garbage".

4/19/2024 09:18:38 am

Count me in as well if you want/need help. As a committee member on several AFSA committees I think I can throw AFSA's name in the hat as well. A joint venture here could be good for all parties.
Funny enough, my oldest "yet to be completed task" on my to do list is rewriting a spec for an engineer friend. This would kill two birds with one stone.

Don Bailey, PE link

6/4/2024 10:25:15 am

Good discussion and great suggestions for all who work in the industry in this area. My short response is Yes, we should all want better specifications for sprinkler systems to avoid confusion, inefficiency, extra effort and extra cost to the owner.

As the engineer responsible for the sprinkler design criteria and Div 21 bid specifications working for an AE firm in SC, I have tried to edit as best I can the Div 21 specs on every project that we issue for permit and bidding to reflect the project requirements as accurately as I can. AI is already being used in our industry in many ways and will be used more and more to improve the efficiency and quality of our design. If not used carefully, the use of AI may result in working against these goals.

In SC, like most other states, we provide the design criteria and delegate the sprinkler system design to a licensed sprinkler contractor with NICET Level III certification. As required by SC regulations, we also review the sprinkler system design submitted by the contractor (sprinkler calculations, product submittals) and working drawings required by NFPA 13 to verify that the intended design criteria and scope of the project are met. I try to provide Div 21 bid specifications that are complete enough to provide the contractor with an understanding of the quality of materials and installation that we expect for our clients, which are mostly healthcare clients.

Like many AE's, I typically edit and issue specs from the Master Spec, (now moving to cloud-based Deltek Specpoint), with a half dozen or more sections edited for Div 21, including fire sprinkler piping, hangars, seismic, fire pump, etc. I always err on the side of caution if I am not sure if something is necessary or not to protect the owner from frivolous change orders. I know that adds cost when extraneous language is used, but my duty is to protect the owner when a project is bid out. When I have a question about the type of sprinkler system or piping (such as dry pipe or pre-action system, Sch 10 or 40 piping, etc.) I frequently call one of the sprinkler contractors if time permits before issuing the bid package to clarify what is practical and provides the best value to the owner.

I am surprised that the pre-bid RFI's is a thing of the past, because they help us as A/Es to clarify the scope when we have issued bid documents that are incomplete or not clear.

I am sure we can all do better when writing or editing specifications and will be following this discussion to learn how I can do better as specifying engineer.

Comments are closed.

Ideas for Fixing Bad FP Specifications

ALL-ACCESS

SUBSCRIBE

AUTHOR

FILTERS

ARCHIVES