The Specification Recipe for Construction Success

In this episode of What the RFI, host Matt Brennan sits down with construction specification experts Steve Gantner and Dave Stutzman to discuss the critical role of specifications in architecture and construction. They explore how clear, well-structured specs reduce RFIs (Requests for Information), prevent costly mistakes, and ensure project success. The discussion covers common challenges in specification writing, best practices like early involvement, the use of Uniformat, and the importance of clear communication between architects, contractors, and owners. They also examine AI’s role in specification writing, the impact of precedence clauses in contracts, and key differences between public and private bidding. Plus, they introduce Conspectus, an innovative specification software that improves collaboration and streamlines the construction documentation process.

Takeaways

• Specifications are essential for project success, bridging design and construction.
• They should be clear, up-to-date, and tailored to each project.
• Performance-based specifications can be challenging to write.
• Collaboration among stakeholders ensures effective specifications.
• Vague or outdated specifications lead to RFIs and disputes.
• Specifications should align with project requirements and take precedence over drawings.
• AI tools are not yet reliable for creating specifications.
• Public bidding limits control over specifications.
• Misconceptions, like reusing old specs, can hinder success.
• Less is often more—concise, well-crafted specs improve outcomes.

Sound Bites

• "Every job is the same."
• "It's just like the last one."
• "Two letters made the difference."
• "Vague specs lead to RFIs."
• "Tight specs eliminate RFIs."
• "Less is more."
• "Help us help you."

Chapters

• 00:00 - Introduction to the Podcast and Guests
• 03:03 - Celebrating Milestones and Personal Introductions
• 05:57 - Understanding Conspectus and Its Purpose
• 08:58 - The Importance of Specifications in Construction
• 12:04 - Types of Specifications: Prescriptive vs Performance
• 15:00 - Common Challenges in Specification Writing
• 18:02 - The Role of Specifications in Construction Administration
• 21:31 - The Importance of Specification Details
• 23:00 - Real-World Examples of RFIs and Specifications
• 26:56 - Best Practices in Specification Writing
• 30:00 - The Role of Specifications in Project Management
• 33:06 - The Future of Specifications and AI Integration
• 40:05 - Understanding Precedence in Specifications
• 46:16 - Navigating Material Specifications
• 49:01 - The Importance of Samples and Submittals
• 51:40 - Creative Uses for Samples
• 52:39 - Alternates vs. Unit Prices in Specifications
• 54:39 - Understanding Public vs. Private Bidding
• 56:10 - Misconceptions About Specifications
• 01:00:50 - The Role of Specifications in Project Success

🎙️Website - WhattheRFI.com

🍏Apple Podcast - What the RFI?
🎧Spotify - What the RFI?
🎥YouTube - @WhatTheRFI

Episode Transcript

(01:00:00):
Specs rule. Literally. Let's get into it.Welcome to What the RFI. I'm Matt Brennan
and this is thepodcast all about CA. Today,
as you guessed it, we're already talkingabout specs and this is
what we're going to be goinginto. And we've talked about specs on the

(01:00:23):
show before, but I'veactually brought two amazing
experts to the show, both Steve and Dave.And before I get let
you guys do your officialintroduction, I just want to let you know
that this episode is a milestone episode.This is episode number 25. It's a pretty
big deal. And yeah, I'mthrilled because again,

(01:00:48):
it started back in September and lookwhere we are. I, you know, the shows
crest, you just breakingover almost, you know, 2,500 listens for
the whole, you know, theshow and the respect. It's
kind of, it's kind of a cool thing to seethis grow over the last,
you know, six months. Sothat's fantastic. It's great. But it's
not said I want the two ofyou to introduce yourself.

(01:01:11):
Go for it, Dave. Who areyou pointing at, Steve? Yeah.
Okay. I'm Dave Stutzman, president of theConspectus independent
specifications consultingfirm and software company. So software
company is something new,but here we are. Lots of

(01:01:31):
experience. We'll touch about that in aminute here. And I'm Steve
Gander. I'm executive vicepresident for Conspectus, Dave's business
partner, future owner to be,and excited to be here with
you, Matt. Yeah. What do you guys do forfun when you're not

(01:01:53):
writing the, you know, the mostamazing things of specs and buildings?
What are you guys doing? Oh,I'm here in Omaha today. I'm
not writing specs, but I'm in Omaha,Nebraska, because CSI is
North Central region conferenceshere this week. And I just got finished
talking to a bunch ofproduct representatives. So
specifiers love talking to product repsbecause they are the people

(01:02:16):
that keep us going. They knowmore than we do about specific products,
but they make us look goodand smart. But aside from that,
I like to hang out with my family. I'vemarried four kids and one
of my oldest sons married,and he's got a grandson. So just love
hanging out with them.Yeah. Dave, what are you doing
on the weekends? Hey, I'm missing it thisweekend, Matt. I'm a

(01:02:40):
bachelor. Oh, yes. The stories. Yeah,why? Well, this last week, my daughter
gave birth to our seventhgrandchild. So now it's her first.
Another grandson, he has me so confuseddue to lack of sleep. I
don't know what day of theweek it is. Honestly, it's Friday. It's

(01:03:05):
been crazy busy. Soyeah, my wife is helping out
this week as my daughter gets accustomedto someone else in the
apartment besides herself.Well, that's awesome. And congratulations
to you, the wholefamily, and definitely to mom.
Yes. Well, thank you. Very cool. So youmentioned Conspectus, and I

(01:03:31):
really wanted to get into that.What is it? Tell the listeners that what
is this product? What does it do?The product, the Conspectus
Cloud? Yeah. Kind of what is it?It's a better way of actually writing
specifications. So wecreated it. I created

(01:03:54):
this thing out of frustration mostly. Imean, what better way to
develop software? Trying tosolve a problem and trying to make it
better for our team because initially wemade it only for our
team. And we wanted to be able to make ita collaborative effort

(01:04:15):
with the entire project team,which is something that none of the other
spec writing softwarereally accomplishes,
doesn't accomplish it well. So here weare on a new adventure, trying to
bring all of the teams together by havingconversations in the

(01:04:35):
spec writing software.Nice. Of course, architects, engineers,
all using this.Contractors, suppliers, installers,
owners. Everyone. Yeah. Yeah. That's thegoal. Yeah. On the flip
side though, it's a testedsoftware because Conspectus, as the

(01:04:58):
service side of the company has beenusing it for over 10 years
now. And successfully for the past threeor four, right Dave? We
had to beta some stuff.So our subscribers really aren't our beta
testers at thispoint. They're more, "Hey,
it'd be really nice if we could havethis. Can you do that?" So we're working
with them now on that.Yeah. Yeah. Refining the product. But

(01:05:24):
Steve found a different opportunity alsofor using Conspectus
Cloud. We're using it as an educationaltool. I'm assuming that's what you're
talking about, Dave.We'll be actually offered to use it. I'm
not allowed to say thename of the university,

(01:05:45):
but it's a large university in St. Louis.There's only two to choose
from, three to choose from.But you might figure it out. They have an
architecture school. And we've taught,I've taught a couple of classes down
there about specificationwriting. And we've offered it to
them to use as their final project or towrite a specification section

(01:06:05):
and to do some TOCs and stufflike that. And I think it's successful.
They've enjoyed workingwith the product and the end
result, we'll wait and see how theirfinal project turns out.
But hopefully, hopefully well.Oh, very cool. And that must be like,
from your guys'standpoint, it must be such a

(01:06:25):
privilege to see these firms, you know,because at the end of the day, they were
doing specs by word,you know, and that kind of thing and
seeing the challenges thatcome with it. And then using this
product to deliver a much better endresult because things are
lining up and RFI aren't,you know, being generated because of
useless stuff, because the specs toolthat you've developed

(01:06:47):
basically complete. And we're going todive into all that throughout this
episode about CA andspecs and RFIs and all that kind of jazz.
But yeah, very kudos toyourself because I think
that's a very cool accomplishment to kindof sit back and go,
yeah, we were part of that,even though you weren't directly in part
of it, but you still were.Yeah. So think about it. You mentioned

(01:07:08):
word and that was part ofthe frustration because we had
built over a lot of years, because I'vebeen at this a long time,
built a lot of macros to try tohelp us with some of the more mundane
tasks and to be able to keepthe quality level consistent
project to project, specifier tospecifier. And so now the

(01:07:32):
spec system that we developedreplicates or even does it better than
what Microsoft Wordcould. So we've replaced all
those macros. We don't needto even rely on them anymore.
Exactly. Like simple things, changingheaders or connecting to different
product specs. And I'm,you know, suppliers are, you know, you're

(01:07:53):
connecting with allthe different suppliers,
hence why what you're doing right now,Steve. And then you're
basically bringing those guys into thepackage. Correct. Yeah. One of the things
that I was doing this afternoon wastalking to some folks
who, you know, I was able to pull out mycomputer was talking to
our decks, who is a flooringproduct below the floor tile
manufacturer. So think adhesives isgrout, things like that for

(01:08:18):
ceramic tile. And I pulled up our tilingsection, and I just kind of walked
through it with themstep by step, our products that we have
listed, and they noticedone that was incorrect. So I
was able to jot a quick note down in thesoftware, and it goes off to Elias and
Elias will take a lookat that product and make the corrections
necessary. And that can be pushed outinstantaneously as an
update to our sections. Right. It's tomake sure that our

(01:08:41):
products are current and industrystandards. Right. Absolutely. No, that's
so brilliant. And that's,that really helps. Because
again, that's that's where the errorsare. Yeah, that's one of the
benefits too, is we try to,I don't want to say limit, but we try to
maintain our manufacturers that we cankeep up to date with

(01:09:02):
what they're doing so that we don't havea long list of products and
manufacturers that we haveto continually check and make sure
they're current. Because like you said,the RFIs you're generated
because a product may be discontinued, orit may have changed
properties a little bit or somethinglike that. We don't, we don't always know
that we depend on theproduct reps to tell us.
Yeah. So that brings us, and that's agreat segue to

(01:09:27):
understanding the specifications.So what is your, you know, what are
specifications in context of theconstruction project,
your take on specs, why are specs soimportant from you from
that? I know what it is, but youknow, for the listener, some of that's
doing, what is your take, why is specsthe holy grail for the
project? Shall I put it in really easyterms? You do mine. Okay. So

(01:09:57):
specs are really the recipefor the buildings for the construction
project. You think about it,you know, how many, how many
times did you make Toll House cookies?Right? Did you follow a recipe?
Sometimes. Only sometimes.That's right there on the package. How

(01:10:18):
can you not follow therecipe? And that's the issue. So
specifications are the recipe. If youdon't follow the recipe, it's
likely not going to turn outright. And if you forgot to put the
butter in the Toll House cookies, they'reprobably way too hard.
That's probably why itdidn't taste so good there, Dave.

(01:10:41):
Well, we use that as an example, too,when we're talking about
specifications, because they'rebroken into three parts, which ironically
is who you work for. And we,if you think about a recipe,
you have your instructions, right? Whichis part one, you have your
ingredients, which is part two,and then you have the baking

(01:11:04):
instructions, which is part three, how todo it. So that's the, that's
why recipes are the perfect analogy forit. The other way you can
think about it too, and it is,you play board games, right? So like,
let's use Monopoly. Youdon't know how to play the game
until you have the rules, right? Well, wekind of write the rules to
how to build the building.Yeah. Yeah. Can't say I'm a fan of

(01:11:28):
Monopoly. It's just one ofthose games. You just don't
play with friends because you won't befriends afterwards. It's
always a winner. And there's alot of losers. A dangerous one. Now with
the other type of specs,like there's performance
based perspective, a prescriptive. Whatdo you prefer in, you

(01:11:49):
know, in through this and that,again, going back to the
recipe, you know, illustration?That's tough. It's going to be
the lawyer answer. It dependsreally on what the project requires. As
far as the easiest specter, right, isprobably proprietary.

(01:12:12):
Because really, you know what thearchitect wants on the project, and you
just list that one product.And that's all you have to do in part
two. Let's say for instance,they wanted a certain type of
window, you can specify thatmanufacturer, that specific window, and
you're done. That's all youhave to do in part two. That's how I
prefer. Like, as you're designing thebuilding, you're going

(01:12:34):
through this and this process and youknow exactly what you want at the end.
And so I do want thatnano wall. I don't want an alternate. I
want this particular product. Becauseyou've done the homework
and you've done the research. You lookedat the websites, maybe
even gone to the showroom.That's how I prefer it versus just doing
a performance base where it's,you don't know what you're going to get

(01:12:56):
at the end of the day. And I'm aparticular person. I
can't just go and buy a TV. I got toresearch the details of
the TV. That's why I gotnot a performance base. So yeah,
performance is actually the mostdifficult to write if it's
true performance. Because you have to setout the criteria. What is the
performance you're trying toachieve? How are you going to measure it?

(01:13:19):
What's the criteria bywhich you're going to judge
compliance? And that list can get very,very long. And if you miss
something that is critical,you could end up with something that you
really don't want orsomething that doesn't satisfy

(01:13:39):
the owner's project requirements. There'sonly really been, I should
say there was an experimentthat was successful, I believe. It was a
California school projectwhere they actually did write
performance specifications. And what cameout of that? There was

(01:14:02):
no product on the market,but as a result, we ended up with
integrated ceilings. Manyfolks today may not even
understand what that is, but it was theacoustics, it was the ceiling
finish, it was the lighting,it was the air distribution, it was

(01:14:23):
absolutely everything thattouched the ceiling integrated
into a single system. And that was aninnovative solution to a
performance specificationbecause they didn't say that it was going
to be a certain acoustic ceiling tile.Right. And again, it goes back to, "Hey,

(01:14:45):
I want this," but youkind of got a different
interpretation of what you wanted. And alot of times you get a
combination of the differenttypes of specifications. You can list a
product and then you canlist the salient properties of
it that you want and allow equivalentproducts to be submitted in

(01:15:05):
their place. So you combinethis different styles of spec writing.
Any particular spec canhave all different types.
Yeah. So let's open up Pandora's boxhere. What are some common challenges and
misunderstanding about specifications?Every job is the same.

(01:15:30):
It's just like the last one. We can justreuse the spec from that.
Yes. It's just like the last one exceptit's in a different city, it's a
different climate zone.Yeah, that's probably the most common
misinterpretation, Iguess, of specifications.
Yeah, using the one. And you're right, inthe way, Guilty is charged

(01:15:53):
because that's what we did withthe school. "Hey, just use the same one."
At least we would gothrough the specs and correct
what we got caught on. If there was achange order for this
item or whatever, we actuallyspec'd... We ended up using a Pollock ACM
on the building, butthe previous Leucobond or
whatever, there was a different type ofACM that we used. And

(01:16:15):
then one of our GCs caught itduring tender and said, "Hey, this
doesn't meet the fire testing based onall this." And it was
all due to that, I guess, the fire out inEurope or something where
it just rocks. Basically,you know what product... The Grenfell
fire. Yeah, that was theone. Because they used a
non-fire rated core. And basically, whathappens with non-fire rated

(01:16:39):
core is the plastic and...Funny you mentioned that, I just had that
presentation withGeorge. The plastic inside
between the sandwich panel of aluminumwas dripping. And it was
dripping as it was on fire.So fire typically will not go down, but
in the instance of theGrenfell project, because of the
ACM, the plastic was on fire and it felland it caught the lower

(01:17:04):
floors on fell. And that's howthe fire really spread. Yeah. No. And
when that happened, when we got broughtup to our attention,
we had, I think, eight schools and it allpulled. And then we went...
We basically went to a Pollockbecause it was the next alternative and
it didn't compromise thebudgets. And it was in line to what
was priced and tender and everything. Andthat was the way we did it.

(01:17:25):
But yeah, very frustrating.Lots of sleepless nights going, "Oh my
goodness, what have wedone?" And not realizing it, even
though they keep... And even the languagewas saying, "Oh yeah,
no, it's been fire tested."And everything. And you went into the
fine details and you'relike, "No, it is not." So we just
kept going on with that. But with specsand RFIs, now you're going

(01:17:48):
to transition here from...We've talked about what specs are and why
they are, but let'sget into the construction
administration side and how specs arevery, very important into this world.
Really the link betweendesign and construction. So the kickoff
with this question,"Inexperience, where do you see the
biggest disconnect between specificationsand how they're

(01:18:09):
interpreted in the field and how canarchitects, contractors, even owners work
together to bridge this gap?"Ooh, loaded question just for
you. That's a really loaded question. Oh,and Steve is the right
person to ask since he was onthe CA side for this one. Don't you have

(01:18:29):
a whole ton of examples that you can...I wish I had one particular that I could
pull up out of memory, but Ithink the biggest disconnect
is reality versus wish. And Dave helpedme out here, but I... And
I'm not picking on architects.I'm an architect, but architects see

(01:18:52):
these things thatlook great in a magazine.
They don't exactly know where the productcomes from, and then they
want us to specify it. Andit's kind of like, I can't specify what I
don't completely understand.And then when it comes into
the field, we've guessed at it, we'vedone our best, but it's not quite right.

(01:19:17):
Does that make sense?I wanted to take it maybe a little bit
different direction, butI think the end result is
virtually the same. So there's been aphrase that's crept into
the design lexicon, and it'sdesign intent or architect's intent. And

(01:19:43):
if you're relying onthat, it's really difficult
to try to explain an intent. And tospecify an intent is
practically impossible.So if you're trying to rely on that
phrase and thinking thatthe contractor is going to

(01:20:03):
understand what the intent is without itbeing fully documented,
there's going to be a bigdisconnect somewhere. Yeah. And that kind
of ties into a clarity question too,why clear specs are so important. And I'm
sure you've got lots of examples aboutthat in the field too.

(01:20:25):
Well, I'll go back to your ACM panel. Itwas only two letters
that made the difference.So the core was either PE for
polyethylene, which will burn, or FR,which is fire resistant.

(01:20:46):
So it seems like a very tiny detail, butyou get the two letters wrong or missing.
And if it's missing, what will thecontractor price? Probably the least
expensive. Now we'refortunate here in the US, I think all the
manufacturers don'teven offer the polyethylene

(01:21:08):
core anymore. Right. Given thecircumstance and the reason history. Oh,
sorry, go for it, Steve.No, I think after that fire, I don't
think they make non FRfire rated cores anymore.
Yeah, absolutely. And again, in your realworld scenario, any example of some

(01:21:30):
RFIs that were caused by vague specs,anything that comes to mind
where it wasn't quite rightor was unclear, and you could sit there
and argue back and forthwith the contractor and the
architect and vice versa, or yourself.Probably myself.

(01:21:54):
I want to go to the first one I think ofis I was asked to do a
quality assurance reviewon a project, which was, it was a housing
project. And these, youwould think by listening to what

(01:22:14):
I'm going to say that I'm making all ofthis up, but this is
absolutely true. No names, because itwould be way too embarrassing. But the
architect asked us to dothe review. And the very first
question I asked, because they were onlyinterested in us having to review the
building and closurespecifications. And I asked her why. And

(01:22:42):
the response was, well, wecompleted the specifications
in about four hours. Now this is for amultifamily housing project would frame
several hundred units.And what I found was that the
specification reallydidn't even match the project.

(01:23:09):
So little things like the drawings mighthave shown aluminum
windows, the specificationsidentified the windows as a composite.
But when I read the specification,neither aluminum or composite were

(01:23:30):
included. They were all vinyl. So nowwhat does the contractor
do in a case like this? Because vinylwould be the least expensive. So does he
just rely on the specand say, hey, you said the spec was about
composite. Youspecified vinyl. So I can give

(01:23:53):
you vinyl. Or does he stop and ask aquestion? And not
necessarily ask the question becausethey're going to go down to the cheapest
product typically.But I think that's where
is your take specs rule. There's whatgoverns the contract. Oh, I see Steve

(01:24:16):
started kind of jumpingat this. He's ready to go for it. So
there is thatmisconception. But to go back to your
previous question, I think most RFIsgenerated because of
specifications are because there'san inconsistency between the drawings and
the specifications. Andthere was a miscommunication

(01:24:38):
or noncommunication between the drawingperson and the specifier. And
what I mean is, they may havemade a late minute change to the drawings
and not told thespecifier. Or the specifier may have
assumed something that they didn'tconfirm with the drawings. So I think
that's where most RFIsbetween specs and drawings are generated.

(01:24:58):
Just to follow on onthat, Steve, too, the other
thing that can cause the RFIs is if thefolks creating the drawings
begin to label the productby a specific type. Because it may not be
the type that's specified. In this case,aluminum windows, instead of just calling

(01:25:20):
it an aluminum, whichthey could have called it a
window instead of saying aluminum window.And then relied on the
spec for what that window issupposed to be. So too much information
on the drawings can oftencreate conflicts as well.
Or even worse, they named the windowproduct on the drawing.

(01:25:42):
On the drawing, yeah. Because we wantthem to go back to the spec.
Exactly. Exactly. No,I'm sorry. Go ahead.
No, I don't keep going.All right, fine. I'll go.
But is there something that other goodpractices like that, like
that you would offer out andsaying, "Hey, guys, don't do this. I've

(01:26:04):
seen this too many times onthe job." One thing I've learned
really quickly on is don't put quantitiesin your specs. That's a
no-no. Because the drawings inmy past will show that you have X amount
of basketball hoops. But ifthe specs call a different
number or different quantity, you're introuble. Or same thing,
bleachers call out so many numbersand counter provide 200 bleachers. Oh,

(01:26:26):
that was from our oldlittle addition spec. This is a
brand new school. Clearly, it's not 200seats. It's 1,000 seats
or something like that.Let's look at something that could have a
wide-ranging effect, doorhardware. You don't want
to tell them numbers of hinges in thespec. It would be in the
schedule itself. And there areother things with door hardware that

(01:26:49):
could have catastrophiceffects on the cost of a project.
Yeah, exactly. And it's not just onelittle thing. That's a big extra. And
it's tough to justifyas an owner and everything too, you want
to see the project goahead. And to see that something

(01:27:09):
like that's missed, it's not going to bea couple dollar change. It's
going to be up there in thehundred thousand, maybe even a million,
depends on where it is. Sogoing to the common of the specs
were delivered in four hours. How manychange orders were on
that job? If they didn't fixwhat I found and found only because I

(01:27:32):
only checked theenclosure. If they didn't fix that,
there would have been, I don't know,several hundred questions.
And there have been studiesdone. I mean, there was one that I found
that was done by Navigantover 10 years ago, probably 15

(01:27:54):
years now. And in that study, they lookedat projects around the
world, all sizes, all scales.And the conclusions they came to were 800
RFIs per project average,10 RFIs per million construction cost.

(01:28:21):
Now, do the math. And all of a suddentoo, they went back and
they asked the architects,how much time do you spend answering
RFIs? Now, this is only the architects.The average was eight
hours per RFI. Times 800.Yeah, you clearly didn't make your profit on that one.

(01:28:45):
Yeah, you clearly didn'tmake your profit on that one.
Correct. That's a lot of man hours.Yeah. And it's unfortunate because if
they just took the time to do it,then you wouldn't be in it. Like, you
know what I mean? It's all aboutcorrecting the drawings.
Like I have dedicated checklists for alldifferent stages in the project. When it
goes out to building a permit, this isthe stuff that has to

(01:29:06):
be on there. You know,all of your code, your exiting, your
washroom account, etcetera. And then it just kind of
evolves from there. And then you go outfor tender and it has,
you have to go through that.When I would do a tender check, basically
I would print off mydrawings in the 24 set,
have my checklist and I'd redline bleedall over and go through
every item. Even though I'm like,oh, I know it's on there. I know it
doesn't matter. Go double check it.Because it's easier now to

(01:29:28):
fix it versus dealing with that RFIscenario that you just
listed. And same thing, you know,the last episode I was talking about
dimensions. If, you know, it takes twoseconds, click, click
dimensions done. If you don't do that,take that extra effort. That, that
dimension is about ahalf an hour to do it later because of
the process and thepaperwork and that follows.

(01:29:51):
So yeah, spend your time. I guess that'sanything from this podcast
today is just spend your time.Early.
In the religions. Early.Early.Because.
Well, that's a good question too. When doyou guys want to come
in and do specs on a job?Well, as soon as possible. But.
Like design development?That'd be fantastic. Schematic design

(01:30:13):
would be even better.Day one would be best.
Day one. Yeah. And I just want to stepback a minute on that
RFI question. I think if,if there was a, there's a rush at the end
of a project and itseems like every project is
facing that rush. If a lot of RFIs, Ithink could be prevented prior to

(01:30:35):
construction even startingif the project team reviewed each other's
drawings. I can't tell you how many timesI'm nearly 100% certain that our specs
went out withoutanyone ever looking at them.
Now, in my opinion, they're correct.However, you're the project

(01:30:57):
architect or project designer.You know what is correct and what is not
correct. That RFI wasprobably generated because I
misunderstood something you told me. Oryou didn't verify that what I put in was
what you really wanted.I put in what I heard you wanted. So I
think a lot of RFIs can be prevented byjust spend that extra

(01:31:18):
day. You know, don't tell me you wantyour specs on Friday when it's due
Friday. Tell me you wantthem on Wednesday. And then you look at
them Thursday. Tell meThursday night which you want
changed and I'll get that changed out.Hopefully it's not a lot,
but review it. And that's partof why I think our software, I'm going to
go back to that for just aminute, but we encourage you to

(01:31:41):
comment on the specifications as they'rebeing developed so that
we can prevent that RFI.And now jumping to the next part, when do
we want to get involved?Schematic design would be fantastic.
And I'll let Dave talk a little bit abouthis favorite saying
with schematic design.My favorite saying? Okay, but I said day

(01:32:05):
one. And the reason is the way that welook at specifications
are really two types. Okay, and we'repromoting the use of uniform
at early on in a project, butuniform at the way it can be developed
can span the life of theproject. So it doesn't have to be

(01:32:28):
only early. But uniform at is a great wayto capture owner project requirements,
capture system and assembliesdescriptions, start to build out what
those assemblies areas you learn what they are as design
decisions are being made.Because Steve is getting really

(01:32:51):
anxious for me to say it is we want tosay what you know when you
know it. Let's not make stuffup because as soon as you make stuff up,
the estimator is going toprice it. And then we're
going to be chasing bogus informationwith a bogus price and exceeding a

(01:33:12):
project budget. Nobody'sgoing to really know why. So if we can
treat the specifications much like youtreat a building model
and develop it in a level of development,just like you would in
building model. And we canactually define use the same kinds of

(01:33:34):
definitions when you're talking about aspec to say these are
the levels of information that we thinkare appropriate. And we
can do that in a uniformat base spec because hey, we don't have
to know that it's a brickcladding on the building
to be able to specify an exterior wall.Right. But if we're going

(01:33:58):
to write a construction spec,we do need to know that it's brick to be
able to select the rightsection to even be able to start
the spec. Right. So there's thatdisconnect too. And see,
now you got me on a roll here.One of my passions, Matt. So bear with

(01:34:20):
me. Uniform at has the distinctfeature that number one, it
was designed by estimators.Every family talking about Revit, every
family that you placein Revit is an assembly.

(01:34:44):
Right. So now if you have the estimate, adescription, and the
model all aligned oneto one to one because they're all systems
and assemblies. Now theanalysis of the estimate
and the comparison to the budget andbalancing the project costs to

(01:35:09):
be able to keep things in lineis far easier. You could say you have
true value engineering at that point.Yeah. Because now you can make decisions
early to keep everything in balanceand avoid what we know as value
engineering today, which isreally cost or scope cutting.

(01:35:30):
Right. Now, one thing when you're sayinglike, oh, about the brick
when we have this item and thenit applies. At the end of the day, that's
you kind of driving that because that'sall about experience
and being so many years and doing thisand going through the
challenges and the stories and allthat kind of stuff. You know, what's a
podcast without the topicof AI you saw everywhere and

(01:35:51):
you see, but is there any kind of toolsthat you see today or
where you see it going that canbasically go, oh, I've got this wall,
therefore, bang, bang, bang,bang, bang, everything needs to
be applied to it. You know, this rightcoding, this right
caulking, this air gap, whatever thecase is. Do you see that kind of where
things may go? Maybe an opportunity?Funny you mentioned that.

(01:36:17):
This was all improv too. So yeah. No, I,we've, we've done some
experiments and I know some otherspecifiers who have as well. And the
stuff that comes out ofAI is not a specification.
It's not, it's lacking in a lot ofinformation. And the other

(01:36:37):
component that could help usis we found out that what's the proper
way to say it, I guess it'schoking on the information.
Because it can't read a drawing. It cansee the words in a drawing,
but it can't reallyinterpret what those symbols are.

(01:36:58):
Yeah. And this again, this is today. Youknow, it's not there. We
know that back down the road.Maybe I don't, I don't know. It'd be
interesting. I've got, youknow, I've had the arguments,
you know, a CSI conferences wheresomeone's like, well, you know, you're
just going to model it andthen hit one button and it's going to
produce all the details. And I'm like,AI is not going to do that. It's going to
go grab residentialdetails. And it's just not,

(01:37:21):
it's, it would open up the door forextras, extra x-rays, because
the details are, are just notthere. And best practices and climate
change and, you know, whereyou're, you know, being built.
And, and one of the concerns too is doyou want to go out in a
public domain with AI,especially if you're dealing with
projects that aresensitive, that, that are under NDA

(01:37:47):
because of what they are. And many of ourprojects today are under
NDA, that we're not even,we can't talk about them by name. We
can't in many cases eventell you who the architect is.
So if, if that's the case, you're reallyforced to be using either

(01:38:09):
your own data set as part of AI,which is now somewhat limited because you
only have so muchexperience and AI is the advantage is
let's take advantage of everybody'sexperience, but you, but you
really don't have that if you'rein a closed data set. Right. Yeah,

(01:38:30):
exactly. It's only going to determinewhat it knows there and,
and the data there. So if it's being fedwrong data, then that's, yeah, like,
that's kind of like whatpart three's AI tool where view shop
drying, because it's justlooking at what's noted in
the specs versus when a shop drying comesin, just as a quick, you
know, cross comparison.And it's very cool because it's black and
white, but in that case,what we're talking and what

(01:38:51):
you're saying, David, is it's, it'ssubject, Mary is very
subjective to what it can be and all,you know, it's not one plus one, it's A
plus B equals C squaredand whatever the case is,
it has a variety to it.There's my physics of the day.
I think you have to be careful too, forusing it for the, what
you're saying too, Matt, isbecause of the nature of shop drawings, a

(01:39:16):
lot of times when youget product data in,
if you're looking for it to compare someitems that are in the spec
versus what's on the productdata sheet, a lot of product data sheets
have multiple products listed with them.So you may list a certain testing, I'm
going to use ASTM, a certain ASTM number.And it may see that ASTM number in that

(01:39:38):
product data sheet, but itmay not apply to that product
that you are looking for. Right. So in away, you have to be kind
of careful of what you'reasking you to do as well. Agreed. Like
you, you're the one that's the driver,you're the one that,
you're the professional. So therefore,yes, it can be a tool to help you. Yes.
Yeah. And like, you know, when it comesto, you know, the podcast,

(01:40:00):
like I use AI to make up myshow notes, you know, do the blog posts.
I take all that and it'spretty good, but I still check
it and go through it. Cause sometimesyou're like, no, I don't, I
don't like that. I don't know.Just, just go back and you modify. It's a
tool, but it'll be reallyinteresting to see where it
goes. You know, post every day, peopleare commenting and
seeing what, you know, are youscared or you're not, you know, a
director of CEO put a big post out there,lots of comments. And

(01:40:22):
yeah, just interesting to see what theworld is, you know, are you
scared of it or you're wantingto embrace it? Is it a new tool that not,
but at the end of the day,you're still the creator.
You're the one that's driving the bus andit's not the machine. The
machine's a tool, you know,that's all it's there for. The hammer's
not going to make thehouse. You're going to do it.
And the experience I have, I try to useAI for writing Microsoft

(01:40:44):
Word macros. After I just gotdone telling you earlier that we're
trying to avoid those. But it, it'sgenerating macros that are not
error free. So you still need to checkand prompt the AI to go back
and correct the errors that itbuilt into the macros. And I discovered

(01:41:11):
one, I asked it to dosomething, it could not get it.
And I, after I spent this, this, I wasdetermined that AI was going to fix this.
And it was, it wasn't all of thatdifficult of a problem. So I probably

(01:41:32):
spent 45 minutes tryingto coax AI by different prompts to be
able to fix this macro to actuallycomplete it correctly.
And I finally gave up and I spent acouple of minutes and I
was done, you know, so there,you know, where, where you think it may

(01:41:52):
be saving time and energy.And then, and in the end,
in this one case, I couldn't even rely onit to finish it and get it
right. So I had to take itover and do it myself.
Curt Jaimungal Can we back up a minute,Matt? We never really finished a
discussion that we, we'vewent off on a tangent, which often
happens, which is good. But you hadmentioned earlier about

(01:42:15):
precedents and precedents clauses, as faras specs take precedents
over drawings. And that,that's a very, there used to be something
in the AIA contractdocuments that had a precedents.
And they fixed that a few years ago, Ithink it was 2017, with the
new issue of the A201 document.But there, there, there are no precedents

(01:42:40):
between drawings and specifications.They're to be viewed
equally per the contract language nowwith AIA. So really, there
is no specs to take precedentsover this or this, what
they instruct unless, go ahead.Matt B
Unless it's a custom contract, and we seethat a lot in institutional

(01:43:05):
and public owners, where theyhave their own and they very, very well
may have an order of precedents.Curt Jaimungal Yeah, right. But generally
speaking, there's noprecedents. And that's
an unfortunate side effect of that isthat generates an RFI,

(01:43:26):
because there's a disconnect.And I mentioned that before, there's a
disconnect between thedrawing and the specification.
So that final review of both documents isvery important that often doesn't happen.
Matt B So and here's, here's the side effect oforder of precedents. So if you set an

(01:43:46):
order of precedents,if specs do over roll drawings,
which is the proper way it should beanyhow, because, you know,
everybody knows specs aremore important. But and I probably will
find all the hate email in myinbox soon after we publish.

(01:44:11):
Curt Jaimungal We'll link it to yourinbox. Absolutely. For
inquiries, contact Dave at this.Yes, exactly. So the side effect is that
with an order of precedents,there really is no conflict. So if specs
take precedence and thedrawings and the specs don't

(01:44:34):
match, the contractor has every right torely on the spec and no
need to ask a question.Because the order of
precedence solved the problem.Matt B
And that's how I would always kind oftalk to, you know, that's
where you go. And that's what,yeah, they would look at that. And yeah,

(01:44:57):
and they would eliminatethe RFI because they should be
just going to that as the final word. AndI'm like, said, if
your specs aren't tight,that's where you're
gonna get into problems.Curt Jaimungal Well, let's say your specs
are tight, your specssay exactly what you think
they're supposed to say. Say I specify anEPDM roof, but they
really wanted a TPO roof.Matt B
You got that that's a black and whitedifference in most instances.

(01:45:20):
Curt Jaimungal Yeah. And notjust in the material color.
Matt BRight. That's where I was going. Anyway,
but there are two, those are twodifferent materials that
have two different costs andcould have be put down in two different
ways. But I've had itspecified the opposite of what
you really wanted. And then you have apotential change order in the next step.

(01:45:44):
Curt Jaimungal Yeah,that's right. And like,
when it comes to enforcement and shopdrawings, and you know, all
in terms of that CA phase,list is no, I don't like alternates. How
do you guys feel withthat? You know, like something
comes out on site, and the contractortries to slip something
beside you, you know, you've spentthis time writing these specs. You guys

(01:46:07):
kind of prone tointroducing entertaining it, or it's
just a flat out go away.Follow what I did. Matt B
It really depends on the architect or thedesigner of record what
they want. And that's,that's a point of contention sometimes
because I don't alwaysget direction on submittals.
So if I'm not certain, I don't want tosay this in a negative way,

(01:46:29):
but I could cause you a lot ofheartache in a way. Because I could
request a ton of submittalsthat you have to spend a lot of
time reviewing in CA. Right. And if I'munsure of the product, I'm
going to ask for a few moresubmittals to make sure that's exactly
what you want. But that'sanother point where the architect
really needs to review the specificationsbecause shop drawings are such an

(01:46:55):
important part of theprocess. Some of them, you know, if I
list three products, andyou're okay with it as an architect
for those three products, if they submitthat product, why do
you need everything else?Just send me a note saying I'm using what
you wanted me to use.This is the product I'm using
in this section. Done. You can just saveyourself hours of time, right?

(01:47:17):
Matt B That's right. You don't need,I always love when you mention samples,
the office would show up atthe door and we got a sample for
you. Okay, and it'd be a big piece oflike metal standing seam roof
and you're like, I don't needa piece of this. We know what it looks
like. Thank you forsending. Yes, I know the colors,
iron gray. I know thecolor. Thank you. What do we do?

(01:47:38):
Matt B That's look at it from ourperspective. We wanted you
to look at that piece of metalbecause that was the color
you told us when you told us.Matt B That's right.
Matt B Did your mindchange or did the owner
change their mind between when you toldus and when it was let off or bit?
Matt B Yeah.Matt B Or tender. Sorry.
I'm coming to terms with thedifferences between north

(01:47:59):
and south here. Bid tenders.Matt B Yeah.
Matt B So let's go the other way though.Matt B Oh boy.
Matt B Yes, because Imade a trip over to an
architect's office. They were actuallyworking on at then at that
time. It was the Trump Taj Mahalin Atlantic City. Okay.
Matt B Yep.Matt B Okay. And I

(01:48:20):
walk into the architect'soffice and there's gigantic crate sitting
out just outside thelobby door. So I'm asking, so
what's in the crate? Oh, that's a sampleof the curtain wall for the building.
Matt B Yeah.Matt B Right. I said, well,

(01:48:41):
the building's already under constructionat this point. It's like,
you're going to look at it?Because the crate wasn't even open. It
was all nailed still, youknow, it was the shipping crate.
Now, we're not going to open it. I waslike, wait a minute. You
know, you've got this full-scalesample that you asked me to specify and
you're not even going to openthe crate to look at it? No.

(01:49:05):
So they didn't. I took the sample. We hadit sitting in our office.
Matt B Nice. I justimagine, like as you said,
the crate and the, you know, it wasthere. The flashes, you
know, the Christmas story,right? The old classic
Christmas story, the lamp.Matt B Yes. Yes.
Matt B I just imagine you just opening itup and, you know, it says fragile.

(01:49:25):
Matt B Just this, thisimagine, you know, but yeah,
that's quite interesting. I got one ofthose samples too. And what the heck?
Matt B But I mean, that sample, you justthink about it's one
sample. This probably costssomething like $10,000 to build this
sample. It was not a small sample.Matt B It was not small.

(01:49:46):
Matt B Oh, geez.Matt B It was like six-inch deep curtain
wall with full glazing.Matt B Wow.
Matt B It was probably about a four footby four foot sample.
Matt B That's a good, wow.Wow. That is a really decent size.
Matt B Yeah.Matt B So where is it now?
Matt B Dumpster.Matt B Recycle.
Matt B Yeah.Matt B But think about it.

(01:50:09):
Matt B You don't get all the samples andstart building
something with them, do you?Matt B No.
Matt B No.Matt B Actually, you can because a friend
of mine actually took abunch of those 12 by 12
insulated glass samples and incorporatedthat into the exterior wall of his house.
Matt B Nice.Matt B So he built it as a bunch of
little 12 by 12 windows.Matt B That's cool.

(01:50:30):
Matt B Pretty neat little idea, but onlyan architect would do that.
Matt B Yeah, exactly.Sometimes I look, I'm like,
there's quite a bit of material that wecan make a doghouse
out of this or something.Matt B It would be the most creative
doghouse of samples andthis product, this product,
this product, and why not?So you need to be careful what you're
specifying, what you'reasking. If you don't need it,

(01:50:52):
let's not torture the contractor and thesubcontractors. Let's not have the owner
pay for something that's reallyunnecessary. And that goes with the
submittals, the samples,anything else.
Matt B And as far as alternates go, Imean, if you're really in
doubt, yeah, the alternates aregreat and can be very beneficial. And I

(01:51:13):
think that's where youwere coming from at one point.
But also on the flip side too, you canuse unit prices to do the same thing,
for different types of materials that,hey, we want it, this is
really what we want. But if itcomes in too much money, can we swap it
out for this other thing that we know isa lot less expensive
that we approve of.Matt B Yep. And I wanted

(01:51:34):
to touch on a point aboutenforcing that and you kind of just
answered right thereSteve, it was like, you know,
you as the architect is enforcing it, youknow, the spec writers on
the job that you're pushing,if the contractor is saying, well, no,
I'm going to do this one.No, you guys are, you know,
specs. This is what, like I said, this iswhy we designed, we've
done this. And therefore,we're just going to stick to the plan.
And then we're not going togo to some other third-party
application, alternate, whatever the caseis. At least that's, yeah,

(01:51:59):
that's kind of the way I'mtaking it too, right? So, but if you do
get that pushback, how do you handle it?Matt B And pushback from
whom? Because right now,we're only dealing with
the architects really.Steve That's true.
Matt B We don't dealwith the contractors,
unless the architect brings us in to ask.Steve Yeah.
Matt B But the pushback is likely todepend on whether or not

(01:52:22):
it's privately bid projector publicly bid project. So privately
bid, the architects, theowners can do whatever they want.
They don't have to accept anything as analternative or a substitution. Publicly
bid, you don't have the same kind ofcontrol because it has to be

(01:52:46):
open. It has to be availableto anybody that can prove that they can
meet the spec. So it'sfar, far harder to enforce
to get exactly what it is that youspecify on a publicly bid project.
Matt B Unless there's aspecific set of criteria

(01:53:07):
that will make or break that material andthe other person company
can't meet that criteria.Steve Right. But then
you have to be careful too,that you haven't created a proprietary
spec that'smasquerading as a performance or
descriptive spec because then thatbecomes subject of a

(01:53:29):
potential bid challenge.Matt B That becomes
intent or letter versusyour letter of the spec or what's your
intention at the end of the day?Steve Yeah. And that's up to
interpretation, right?Matt B That's right.
Hence going back to thecookie recipe and it was, do you believe

(01:53:50):
everything you read? I don't know.Steve I don't like
butter. I like margarine.Matt B Oh boy. Now
you're opened up the date.Steve Yeah, sorry.
Matt B What were you using in the recipewhen you're making it?
The butter or margarine?Steve M Did you follow the directions?
Matt B There's the question.Matt B There is the question.

(01:54:10):
Steve Oh, I was supposed tomake those? I just ate them raw.
Matt B You said chocolate chip, right?Matt B Yeah, chocolate chip, absolutely.
Steve M When I put itin my vanilla ice cream.
Matt B Yeah.Matt B And you just did it all together.
Steve M And you didn't have enough leftfor the cookie. So they
were just whatever they werewithout chocolate chips. Matt B In the

(01:54:34):
end, the audience was satisfied.And we all lived from there. So here's
your, as we're kind ofcoming up to the hour here,
let's wrap this up, lots of goodtakeaways, you know,
contradict points. This is awesome.And thank you for that. Thanks for being
on the show for this.So your soapbox question,

(01:54:55):
right? If you could change one industrywide misconception about specifications,
what would it be? And why? Let's gofirst. Who's brave? Who's the brave one
that wants to go first?Matt B You want it, Steve? Go ahead.
Steve M I'll take a crack at it. I thinkthat the biggest misconceptions

(01:55:16):
is that specifications areinterchangeable. And they can be used on
multiple different projectsat multiple different times
without any review or anything byanybody. If I could
change it, I would say that weas specifiers, we don't like to be

(01:55:39):
mushrooms. There's a commonjoke around the specifying
community that we're treated likemushrooms. We're kept in the dark and
we're shed a lot of.Bring us out of the dark. Treat us like
an equal on the team. Wewill help you if you help us.
You know, we can we can help you makeyour project much better.

(01:56:02):
Maybe not much better. We can help youmake your project better by
helping you be informed ofmaterials. Like I was saying earlier,
before we started that,you know, I might have you're
visiting with product reps. I havecontacts that you might not
have. That if you don't know whatyou want, I can put you in touch with
somebody that can get youwhat you want. And it can make
your project a little bit better foryourself and for the owner. Ultimately,

(01:56:25):
we're all working forthe owner, right? We want the owner to
have the project they wantat the end. Let us help you.
There's my soapbox.Yeah, well said.
I have a different take.Go for it.
All right. So misconceptions. You thinkabout construction
specifications. And the first thingeverybody thinks about is CSI format,

(01:56:53):
master format, sixdigit section numbering and
50 divisions. And I'm saying that's notall that's available.
So I'm going back to uniform at that canbe a specification to do

(01:57:16):
we need the traditionalconstruction specifications for
everything? My answer isno, we do not. So we can write
an entire project specification usinguniform at if we really need the
traditional constructionspecs, let's plug them in where we need

(01:57:38):
them, but only where we needthem. And I think if we looked
at projects in this kind of a way that wemight see the specification
volume shrink dramaticallyand if that's the case, I really believe

(01:58:00):
that enforcement andunderstanding will be much simpler.
So if you had and we proved this on oneproject where I delivered a
uniform at based architecturalspec only for a cancer infusion center,

(01:58:21):
25 pages was thetotal architectural spec.
It was built from that. I had noquestions about the
spec during construction.It's possible.

(01:58:44):
Very interesting. I'm usedto books about very large.
Yes. And why? Why do we have them? Whyare they so large? Is
it really necessary?Yeah, just to cover your basis, don the

(01:59:08):
eyes, crossing the T's. One example,and I don't want to take away from your
moment, your momentand everything, but like
it was a curtain wall. We didn't have theanti twisting
blocking in there. It wasn'tcalled up in the specs and it was an
extra. So less is more.Maybe that's kind of the theory
to kind of say with what you're gettingat. Yeah. So yeah, following on for me,

(01:59:33):
so yeah, less is more. I'll quote anotherfamous person, Jerry McGuire.
Help us help you.That's awesome. That's the best. There we
go. Mike drop from Steve.He got the award for that.
You know, less is more. Let me help youout. Exactly. Where can

(01:59:54):
the audience find you guys?I know you already told what you were.
You're located right now with our Steve,but where can they find
you on the social side?You know, don't call me at Omaha. I'm not
here after tomorrow.Oh, no. Okay. All right. But LinkedIn,
you know, this is yourplug. Where can they find you?
Where can they reach you? Well, they canalways find us on our

(02:00:15):
website, conspectusinc.com.It has all of our team members listed
there. Just go to theabout us page and you'll be
able to find all of us with all of ourcontact information. Yeah.
And please reach out. We'dlove to talk to you. Dave and I both love
talking specs. We'rejust kind of geeks that way,

(02:00:37):
but other people in the firm are in thesame way. Even if it's a
simple question, hey, how would Ido this? Even if you're not a client,
call us up, ask us a question. I'll takea few minutes to help
explain specs to somebody. Yeah. Andspeaking of testament of
truth, like, you know, even you'reat the conferences and on top of that,
you're leading classes.Like I really, really enjoyed

(02:00:59):
the design build spec class that we didwith the Lego that you
brought to Houston last year. Andagain, that was awesome. It's in my heart
for life and everything.Because I so enjoyed that.
It was a good analogy and a differentperspective and a take on that type of
world and how to kindof wrap that up and tying all back to the
specs and the differenttypes that you can do. Yeah.

(02:01:21):
That was really fun to kind of pulltogether. That was a
collaborative effort between Dave andmyself and Charlie Dunn, another
gentleman that you shouldprobably talk to at some point.
I'll get you in touch with him. Yeah.He'd be great for you. But
yeah, it's always fun to teachabout specs. Yeah. But yeah, thank you so

(02:01:42):
much for being on the show.This was an absolute pleasure.
It was a blast. Can't wait to be inperson again at the next conference. And
there's a lot of lotsof them are coming up. So I'm sure we'll
be there and do itagain. Absolutely. Yeah. Well,
forward to it. Yeah. And you're comingback on our podcast eventually too.
Yes. Yeah. Let's do it. Yeah. And deliverwords. Let's do it.

(02:02:03):
Absolutely. So after I'm off toEurope in the next couple of weeks and
then I'll be back and then I,yeah, let's schedule it in and
put in the books because I can't wait. Ihope it's a pleasure
trip. It is. It's going to beexploring everything. It's been 22 years
on the book. You know, it'sbeen now I've been planning
this one for a long time. So it's time tokick it off as the bucket list item.

(02:02:24):
Are you taking the Jeep with you to dosome trail lazing? That would be cool,
but not in this case.Okay. But we will be going to the Omaha,
Juneau beaches and doingthe whole D-Day landing.
Oh, nice. Very good. Big passion of mine.100%. So we'll talk about
that sometime. Oh yeah. We'lldefinitely bring that. We'll do it.
We'll, we'll connect intoyour show and then I'll get back
from the trip and we'll go into that. Butyeah, well that wraps up

(02:02:48):
this week's episode. Architectskeep designing and contractors keep
making those blueprints into reality.We'll see on the next one.