specifications problems in practice

1
NBS Educator
Specifications Problems in practice NBS November
2008
2
contents

• unsound specifications
• unused specifications

3
problems in practiceunsound specifications
4
unsound specifications

• misuse of the NBS
• The inclusion of practically every NBS clause
  which results in contradiction.
• Severe pruning which means that important NBS
  clauses are omitted.
• Failure to read the NBS guidance notes the
  result of which is frequently the use of the
  wrong clause or the inclusion of contradictory
  clauses. (RIAS, 2000)

5
unsound specifications

• use of standards
• instead of putting according to a specific
  BS at each stage of the specification he inserts
  a sentence at the beginning of the specification
  to say that all work must be according to the
  current British Standards. However, when he
  checks this, he finds that he had neglected to
  insert this sentence. He is unconcerned by this
  revelation (R. Williams, CAP assignment, 2002)

6
unsound specifications

• compliance with regulations
• specifications submitted to BCOs are often full
  pseudo-specs more than needed, not job-specific
• they dont restate or harden Approved Documents,
  which (a) are not mandatory, (b) are not written
  as specifications should so cant be cited,
  and (c) do not apply unless you say so in
  specification

7
unsound specifications

• compliance with regulations
• usually not to Building Regulations structure
  e.g. fire, energy, hygiene
• how often do BCOs ask for a resubmission?

8
unsound specifications

• on site
• on issues of workmanship, the specification
  invariably gave no information at all, or was
  ambiguous, or was unclear in some way. (Bentley,
  1981)

9
unsound specifications

• conflict between drawings and specifications
• Failure to check the specification with the
  drawings the drawings show one thing whilst the
  specification describes another. (RIAS, 2000)
• Such conflict is responsible for 19 of change
  orders (Preston, 1999) can lead to dispute (next
  slide)
• also a drawings problem, of course

10
unsound specifications

• dispute
• or equal specifications 25
• conflict between drawings and specifications 12
• ambiguity 12 (Bingham, 2005)
• defective specifications e.g. buildability 12
• inaccurate technical data 12
• product performance deficiencies 8 (Nielsen,
  1981)

11
unsound specifications

• declining quality of documentation
• completeness had seen the biggest decline,
  followed by
• final checking
• certainty
• accuracy
• coordination and
• clarity (Tilley McFallan 2000).

12
unsound specifications

• declining quality of documentation
• consequently, the following had increased
• additional drawings
• drawing revisions
• contractual claims
• contract variations
• RFIs
• rework and
• component clashes (Tilley McFallan 2000).

13
unsound specifications

• top six documentation problems
• use of catch-all clauses
• critical notes hidden among non-critical notes
• unclear
• insufficient detail
• incorrect or inadequate information
• conflicting information (Tilley McFallan 2000)

14
unsound specifications

• impact on tenders
• very poor documentation increases the quoted
  cost and time by 11 (on average)
• excellent documentation reduces the quoted
  cost and time by about 1 (Tilley McFallan,
  2000)

15
unsound specifications

• client's view
• The client is reluctant to start with the
  contractor, believing that he does not have
  enough specification information from the
  architect to provide a realistic costing.
• Communication channels broke down with the
  architect following persistent time delays,
  specification faults, planning delays the
  client having to change builders due to poor
  workmanship.
• The architect was criticised for not citing
  current BSs in the specification, and was
  threatened with a charge of 'unprofessional
  conduct' by the client.
• Two items missing in a school specification were
  on the drawings, which led to a dispute with
  contractor over costs (Jane Oldfield, private
  communication).

16
problems in practiceunused specifications
17
unused specifications

• by contractor
• bottom drawer culture quality on site
• When, as a last resort, it was sometimes
  referred to
• the specification was used only very
  exceptionally and then merely as a list of
  materials and suppliers. (Bentley, 1981)

18
unused specifications

• by contractor
• surreptitious substitution survey (Billingham
  Coomber, 1994)
• 40 of UK contractors broke specifications
• 25 of UK subcontractors broke specifications
• no-one noticed

19
unused specifications

• by contract administrator
• third party product certification under-used for
  many product classes indicates little or no
  demand, e.g. KiteMark licensees
• Ready-mixed concrete, BS 8500-1 101 licensees,
  but
• Cellulose fibre roof insulation, BS 5803-3 0
  mnfr
• Building sealants, BS ISO 11600 0 mnfr
• Underlays for textile flooring, BS 5808 0 mnfr
• Pozzolanic pfa cement, BS 6610 0 mnfr

20
unused specifications

• by contract administrator
• under-acquisition of standards e.g. 950 CIS
  on-line subscriptions but 7000 NBS subscriptions
• Some trades feel that by not standing by their
  specifications or not bothering with them at
  all architects are to blame for lowering
  building standards. (Coomber, 1994)

21
unused specifications

• client's view
• 'Architect signs interim certificates for work
  that has not been done yet or is not as per
  specification. Work is obviously sub-standard and
  the architect says its fine. We are not talking
  about picky clients here wanting everything
  perfect.' (Jane Oldfield, Ribanet, December 2006).

22
problems in practicefurther reading
23
further reading

• Bentley, MJC (1981) CP7/81 Quality control on
  building sites, BRE
• Billingham, Erica (1994) Breaking the chain
  contractors, Building, 16 September
• Bingham, T. (2005) Shock and or, Building, 4
  March.
• Coomber, Matthew (1994) Breaking the chain
  subcontractors, Building, 23 September
• Davey, C. et al (2006) Defects liability
  management by design, Building research
  information 34/2, March-April.
• Doran, D. (2004) FMI/CMAA Fifth annual survey of
  owners, FMI.

24
further reading

• Doran, D. (2005) FMI/CMAA Sixth annual survey of
  owners, FMI.
• Gelder, J. (2003) 'Quality in contracts', NBS
  Journal 03.
• Gelder, J. (2004) 'Or equivalent', NBS Journal
  05.
• Gelder, J. (2007) 'Yes! We have no
  specifications', NBS Journal 11.
• Gelder, J. (2008) 'An inspector calls', NBS
  Journal 12.
• Nielsen, M. K. (1981) Risks and liabilities of
  specifications in reducing risk and liability
  through better specifications and inspections,
  ASCE (USA)
• Preston, Jerry (1999) Change orders, The
  Construction Specifier, January (USA)
• RIAS (2000) N1535 Incorrect use of NBS, RIAS
  Practice Information, Winter

25
further reading

• Rogers, L. (1994) PI in the sky?, RIBA Journal,
  April.
• Tilley, Paul Stephen McFallan (2000) Design and
  documentation quality survey, CSIRO (Australia)
• Williams, Rebecca (2002) CAP Assignment
  Specifications, (unpublished)