While some do not believe in having specifications, there is a group that depends on them for their livelihood: subcon- tractors. Good specifications provide the necessary technical information to the subcontractors so that accurate bids can be developed and submitted. In the absence of specifications, there is a large amount of written and verbal information that is exchanged between the architect, engineer, owner and contractor. The subcontractor is not privileged to this information; all the information they have to submit bids and do the work is either what they are told by the contractor or what they can glean from the drawings. Where did the attitude of not needing or using specifications come from? Some contractors, not subcontractors, believe that specifications impede the progress of the work. There are also some contractors that tell their clients that the project will cost more if specifications are included in the scope of work. One reason that contractors do not want specifications is that specifications do not let the contractor do what the contractor wants to do with the project. Another reason is that contractors believe they know better than the architect and engineer about what needs to be done. The reality is that the contractor now has control of the quality of the project, and quality will always fall victim to precon- ceived budgets and increasing profits. The project loses and the owner loses. A Hard Lesson On a project in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, an inexperienced property owner took bids for the construction of a publicly accessed building in excess of 20,000 sq ft (1,860 sq m), designed to accommodate gatherings of var- ious sizes. Most contractor bids came in at reasonable prices, but one contractor who did not have a great deal of experience bid quite a bit lower. The property owner accepted the lowest bid and construction began. After construction had been underway for some time, an associate of the owner became concerned by the contractor’s construction practices. This associate was an engineer and was concerned enough to recommend retaining the services of a professional structural engineer to review the construction, even though city officials had already approved it. After making inquiries for recom- mendations, the building owner retained a firm to conduct an independent inspection. The inspection revealed that the contractor had cut corners during construction, apparently starting when he realized he had greatly underbid the project. Although the soil was unstable, casing was not used to protect the integrity of the building’s drilled shafts. As such, the shafts were not of the proper diameter or length; the reinforcement cages were of the wrong size, used an incorrect design and were placed without any alignment spacers. John B. Turner, P.E., is a professional engineer with experience acquired from years as a struc- tural design engineer with more than 20 years of experience in investigations, failure analysis, education, industrial operations and construc- tion safety. As a designer, he has served on design teams for schools, hospitals, warehouses, office buildings and government facilities. Walter Scarborough, F.CSI, SCIP, is an architect, registered in Texas, an independent specifier, and has 40 years of architectural experience. He is a vice president and regional manager for Hall Building Information Group based in Charlotte, N.C. He is a fellow of the Construc- tion Specifications Institute and the update author for the forthcoming second edition of The CSI Project Delivery Practice Guide. Bottom supports for the longitudinal reinforcement Bradford Russell, AIA, P.E., SECB, F.SEI, is a LEED certified architect and structural engineer serving as director of architecture/engineering for BR Architects, headquartered in Richardson, Texas. He is also president of ForceGenie, a partner with PYRM Architects and a past state board member and Dallas chapter officer of the Structural Engineers Association of Texas (SEAoT). This article was produced under the auspices of Pieresearch, manufacturer of quality concrete accessories, exclusively for the benefit of the structural and geotechnical engineering, architectural and construction communities. Permission to print provided by Pieresearch 2019. 94 • DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JULY/AUG 2019 Therefore, some cages had become pinched, resulting in reduced shaft diameters when sections of the shaft wall collapsed. If the contractor had simply used cage alignment spacers, some of the shafts may have usable. No remedial action could mitigate the inadequacies of these practices, and the entire building foundation would have to be razed and completely rebuilt. The contractor subsequently declared bankruptcy. In order for the owner to wind up with a usable building at a much smaller budget, the scope of the project and size of the building were greatly reduced. The owner had to simply write off the money already spent on a deeply flawed process. Specifications and the inspection thereof are important. The amount saved by the contractor not installing cage alignment spacers was estimated to be inconsequential for the project size — less than $6,000. The actual cost of these savings was far greater. Due to the lack of spacers and other shortcuts the contractor employed, the building owner lost a substantial amount of money. The contractor eventually lost his company and reputation.
