New Ventures in Uncertain Times

By Greg Markling, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, NCARB, LEED AP BD+C

Institute President-Elect

With all of the challenges that are on my road ahead in CSI, making the giant leap from “dream” to “reality” in a new career venture has been an interesting experience thus far, to say the least.  I have long had the dream of launching a consulting firm that would integrate 35+ years of design and construction experience with my skill sets and passions, but had yet to make that ultimate decision to pull the proverbial “trigger” on that dream.  I have recently done so, and do not intend to look back.

Once such a decision is made, first thoughts can include fear, anxiety, and uncertainty about prospects for success – particularly in these unprecedented challenging times in our industry.  Then, you have to decide how you will choose to measure success.  Will it be a financial measurement, number of clients, quality of exciting projects, or some combination of these and others? 

It has become clear to me in recent years that design and construction firms are operating “leaner and meaner” than they have in a very long time due almost exclusively to this economic recession that, it seems, will never end.  Under these circumstances, many firms are reluctant to hire highly trained and extensively experienced personnel at their attendant salary levels.  In some cases, those firms are actually forced to consider letting these kinds of staff members go, in favor of less expensive and more moderately trained and experienced personnel.  This leaves many firms in significant need of that same high-level talent and experience that they cannot afford to retain on a full-time basis.  It is in this “space” where I see an opportunity to offer a unique and more complete package of services to the design and construction industry.

Let me interject here to share my thoughts on the CSI “network” and how it has shown itself to be more robust than even I could have imagined.  In the short time that I have been actively pursuing this dream, I have received overwhelming affirmation, support, encouragement, and quite literally CLIENTS from CSI colleagues all across this country!  I know of no other industry association or professional organization in which I would receive such unselfish and direct support from members of our design and construction industry with whom I not only work but actually compete!  The “networking” value proposition is perhaps the most valuable of CSI’s many value propositions, and I am now even more convinced that we belong to the most important organization of professionals in the design and construction industry – no qualifications!

Based on much thought, lots of reading on the subject, and the advice of very dear friends and colleagues, the following points of focus will, I believe, create the best chance for success, in any endeavor, in these challenging times:

• Stay focused on those things that you enjoy and do best.
• Communicate the value of what you do best, along with your own core values – they should go hand-in hand.
• Realize that there is a difference between what you “do” and who you “are.”
• Focus on providing excellent service; service to yourself, your clients, and your industry so that everyone involved “wins.”

By the way, the name of the new venture in iBIMsolutions, llc - Integrated Building Information Management Solutions.  Our purpose is to serve by enhancing the value of our client’s design and construction services.  The websitewww.ibimsolutions.net is still under construction (the “General Contractor” is inexperienced in such project types, but is getting the hang of it…).  I’d love to hear from you at ibimsolutions@msn.com. 

November 2011 President's Message

Hey CSI, don’t get substituted.

I’ve commented in the past that CSI could stand for the Construction Solutions Institute in lieu of the Construction Specifications Institute.  This concept never rang more clearly to me than after sitting in three different educational programs at CONSTRUCT 2011, where the topic of substitutions  seemed to permeate, then monopolize, the discussion.  It became apparent to me during these programs that the issue of “or equal” (or “or equivalent” as one presenter insisted – yes, I did listen) needs to be addressed.  I heard a lot of passionate debate, but not one solution.  I believe that the industry will eventually gravitate towards a solution, but will that solution be the best for the construction industry as a whole?  Enter CSI.

CSI is a diverse organization whose strength is in that diversity.  Design professionals meet with product representatives and construction professionals to arrive at industry-wide accepted policies and procedures - solutions.  Again I ask, if CSI doesn’t address the issue of substitutions, who will?  AIA, AGC, ASPE, PMI… Who?  If CSI doesn’t provide a solution, I’m afraid CSI will be substituted, even though I don’t believe any of the multitude of construction industry organizations out there  is an “or equal” to CSI.

CSI’s flagship is the development and implementation of a standardized way of organizing and communicating product and project information (MasterFormat ®).  But CSI has moved beyond that.  CSI has become the industry leader in standardizing and organizing the design and construction process.  CDT, CCS, CCPR, and CCCA are the result of that effort.  Earning those credentials communicates to your peers and industry colleagues that you understand those processes.  So what’s the process for allowing (and encouraging) new products and/or methods to be introduced and incorporated into the construction of a facility?  At what point during the planning, design process, bidding and construction of a project should alternatives be considered and/or allowed? When presenting an alternative product or method, what needs to be communicated so that a fair and unbiased decision to incorporate it or not incorporate it can be made?  Who makes that decision? Just as contractors advertise for bids when competing for a project, should A/E’s advertise for “products” sometime between the pre-design and  schematic design phases of a project? (Did that get your attention?)

The bottom line is that if this industry is going to advance, new ideas and products have to be incorporated into projects.  At the same time, the integrity of the A/E’s design needs to be maintained, the contractor needs to remain highly competitive, and in the end, the project owner needs to receive the greatest value possible for his or her dollar while allowing the rest of the team to receive fair compensation and profit for their talents, ideas, and labor.  If CSI is going to hold true to its mission of advancing building information management and education of project teams to improve facility performance, the issue of substitutions needs to be tackled.

So, Denver Chapter, what do we do?  Before we can address what I perceive as an issue, we need to verify that it is an issue that is worth addressing.  If the topic of substitutions is indeed an issue worth addressing, then step one is to define the issue.  If it’s not, well, I’ve been wrong before.  Let me know what you think.  Is there a problem in the industry with substitutions, and if so, is CSI the best organization to solve it?  I believe the answer is yes and yes.

Mike Young, CSI, CDT

Denver Chapter CSI President

Why Specify a Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish?

by Liz O’Sullivan

Many design and construction professionals believe that a Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish is required only in special circumstances, such as when gypsum board is to be coated with a high gloss paint.  This practice actually falls far short of the industry standard. 

The industry standard is to specify a Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish for ALL gypsum board substrates to be painted, except when the specified paint is a flat paint, or when a texture finish is to be applied prior to painting.  A Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish should always be specified if the gypsum board surface is to be coated with a paint with a sheen higher than flat, or if critical lighting conditions are present.  (Critical lighting conditions include high light levels and lighting from the side of a surface.) 

This standard is included in a publication called Recommended Levels of Gypsum Board Finish (GA-214).  This publication is issued by the Gypsum Association, and is the result of collaboration among industry trade organizations including the Association of the Wall and Ceiling Industry (AWCI), the Ceiling & Interior Systems Construction Association (CISCA), the Drywall Finishing Council (DWFC), Painting and Decorating Contractors of America (PDCA), and the Gypsum Association (GA).  All the major U.S. manufacturers of gypsum board belong to the Gypsum Association, and advocate this standard. 

The Master Painters Institute (MPI) and the Master Painters and Decorators Association (MPDA) also recommend Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish for paints with sheens with an MPI Gloss Level 3 (most “eggshell,” “satin,” and “pearl” finishes) and higher (semi-gloss, gloss).

This Recommended Levels of Gypsum Board Finish publication is not new; it was first published in 1990.  Painting subcontractors and drywall subcontractors are acutely aware of these requirements.  However, finishing and painting problems frequently surface during construction.

Coordination is essential to avoid finishing and painting problems on construction projects.  The specifier must coordinate the Painting specification section with the Gypsum Board specification section, and should specify a Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish for the appropriate substrates.  The general contractor should ensure that the work of the drywall subcontractor is completed per the specifications, so that the gypsum board substrates are properly prepared and ready for the work of the painting subcontractor.

A closely related issue is the matter of specifying an appropriate drywall primer.  A drywall primer recommended by the manufacturer of the topcoat should always be applied to the prepared gypsum board surface prior to application of the intermediate and top coats.  Because of how crucial the substrate preparation is for higher sheen paints, some painters always use high build drywall primers for higher sheen paints, even with a Level 5 Gypsum Board Finish.  High build primers have filling and surfacing qualities and can create a more uniform surface for the application of the finish coats of paint.  This practice further illustrates how important a proper gypsum board finish is to the process of achieving an acceptable paint finish.

The Standard Specification for Application and Finishing of Gypsum Board (ASTM C 840) describes the levels of gypsum board finish.  Recommended Levels of Gypsum Board Finish (GA-214) summarizes them, and is available free online, at http://gypsum.org/pdf/GA-214-10e-webversion.pdf .  MPI and MPDA recommendations are at www.paintinfo.com .  For more information, contact a paint manufacturer’s representative, or a gypsum board manufacturer’s representative.  Many thanks to Denver CSI members Ryan Brown of The Sherwin-Williams Company, Dean Leschak of Kwal Paint, and Mitch Denman of National Gypsum Company, who got me going in the right direction on this article.

AWI vs. WDMA Standards

Do you have specifications for flush wood doors that reference both AWI Section 1300 and the WDMA I.S.1A-04 standards? Has this caused you problems in the bidding stage or worse yet, after doors have arrived at the jobsite?

AWI and WDMA have been developing standards impacting the commercial door industry for decades. In 2004 WDMA introduced performance requirements in lieu of the prescriptive requirements both organizations previously referenced, and made other changes which further increased the gap between the two standards. AWI, AWMAC, and WI came out with a joint standard in October 2009 referred to as the Architectural Woodwork Standards (AWS).  This new standard adopted the HPVA (Hardwood Plywood Veneer Association) veneer standards and the WDMA Performance Duty Levels. So what are the differences?

There are two expectations of architectural grade flush wood doors: they should be visually pleasing to the end-users (aesthetics) and they should function properly over the life of the installation (performance). While there are numerous differences between the two standards there are two major ones that cause the most confusion in the marketplace.

Aesthetics - AWS and the WDMA now reference HPVA’s veneer grading tables.

Performance –Both standards now use WDMA’s performance-based requirements. A performance-based standard provides more flexibility to manufacturers, as long as there is adherence to rigid performance criteria such as cycle slam, hinge loading, screw holding, etc.

An additional difference between the two standards is in the area of finishing, AWI chose to eliminate the “TR” and “OP” system designations while WDMA chose to retain them. For Custom Grade doors, AWI requires a veneer match within pairs of doors and between doors and transoms, while WDMA allows selection for similar color and grain in both installations. Other subtle differences exist as well but not significant enough to materially affect project cost and expectations.

So what are the problems created by the differences? Because the AWI and WDMA standards were very similar up until 1997, the architectural community was not concerned about which standard they referenced in their specifications – either one worked fine. Since then, both AWI and WDMA have worked hard to promote their individual standards and educate the architectural community about the differences, however not everyone has received the message. Specifications not only reference both standards, but often reference out-dated versions of the standards as well.

Aesthetic Issues – The architectural community has a propensity to specify AWS Premium Grade over Custom Grade because of the perceived superiority of Premium Grade. Consequently a project may be over-specified. A specification referencing AWS Premium Grade will require the project to be bid with “AA” grade center balance matched veneer with “5” face components in the rotary and plain sliced cuts while the WDMA standard of “A” grade running match veneers with 4” face components may be perfectly acceptable. This unnecessarily increases the cost of the door and ultimately the cost of the project. The reality is that AWS Premium Grade is in a class by itself, while AWS Custom Grade and WDMA Premium Grade are very similar. AWI states that Premium Grade is “usually reserved for special projects or feature areas within a project” while further stating that the vast majority of all work produced is Custom Grade. Rooms such as courtrooms or boardrooms might require AWS Premium Grade because a higher level of aesthetics is the expectation. Other typical installations for flush wood doors such as schools, hospitals, and office buildings do not require that level of aesthetics, and therefore should reference either AWS Custom Grade or WDMA Premium Grade. Specifications referencing Premium Grade from both standards leave the distributer in a quandary. What are the architect and owner really expecting? If I bid AWS Premium Grade and my competitor bids WDMA Premium Grade will I price myself out of the project. However, if I bid and furnish WDMA Premium Grade will I be meeting the architect and owner expectations, or will my products be rejected.

Performance Issues – WDMA introduced the first performance-based wood flush door standard in 2004. Why is this important since both AWI and WDMA have published prescriptive door standards for years and doors have functioned well using this methodology? Prescriptive standards tend to stifle the use of innovative materials and manufacturing procedures where performance based standards allow the manufacturer the flexibility to implement new materials and procedures as soon as they have been successfully tested against the criteria outlined in the performance standard. An example of this is the use of Structural Composite Lumber as a stile edge. The WDMA standard allows vertical edges comprised of Structural Composite Lumber and a thin veneer edge band or HPDL, as long as the assembly has been tested to meet the WDMA Performance Duty Level. The AWS standard requires a minimum 1” hardwood under any veneered or HPDL edge. Veneer is defined in the AWS standard as anything ¼” or less in thickness

Another area to watch out for is the requirement for additional product certifications such as AWI QCP. Many times the verbiage in specifications calls for AWI QCP labels, certificates, or a Letter of Licensing. AWI QCP labels and certificates are not required for a project to be built to the AWS standard.  This certification is a program of the AWI Quality Certification Corporation.  This AWI Quality Certification Corporation QCP program audits the wood products that are supplied on registered projects for compliance to the specifications and submittal documents. The project fee assessed is $500.00 or .5% of the sell price, whichever is greater. If this additional certification is not necessary, all references to AWI QCP Labels, Certificates, or Letter of Licensing, should be removed from the specification. As a side note, an AWI Letter of Licensing is not a valid term. AWI QCP allows for labels or certificates only. 

Another change that has taken place within the industry that you may want to be aware of is what defines “particleboard”. Specifying particleboard no longer means that the product supplied will be of wood fiber. If you are specifying particleboard and requiring it to be of wood fiber, you need to define it as “wood based particleboard”.

So what are the solutions? Do a better job of educating the architectural community regarding the differences between the two standards. Align the standards to remove the differences between them. Both AWI and WDMA have been educating the architectural community for years. The fact that this problem continues to exist today in specifications indicates that either they have been unable to accomplish this effectively or the audience is so large that the task will never be completed.  

Thanks to the Door and Hardware Institute and Marshfield Door Systems for portions of this article. For more information on the Door and Hardware Institute visit http://www.dhi.org/  or Marshfield Door Systems at http://www.marshfielddoors.com/

Kevin Crook AHC/CDC CSI CDT

The Dam Bridge by Jon Willis

The USA Today article penned by Sean Holstege of the Arizona Republic hailed "Hoover Dam bridge is America's newest wonder". "It stands like a sentinel, watching in the wind over one of America's most treasured landmarks, the Hoover Dam" the article goes on to say.

 When the $240 million, 1900 foot bridge and related road work opened to traffic in October, 2010, it was the highest and longest arched concrete bridge in the Western Hemisphere, the second highest bridge in the United States (seventh highest in the world) with the world's tallest concrete columns of any kind. The bridge opened two weeks after the 75th anniversary of the opening of the Hoover Dam. Trivia Question: What is the highest bridge in the United States (which is 955 feet high, 1260 feet long, but only cost $350,000 to build)? Hint: It is in Colorado over another river.

 The bridge sits 890 feet over the Colorado River in the very rugged terrain of the Black Canyon between Arizona and Nevada. The arch design of the bridge complements the arched design of the concrete dam holding back Lake Mead. Clearly the Dam offered inspiration to the 300 engineers and 1200 workers it took to complete the project. The first recommendation for the bridge came in 1968 but the events of September 11th, 2001 brought the need for the bridge to the front burner. Still, construction did not start until February 14, 2005 and it took five-and-a-half years to complete.

If the Dam was a marvel of the great depression, the bridge is a marvel of the great recession. Its 16 million pounds of steel, 30,000 cubic feet of concrete and two million feet of cable are nearly beyond comprehension.

Check back here for a link to a spectacular PowerPoint presentation of the bridge under construction.