Wacky things on bid specs

What way out there things have you seen on bid spec's.

Some of my favorites are, and almost quoting here:

"Measure impedance of all equipment inputs and outputs to insure they meet manufacture specifications.
Use proper resistor network if not in spec"

"Equalized flat system response to be 30hz to 18khz at all seating locations"
(that one was on a distributed ceiling speaker system)

Up until a couple years ago I would still see cassette tape recorders speced for music rooms as the recording format.
 
Last edited:
Re: Wacky things on bid spec's

I think my favorite is when someone specifies that all rack blanks are to be vent panels, despite common wisdom, and great articles like http://www.middleatlantic.com/pdf/ThermalManagement.pdf that explain why solid blanks are the only way to go (unless you have 1980s era passively cooled equipment)

Jason


Yes seen that one to!


Kind of helps prove my theory that many of these "design engineers" don't get out from behind their desk very often and get paid big $$$$$ to use the copy and paste function.
 
Re: Wacky things on bid spec's

Apart from editing mistakes, obvious attempts to bias a bid, etc. probably the 'wackiest' was a complete bid specification that we were asked to bid on but that turned out to include a paragraph identifying the Consultant that created the Specification as being the only approved Contractor. Why invest the time to create a complete spec if the person creating it is the only one allowed to bid on it? So you can rip off the Owner twice? To add insult to injury, the Consultant had solicited our help on the design at no cost with the suggestion of our then having an advantage when it was bid.

Another was a Consultant the routinely wrote in their specifications that the Contractor had to pay for their Construction Administration services. They would get consulting work by underbidding all of their competition that included the CA services in their bids and then later charge whatever they wanted for those services, it just wouldn't appear to be part of their cost. They also worded it so that they were not working for the Contractor but rather just the Contractors bidding having to hide part of the Consultant's fees in their bids. It was a completely unethical approach and they got caught on one of our projects when they made a mistake that resulted in their having to make an additional site visit and then tried to make us pay them extra for it, when we went to the Owner, which was a State university that had awarded them the work based on a competitive bid process, with a related Change Order request and they realized what it was for and what had happened they were not amused.
 
Last edited:
Re: Wacky things on bid spec's

Amusing, but be careful about silly requests in job specs, that you might have to meet before getting paid. Not funny then.

JR

This raises an important question..
is there a protocol for how long after the job is done before it's ok to tell the customer what changes you recommend?
after the bill is paid? after the warranty is up? never?

obviously we don't want to burn any bridges with consultants, but after all is said and done the customer usually blames the installer for any shortcomings (at least in the range of jobs that I do where the folks that actually end up running the new building aren't usually consulted by the consultant :roll: )

Jason
 
Re: Wacky things on bid spec's

This raises an important question..
is there a protocol for how long after the job is done before it's ok to tell the customer what changes you recommend?
after the bill is paid? after the warranty is up? never?

obviously we don't want to burn any bridges with consultants, but after all is said and done the customer usually blames the installer for any shortcomings (at least in the range of jobs that I do where the folks that actually end up running the new building aren't usually consulted by the consultant :roll: )
You being up a great point and one that is a struggle from both sides. There are two factors that I often see happening.

The first factor is who is the "customer". In many cases the 'End Users' may not be the Owner or the decision makers. This can be bad in that their input is sometimes not considered as it should be, in fact in some cases there may not even be any end users or operators at the time a facility is first discussed and designed. But it can also sometimes be good, for example keeping an individual from making it 'their' system or keeping an eye on the bigger picture (e.g. the corporate project where the executives specifically wanted a meeting room space that could be used without a technician while the techs kept trying to get the Contractor to change things so that nothing could be done without their being involved).

The second is that there is often a long period of time, sometime several years, between the initial discussions of what is wanted and the opening of the building. Needs, users, the intended use, people, etc. can all change and evolve over that time. I see this a lot with projects like community centers and public performing arts center where as a result of people changing and there typically not being a Facility Manager or TD when the design starts, the initial vision for the building and systems evolve significantly between the the venue is first conceived and when it opens. I have a project finishing up right now that is a community center with a theater that was initially programmed to be used for a wide range of events by a wide variety of users with no dedicated house tech staff. Of course a few years later it is now opening with an experienced Facility Manager, a resident theater company with their own designers, and TD and contracted tech resources. Luckily all of the theatre tech consultants on the project had been through this situation before and designed a facility flexible enough to support the changes that have occurred, but sometimes changes happen that are so significant or so unexpected that they do become a problem.

I can't speak for all Consultants but I want to maintain a relationship with the Owner and End Users (okay, maybe not all of them). I want to have a chance to explain why something is that way it is. I also want to know if something should have been done differently or could have been done better, it's the only way I'll learn from it. The way I usually approach things is to tell the Owner and End Users that if you have a question on how something was done, talk to the Contractor but if you have a question on why something was done, talk to us. If it is an issue of why it is that way and how to change it, then let us work together. I also like to be involved in training so that I can help clarify the roles and answer any "why" questions that may come up.

All of this gets to the point that if there appears to be changes required then it may help to work with the Consultant. They may be able to explain why something is the way it is and that may either change whether any revisions are appropriate, help justify why they are appropriate or affect what is suggested. Working together could benefit everyone.

If the Consultant elects to not be involved or the Owner no longer wants them involved then I would say to feel free to suggest changes, however it might benefit you to try to find out as much as possible about why things are the way they are first so that you can offer a better informed response.

Do not do what I had one Contractor do where every time an issue came up they responded that this was why they should have just hired them and not wasted money on a Consultant - and said this with the Consultant in the room. What made that even worse is that the Contractor was responding to issues being raised by people that were not the decision makers and for which many ran counter to what the Owner wanted.
 
Re: Wacky things on bid spec's

One problem is many design engineers I have dealt with are not familiar with the lastest gear so they spec what they know.This seems to be the case especially when dealing with architects on public buildings like schools. It almost seems that they maybe getting a royalty if the equipment they spec is used because they seemd to spec the same gear for every job.. But here's one thing I found on a bid a few years ago. A firm that is now out of business wrote out their bids with a material list and a price.At the bottom in small print it said labor provided on a hourly basis. I was asked to bid on a church about 2 years ago. I knew the minister because I did an install at his former church.I gave him my bid and it was just under $9,000. He showed me the other bid they got which was from the above mentioned company. Their price was $7,500. When I poined out the fine print at the bottom about the labor not being included,he admitted he didn't see that. They didn't get the job,but what was amazing is that they were in business for over 20 years.Another installer I know informed me about the way their contacts were written up.I don't know if they always wrote their contracts that way or just started doing it when the econmy slowed,but either way,I found it to be unethical.
 
Re: Wacky things on bid spec's

One problem is many design engineers I have dealt with are not familiar with the lastest gear so they spec what they know.This seems to be the case especially when dealing with architects on public buildings like schools. It almost seems that they maybe getting a royalty if the equipment they spec is used because they seemd to spec the same gear for every job.. But here's one thing I found on a bid a few years ago. A firm that is now out of business wrote out their bids with a material list and a price.At the bottom in small print it said labor provided on a hourly basis. I was asked to bid on a church about 2 years ago. I knew the minister because I did an install at his former church.I gave him my bid and it was just under $9,000. He showed me the other bid they got which was from the above mentioned company. Their price was $7,500. When I poined out the fine print at the bottom about the labor not being included,he admitted he didn't see that. They didn't get the job,but what was amazing is that they were in business for over 20 years.Another installer I know informed me about the way their contacts were written up.I don't know if they always wrote their contracts that way or just started doing it when the econmy slowed,but either way,I found it to be unethical.

There's nothing wrong with labor being extra, but something that big should be very prominently noted.
also, if the spec was written properly it should spell out that bids are for the supply and installation of the system as specified. It shouldn't allow for anything other than a fixed price (unless that's what the designer was going for)

Jason
 
Re: Wacky things on bid spec's

One problem is many design engineers I have dealt with are not familiar with the lastest gear so they spec what they know.This seems to be the case especially when dealing with architects on public buildings like schools. It almost seems that they maybe getting a royalty if the equipment they spec is used because they seemd to spec the same gear for every job.
Of course there is also the Contractor or Dealer who may only know the gear they sell and whose goal is specifically to make money by specifying it. And having worked for a large Consulting Engineering company that once employed such practices, many audio specs that EEs and Architects issue are actually prepared for at little or no cost by Contractors hoping to get the job or by Manufacturers or Reps hoping to sell their equipment. I gave up worrying about it years ago, it is just the way it is and you learn to deal with it while doing what you can to make people aware of it.

Is specifying what you know inherently a negative? New technology and products should be considered, however the latest gear is not always the best solution and I have had multiple experiences specifying the latest gear only to later regret it as well as having people focus on applying the latest gear rather than necessarily the most appropriate gear.

But here's one thing I found on a bid a few years ago. A firm that is now out of business wrote out their bids with a material list and a price.At the bottom in small print it said labor provided on a hourly basis. I was asked to bid on a church about 2 years ago. I knew the minister because I did an install at his former church.I gave him my bid and it was just under $9,000. He showed me the other bid they got which was from the above mentioned company. Their price was $7,500. When I poined out the fine print at the bottom about the labor not being included,he admitted he didn't see that. They didn't get the job,but what was amazing is that they were in business for over 20 years.Another installer I know informed me about the way their contacts were written up.I don't know if they always wrote their contracts that way or just started doing it when the econmy slowed,but either way,I found it to be unethical.
I agree with Jason, it may be a questionable practice, however they might argue that since they do identify that the labor is on an hourly basis then there is nothing unethical about it. And that is better than the bids I have seen numerous times that include a list of the major equipment items and a total price with little or no additional information and in some cases not even any specific reference to any installation or what is or is not included in the price.