This blog is to further discussion of local Puget Sound IES events and news related to Architectural Lighting.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Specification Trail 3 Comments
What were your thoughts about the Specification Trail forum that we held last month?
posted by Edward Bartholomew, IALD, LC, LEED AP, IES @ 4:23 PM
2 Comments:
Anonymous said...
The two items that were part of discussions I had afterward were the need for teaching people how to do tabletop evaluations of products and how to design a system that actually works with the structural/architectural elements as a whole. This last one actually causes more demand for "VE" alternates than most people think.
I would like to see a structural engineer, architect and GC discuss issues they face in the construction process that effect lighting when it was not well thought out in the DD stages.
For those of you not able to attend the Specification Trail meeting, these are paraphrased answers from each participant to the question: What would you like to see changed in the specification trail process?
(Please accept my apologies in advance if I have misquoted you. Corrections are greatly appreciated!)
Electrical Engineer He would like to see greater collaboration between all parties during the specification and spec review process. He encourages the use of BIM (Building Information Modeling), and would like to see Unit Pricing documented up front, in the bid form.
Electrical Contractor Asks for a “Quality of Lighting Narrative” be included in RFPs to assist their need to put out a “conceptual budget”. He encourages the use of a Lighting Designer during the SD phase.
Owner’s Rep Would like to see “details” earlier, Lighting Control information earlier, and other information regarding intended lighting to be specified, acceptable alternates or design options. He requests that more information regarding the maintenance aspects of a desired lighting element be made clear.
Lighting Designer Would like members of the team to “value quality design” and keep it in mind throughout the process. She requests longer design time schedules to allow for more frequent Mockups, transparency of “what is happening, when” during the process, and considers good lighting designers to be “blind” to who reps a product. Stated that she does not believe in “packaging”, and that all Lighting Designers can design to a budget when they are given one.
Manufacturer’s Rep Wants conversations between designers and product representatives to be started earlier and thinks that budgets and lead times are the holdups for most POs and should be considered earlier. Designers should have confidence in single name specifications, and do it earlier in the process. She requests that reps be given more time to send back “prior approvals”.
General Contractor Desires earlier, more accurate information. Would like greater emphasis of what is to be designed during the Schematic Design. He’d like Lighting Control to be assessed earlier, and Commissioning to be put in the spec.
Distributor Requests more pre-construction meetings and would like Lighting Designer to be present. Thinks that single name specifications are fine if there is an allowance that is separate. Thinks that Unit Pricing should be standard, and is not in favor of “packaging” projects.
Architect Would like Lighting Designers to be hired on more jobs, and finds that “packaging” happens more on projects without Lighting Designers. Prefers that contractors look at the spec before saying, “that’s not what I bid”. Finds prior approval submittals to take a long time to review, thus should have “cost saved” made evident to determine the worth of reviewing them. Appreciates collaboration and creativity from Electrical Contractors, and wants to bring Lighting Designers into Design/Build meetings.
Electrical Engineer -Tom Leonidas Electrical Contractor - Ron Denison Owner’s Rep - Bart Heath Lighting Designer - Melanie Taylor Manufacturer’s Rep - Melissa Miller General Contractor - Steve Eirshele Distributor - Sarah Dolan Architect - Eric Nothdurft
2 Comments:
The two items that were part of discussions I had afterward were the need for teaching people how to do tabletop evaluations of products and how to design a system that actually works with the structural/architectural elements as a whole. This last one actually causes more demand for "VE" alternates than most people think.
I would like to see a structural engineer, architect and GC discuss issues they face in the construction process that effect lighting when it was not well thought out in the DD stages.
For those of you not able to attend the Specification Trail meeting, these are paraphrased answers from each participant to the question:
What would you like to see changed in the specification trail process?
(Please accept my apologies in advance if I have misquoted you. Corrections are greatly appreciated!)
Electrical Engineer
He would like to see greater collaboration between all parties during the specification and spec review process. He encourages the use of BIM (Building Information Modeling), and would like to see Unit Pricing documented up front, in the bid form.
Electrical Contractor
Asks for a “Quality of Lighting Narrative” be included in RFPs to assist their need to put out a “conceptual budget”. He encourages the use of a Lighting Designer during the SD phase.
Owner’s Rep
Would like to see “details” earlier, Lighting Control information earlier, and other information regarding intended lighting to be specified, acceptable alternates or design options. He requests that more information regarding the maintenance aspects of a desired lighting element be made clear.
Lighting Designer
Would like members of the team to “value quality design” and keep it in mind throughout the process. She requests longer design time schedules to allow for more frequent Mockups, transparency of “what is happening, when” during the process, and considers good lighting designers to be “blind” to who reps a product. Stated that she does not believe in “packaging”, and that all Lighting Designers can design to a budget when they are given one.
Manufacturer’s Rep
Wants conversations between designers and product representatives to be started earlier and thinks that budgets and lead times are the holdups for most POs and should be considered earlier. Designers should have confidence in single name specifications, and do it earlier in the process. She requests that reps be given more time to send back “prior approvals”.
General Contractor
Desires earlier, more accurate information. Would like greater emphasis of what is to be designed during the Schematic Design. He’d like Lighting Control to be assessed earlier, and Commissioning to be put in the spec.
Distributor
Requests more pre-construction meetings and would like Lighting Designer to be present. Thinks that single name specifications are fine if there is an allowance that is separate. Thinks that Unit Pricing should be standard, and is not in favor of “packaging” projects.
Architect
Would like Lighting Designers to be hired on more jobs, and finds that “packaging” happens more on projects without Lighting Designers. Prefers that contractors look at the spec before saying, “that’s not what I bid”. Finds prior approval submittals to take a long time to review, thus should have “cost saved” made evident to determine the worth of reviewing them. Appreciates collaboration and creativity from Electrical Contractors, and wants to bring Lighting Designers into Design/Build meetings.
Electrical Engineer -Tom Leonidas
Electrical Contractor - Ron Denison
Owner’s Rep - Bart Heath
Lighting Designer - Melanie Taylor
Manufacturer’s Rep - Melissa Miller
General Contractor - Steve Eirshele
Distributor - Sarah Dolan
Architect - Eric Nothdurft
Post a Comment
<< Home