…Simon & Garfunkel, Sam & Dave, Lucy & Ricky, Peanut Butter & Jelly. And of course, Project Specifications and the Architectural Woodwork Standards (AWS).
Indeed. Like every great duo, the architect’s Project Specifications and the AWS should perform together seamlessly to produce a beautiful result. Like Yin and Yang, they sometimes appear to be opposing forces, but are actually complementary, interconnected, and interdependent.
From time to time, a QCP inspector will receive a call from a frustrated woodworker seeking advice regarding what the heck he is supposed to do when specifications require a particular product detail, but the Standards require something quite different. The circular logic that causes this dilemma is usually something like, “The specifications tell us we must use the Standard, which requires “A”. But then, the specifications turn around and tell us to do “B” instead. If we do “A”, we violate the specification’s requirement for that product detail. If we do “B”, we violate the specification’s requirement that our work conform to the Standard.”
This conundrum is of course easily dispensed with, once the individual becomes aware of complimentary language in both the AWS and typical specifications, which is designed to prevent any such adversarial relationship between those two documents.
In the AWS, immediately before the “Basic Rules” for both “Product” and “Installation” in Sections 5 through 12, this line item appears: “The following rules shall govern unless a project’s contract documents [specifications, etc.] require otherwise” (emphasis added).
On the other hand, an “Architectural Wood Cabinet” specification (for example) typically states: “Unless otherwise indicated [in these specifications], comply with the "Architectural Woodwork Standards" for grades of architectural wood cabinets indicated for construction, finishes, installation, and other requirements (emphasis added).”
These statements each identify the Specification as the top banana of this duo. A detail or requirement mandated by the specification always takes precedence and prevails over what the AWS offers as a standard for that same aspect of product, finishing, or installation.
There are instances where a specification requirement superseding an AWS rule is a simple, cut-and-dried affair. For example, we occasionally see projects in which the grain direction of transparent finish wood decorative wall panels is specified to be horizontal, rather than the vertical orientation required by the AWS (8.4.4.8).
However, things can get more interesting when a specification which varies from AWS requirements has multiple elements, and perhaps some ambiguity or incomplete information. That’s when the Standard can fill in some blanks, and perhaps point to some questions which must be asked in order to ensure that the product and installation provided will match the design intent of the architect and expectations of the project owner.
For example, a recent Custom Grade project included these requirements in its specifications:
|
1.3 ACTION SUBMITTALS
|
C. Shop Drawings:
|
4. Show veneer leaves with dimensions, grain direction, exposed face, and identification numbers indicating the flitch and sequence within the flitch for each leaf.
|
|
2.3 WOOD CABINETS FOR TRANSPARENT FINISH
|
F. Wood Veneer for Exposed Surfaces:
|
1. Species: American Cherry
2. Cut: Quarter sawn.
3. Matching of [adjacent] Veneer Leaves: Slip match.
4. Veneer Matching within Panel Face: Balance match.
|
|
3.2 INSTALLATION
|
F. Cabinets
|
2. Maintain veneer sequence matching of cabinets with transparent finish.
|
Several AWS requirements were changed by this specification: The veneer cut is Quarter Sawn rather than Plain Sliced; adjacent leaves are slip match rather than book matched; veneer within a panel face is balance match rather than running match. So far so good. But some head scratching commences when we begin to analyze sequencing requirements. This specification requires shop drawings to show each individual veneer leaf and its position and number in the sequence of leaves from an individual flitch. Despite this very complex drawing requirement, there is no specification which tells us the extent of sequencing envisioned by the architect. Does the sequence extend to an entire room, area, elevation, individual cabinet, entire project? The installation specification shown above implies that veneer is sequenced over at least two cabinets, but that number could just as well be higher. The language is ambiguous, and there is no clear information concerning the extent of sequencing expected. In the absence of that information, we turn to the Standard.
The project is specified to be Custom Grade. AWS Illustration 10.1.14.13.2.2 (page 300) shows required veneer matching for two Custom Grade cabinets connected to form a small elevation. There is no horizontal (i.e. sequence) matching required across the face of even an individual Custom Grade cabinet. Only continuous vertical matching is required. Therefore, knowing that the project is Custom Grade doesn’t really impart any information regarding the possible extent of sequencing intended, since no sequencing is required for Custom Grade.
The conclusion in this example is that the only way to determine with certainty the architect’s intent regarding sequencing is to send him or her a Request for Information (RFI).
There are other similar ambiguities in this particular specification which would be interesting to explore, and maybe we’ll do that down the road. Meanwhile, enjoy the Yin and Yang, and perfect harmony of your next project specification and the Architectural Woodwork Standards.
