Who writes specifications for floor finishing? .......
We all have had the call to sand and finish floors where the specification has been questionable. Specs can include the sanding procedure, staining and finishing products and application procedures. Often, we wonder, where did this spec come from? Who wrote this specification? Where did they get their expertise?
The answers are, mostly the specs come from architects and interior designers and usually, the information comes from US, the floor finisher.
Is this good or bad? The answer is YES.
I am sure that architects and designers do a lot of research and ask a lot of questions when compiling specifications for a specific job. Most do a great job but some shoot from the hip and hope for a good result. For more than forty years I, as many of you, have assisted specification writers in the proper approach to achieve a certain outcome.
Why do spec writers ask floor finishers about specifications?
Architects do not learn about sanding and finishing procedures in school. Designers usually learn about color not procedure. They both know what looks good to them but NOT what really works for floor finishing. They call an expert finisher when they are not sure. This is a good thing when we offer practical procedures. It is bad when we offer advice regarding procedures and products we have never used and don’t know about. Not everyone consulted is an expert.
What harm can a bad spec do? Bad specs cost everyone. Owners and contractors lose money, time and reputations in almost all cases.
Several years ago I provided the materials requested for a museum application. This major west coast museum was closed for more than five years for earthquake proofing. The architect’s “signature” was a white floor on every project he designed. I showed four white samples. Straight white stain, one part neutral, two parts neutral and three parts neutral were the choices. Red oak, sanded to 100 grit, no screening and the stain wiped until all excess was removed. Reluctantly, with my urging, the three to one mix was accepted.
When the time came for application, the architect had the contractor screen the wood, put on straight white stain and did NOT wipe the excess stain off at all. This was the color “he” wanted. What happened? Within two weeks “the call” came. The floor was peeling in sheets. I was going to be sued.
I went to the jobsite. The original architect was no longer on the job. His replacement and I looked at the floor and then went to the office and “found” the board with the four stain samples. On the back of the 3:1 sample was both of our signatures and the date it was accepted.
The museum was once again closed, gallery by gallery and resanded and finished “as specified” by another contractor. The first contractor didn’t think he did anything wrong. He did what the architect wanted. The second contractor, who was much more knowledgeable, was too small to be bonded and was slightly higher priced so he did not get the job… the first time… but was hired to fix the job at my suggestion.
I am seeing more of these specs as we get more “experts” produced by our industry associations. A recent example… a dense, oily, imported wood, sanded, water popped, dyed, oil stained, acid cure sealer and three coats of OMU. A large job that is to be completed in nine days. What is wrong with the spec?
How do we fix and avoid these situations?
Refusing to bid the job until the owner or spec writer can be properly educated. If you can’t change the spec then suggest that they make samples, as the spec is written, as a “show and tell”.
We are all part of the “information age” and as such we should be offering high quality information regarding our work and our industry. Acquire valid, practical information and knowledge; be ready, willing and able to share that information with those who need it. Architects, designers, owners, builders, GC’s need this help as well as some of our peers.
Our unique “know how” is what the professionals of our industry possess and sharing that information will help limit losses on wood floor projects for everyone involved. We all win.
Share!!
We all have had the call to sand and finish floors where the specification has been questionable. Specs can include the sanding procedure, staining and finishing products and application procedures. Often, we wonder, where did this spec come from? Who wrote this specification? Where did they get their expertise?
The answers are, mostly the specs come from architects and interior designers and usually, the information comes from US, the floor finisher.
Is this good or bad? The answer is YES.
I am sure that architects and designers do a lot of research and ask a lot of questions when compiling specifications for a specific job. Most do a great job but some shoot from the hip and hope for a good result. For more than forty years I, as many of you, have assisted specification writers in the proper approach to achieve a certain outcome.
Why do spec writers ask floor finishers about specifications?
Architects do not learn about sanding and finishing procedures in school. Designers usually learn about color not procedure. They both know what looks good to them but NOT what really works for floor finishing. They call an expert finisher when they are not sure. This is a good thing when we offer practical procedures. It is bad when we offer advice regarding procedures and products we have never used and don’t know about. Not everyone consulted is an expert.
What harm can a bad spec do? Bad specs cost everyone. Owners and contractors lose money, time and reputations in almost all cases.
Several years ago I provided the materials requested for a museum application. This major west coast museum was closed for more than five years for earthquake proofing. The architect’s “signature” was a white floor on every project he designed. I showed four white samples. Straight white stain, one part neutral, two parts neutral and three parts neutral were the choices. Red oak, sanded to 100 grit, no screening and the stain wiped until all excess was removed. Reluctantly, with my urging, the three to one mix was accepted.
When the time came for application, the architect had the contractor screen the wood, put on straight white stain and did NOT wipe the excess stain off at all. This was the color “he” wanted. What happened? Within two weeks “the call” came. The floor was peeling in sheets. I was going to be sued.
I went to the jobsite. The original architect was no longer on the job. His replacement and I looked at the floor and then went to the office and “found” the board with the four stain samples. On the back of the 3:1 sample was both of our signatures and the date it was accepted.
The museum was once again closed, gallery by gallery and resanded and finished “as specified” by another contractor. The first contractor didn’t think he did anything wrong. He did what the architect wanted. The second contractor, who was much more knowledgeable, was too small to be bonded and was slightly higher priced so he did not get the job… the first time… but was hired to fix the job at my suggestion.
I am seeing more of these specs as we get more “experts” produced by our industry associations. A recent example… a dense, oily, imported wood, sanded, water popped, dyed, oil stained, acid cure sealer and three coats of OMU. A large job that is to be completed in nine days. What is wrong with the spec?
How do we fix and avoid these situations?
Refusing to bid the job until the owner or spec writer can be properly educated. If you can’t change the spec then suggest that they make samples, as the spec is written, as a “show and tell”.
We are all part of the “information age” and as such we should be offering high quality information regarding our work and our industry. Acquire valid, practical information and knowledge; be ready, willing and able to share that information with those who need it. Architects, designers, owners, builders, GC’s need this help as well as some of our peers.
Our unique “know how” is what the professionals of our industry possess and sharing that information will help limit losses on wood floor projects for everyone involved. We all win.
Share!!
Bill
<< Home