| Author |
Message |
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 624
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 01:34 pm: |    |
I work on a lot of very large projects that have multiple packages, such as Garage, Tower, Podium, Porte Cochere etc, that span six months to a year in deliverables. I always get the request to issue "one project manual" for the entire project and just "add to it" as we go. And, track changes of course. I explain that this doesn't work in the linear fashion they are imagining, and the limitations of track changes make this approach cumbersome. I am now starting a VERY large project where the architect is telling me this is how it needs to be done. Has anyone had success in this approach? Am i missing something in how Word works that would make this easier. I have explained that the Garage will not have the same floor tile requirements as the bathrooms, and tracking this becomes very difficult, but to no avail. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 532
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 02:13 pm: | |
Robin,
Our entire practice is focused on very large projects with many and often shifting packages.
I cannot recall a large project that all fit into one spec package, except contrary to that, we often issue up to 100% Design Development as a single package and then break it into separate packages in the CD phase. They can have extremely long schedules. We have a large hospital still in construction, planned completion in 2017 where my 100% Design Development "GMP Bid Package" was issued in 2008.
For our practice there are two main drivers to how a project breaks into pieces.
One is the permit review process. Most of our work is hospitals and related health care infrastructure in California. For I occupancy hospitals in California, permits are issued by a state agency OSHPD. But other parts of eh campus, including Sitework, B occupancy out patient services, etc. will be permitted by the local city or county. OSHPD will not allow anything into the documents they review not related to the I occupancy project, so that creates a division between OSHPD and non-OSHPD submittal packages.
The other of course is how the project is bid out and this can result in sudden and unexpected last minute decisions by project management to change they way the project is broken up. For reasons that may not be apparent to the spec writer work results will jump from one bid or permit package to another.
What I have learned to do over the years is organize my spec sections to anticipate sudden changes. No spec section should ever include exterior & interior scope because they are very likely to end up in separate packages at the least convenient moment.
The MasterFormat gods may smite me, but to corral a big project into a structure that can span these massive project schedules I tend to warp the numbering convention, such as:
07 92 00 - Foundation & Grading Joint Sealants
07 92 13 - Exterior Joint Sealants
07 92 23 - Interior Joint Sealants
07 92 33 - Site Work Joint Sealants
07 92 43 - Remodel Joint Sealants
We have those Sections all on the big hospital project I mentioned with an almost 10 year schedule. It has 7 major permit packages, a budget approaching $1 billion and our fees are commensurate with that budget. |
rainbow (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 02:47 pm: | |
Steve, I concur. In this way we're still issuing a single Project Manual but I'm not limited by Section content when dealing with very different functions such as garages and operating rooms. It is important to track your Section numbers and titles carefully so as not to get crossed up or duplicated.
I'm presuming the perception is that somehow this results in lower prices from the Contractor. In fact it just seems like an opportunity to fail miserably unless we as Specifers are willing to go outside of the MF box and get creative in how we present our information. It's all just a means of communicating design intent. I've found that this tends to decrease confusion. |
anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 01:51 pm: | |
Yes, I have produced Project Manuals in this exact fashion for several large projects ($300 million and beyond). This is my preferred and recommended method over developing several stand-alone Project Manuals as it is easier to manage, and offers greater continuity, far fewer loose ends.
I do go through the strike and underline 'revised page' method for a handful of sections that are impacted in using this method, as content is added/modified, but it isn't terribly labor intensive. Most of the revisions are actually with the TOC when sections are added during the process.
Hope this puts some of your concerns a little more to rest... |
David J. Wyatt, CDT
Senior Member
Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt
Post Number: 131
Registered: 03-2011
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 03:52 pm: | |
Robin,
Consider writing narrow-scope sections that can be added as the project develops and thus avoid a lot of change tracking. For example, a Common Work Results Section for flooring can be written early on. Then narrow-scope sections for each type can be added as they become relevant. |
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: michael_chusid
Post Number: 111
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 07:45 pm: | |
Section 09 5000.10 Ceilings for Garage (Base Bid)
Section 09 5000.20 Ceilings for Podium (Addendum 2)
Section 09 5000.30 Ceilings for Tower (Addendum 7)
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 533
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 - 07:58 pm: | |
Michael,
We started doing this long before the practice of adding to the 6 digit spec number became common. In fact, that job example that started in 2008 was the first monster project I succeeded in using Master Format 2004 on. |
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 625
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 12:19 am: | |
unfortunately MIchael, the client has already vetoed that approach - they want one "Ceilings" section for the whole project with all revisions tracked in that section. |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 621
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 06:31 am: | |
Robin, you can have separate articles within each section for each project phase. Then each successive phase would entail adding a new article, but it would not be necessary to strike out earlier articles pertaining to earlier phases. |
David E Lorenzini
Senior Member
Username: deloren
Post Number: 174
Registered: 04-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 09:38 am: | |
Robin, it would also help if the drawings indicate a unique identifier in the legend for each type of material where they differ in each building/phase. That would avoid trying to identify material use by describing the building/phase location. Having one ACT would not work as well as having ACT-1, ACT-2,etc.
David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS
Architectural Resources Co. |
Justatim
Senior Member
Username: justatim
Post Number: 82
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 12:29 pm: | |
For managing large multi-phase projects, I've found that a Section spreadsheet is helpful.
As things get finalized/moved around, you can revisit this work plan to know what sections or components (articles) would be required or moved around for each phase. |
Greta Eckhardt
Senior Member
Username: gretaeckhardt
Post Number: 39
Registered: 08-2013
| | Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2016 - 01:26 pm: | |
I have prepared specifications for many multiple-bid-package projects and almost always treat the Project Manual as a single entity with content that is issued in a cumulative manner. Thus, Division 01 is issued once and applies to all subsequent packages. Using Track Changes is essential for distinguishing modifications to a previous version of a section that needs to be modified, after accepting any previous changes in that section.
I like the idea of narrow-scope sections for different packages, and also see the merit of separate Articles for different packages - it would depend on the project. Another tool is the Summary Article at the beginning of each section - I use this as a mini-TOC to help the reader identify what is in the section, and it could group the contents in terms of bid packages.
One thing that is absolutely critical in this type of endeavor is rigorously maintaining a TOC that lists the most recent date each section was issued. My TOC is a Table in Word, and I have recently added a column that indicates the author of each section or document. |
Anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 25, 2016 - 11:29 am: | |
Robin,
Have you considered this approach in each section?
PART 2 - PRODUCTS
2.01 GARAGE CEILING TILE
A. ACT-1:
B. ACT-2:
2.02 TOWER CEILING TILE
A. ACT-3
B. ACT-4
2.03 PODIUM CEILING TILE
A. ACT-5
PART 3 - EXECUTION
3.01 GARAGE TILE INSTALLATION
3.02 TOWER TILE INSTALLATION
3.03 PODIUM TILE INSTALLATION |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1405
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 24, 2016 - 07:02 pm: | |
We were going to do this, and had it prepared, until at the last minute (literally 2 days before Issue for Construction) the Owner's consultant recommended that we issue separate packages for the specs. I completely agree with Greta that the TOC is extremely important. we have multiple columns that list original issue date and last update date. We did plan it out with slightly modified section numbers (095011, 095012, 095013) for those items that would seem to be the same -- such as the Garage concrete, and the Building Concrete (which were two completely different mixes). I also had versions of the spec sections that covered work that was completely renovation, and a separate section that covered work that was new. (my project was a very large addition to an existing facility that would require some renovation in specific areas).
From the Owner's point of view, one "document" would be useful for their maintenance group.
You know what the breakpoint was for us? The Owner's consultant (an accountant) required that each bid package reflect only the work of that bucket of money. They had budgeted for various things: Parking, tenant service, interiors, etc... and realized that they could not track their dollars if the scope of work kept sliding around. We were given two months to divide everything up again for issuance. |
4specs.com Home Page