| Author |
Message |
Dewayne Dean
Senior Member
Username: ddean
Post Number: 14
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 10:17 am: |    |
Some of the Project Managers in our office what this statement at the beginning of every spec section "Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 01 Specification Sections, apply to this Section."
Others don't think it is necessary.
Do any of you use it? |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 10:21 am: | |
of course:
1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS
A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 1 Specification Sections, apply to this Section. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 776
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 10:29 am: | |
Every technical section uses the wording above in A. from Jerome. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 1608
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 10:35 am: | |
Wayne, you would be surprised how many don't, esp MEP specs, even though I require all Consultants to follow a form that includes this, still MEP seems to be most resistant. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 777
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 10:38 am: | |
Yah. Some MEPs tend to still use MF95 and include their own Div01 within their sections. They also use Division 20. |
Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap
Senior Member
Username: lgoodrob
Post Number: 292
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 10:42 am: | |
Dewayne,
It should be irrelevant, as it repeats the intent of the Contract. However, there it stands on most of our client's projects. Your firm should make a decision and not issue them both ways.
- |
Dewayne Dean
Senior Member
Username: ddean
Post Number: 15
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 10:44 am: | |
"Every technical section uses the wording above in A. from Jerome."
That was going to be my next question, about consultants.
If it is standard for the industry, it will be easier for me to make my case here.  |
Dewayne Dean
Senior Member
Username: ddean
Post Number: 16
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 10:47 am: | |
"It should be irrelevant, as it repeats the intent of the Contract"
My thinking is this would be for the benefit of the sub contractors who would not be privy to the terms of the contract. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 905
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 11:54 am: | |
The AIA owner-contractor agreement and the AIA general conditions state what the contract documents include. The general conditions also establish the complementarity of the documents, and the agreement requires compliance with them. There is no reason to restate those requirements regarding the general conditions.
Years ago, CSI recognized the lack of specific instructions regarding the use of Division 01 to control all other specifications.
"Although the Division 01 role in governing the work has been accepted in practice for many years, this authority is not explicitly stated in either the AIA or EJCDC general conditions. Until that change is made, the authority should be established by a provision in the supplementary conditions as follows:
"Sections of Division 01 - General Requirements govern the work of all sections of the specifications."
Following the "say it once" rule, stating that once in the supplementary conditions, or, I will argue, in Division 01, is sufficient, and obviates the need to restate it in every section. |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1386
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 12:22 pm: | |
That is what AIA's MasterSpec sections have at the beginning of every section.
I always delete it as it is unnecessary.
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 12:48 pm: | |
I agree with Sheldon and Ron. Adjust as necessary in accord with the agreement / general conditions used for the project, but only say it once. |
Dewayne Dean
Senior Member
Username: ddean
Post Number: 17
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 12:49 pm: | |
thanks for all the input folks |
Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rbaxter
Post Number: 122
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 12:56 pm: | |
The purpose of the "say it once" rule is to reduce the odds of providing contradictory information. In this case however, there should never be a risk of contradiction because every project should have division 01 sections and general and supplementary conditions.
Some of the main purposes of the specs are to minimize arguments that a subcontractor might use to justify performing shoddy work and to minimize justifications for change orders. I suspect that it is common for subcontractors, if they read anything, to only read the sections applicable to their portion of the work. I think that is a good enough of a reason to warn them in each spec section that there are other documents applicable to their work. If a lawsuit arises, the subcontractor could argue that he or she was not aware that general conditions or division 01 specs applied to their work. It seems wise to solidly eliminate that argument. |
Dewayne Dean
Senior Member
Username: ddean
Post Number: 18
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 01:41 pm: | |
Having been a subcontractor for many years, I confess that I only read the sections that detailed my work.
Downloading the entire Project Manual seemed formidable and irrelevant to me. |
An (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 11:27 am: | |
The industry standard should be to never include something like this that is repeated in every section. CSI's principle of say it once and in the right place should be your guide. Maybe I missed the next statement that said, "unless of course MasterSpec does it in their full length sections."
So when a consultant doesn't put that wording in their section, does that mean that the General and Supplementary Conditions and Div 01 don't apply to that section?
Whether it benefits the sub contractors or not should be irrelevant. You are writing contract documents for the Contractor. How they handle their contracts with subs shouldn't be the concern. The subs aren't signing a contract with the Owner. |
anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 01:31 pm: | |
ARCOM Masterspec invented the "RELATED DOCUMENTS" Article at the beginning of every Full Length (identified with FL in the file name of each Full Length Word document)specification section they offer.
Curiously, ARCOM Masterspec Short Form (SF) specification sections do NOT contain this Article.
The hidden comments above this Article in MasterSpec FL specifications says "Retain or delete this Article in all Sections of the Project Manual."
ARCOM Masterspec recognizes and acknowledges that this is not required and not necessary, but evidently are influenced by some that feel strongly that it is, and so have just let it ride. Dumb.
ARCOM Masterspec also includes, in Section 01 1000 - SUMMARY, this sentence:
Division 01 General Requirements: Requirements of Sections in Division 01 apply to the Work of all Sections in the Specifications.
So, if you are mixing and matching Masterspec Full Length and Short Form spec sections, and consultants are just using whatever, you are likely not getting any consistency with regard to this RELATED DOCUMENTS requirement. I take it out of my specs, and I instruct consultants to do the same. It is unnecessary. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 988
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 02:34 pm: | |
Department of Redundancy Department.
No useful benefit. Delete it along with the Related Sections Article. Seen too many people list half the Table of Contents in Part 1 of some Sections. |
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: michael_chusid
Post Number: 122
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 02:56 pm: | |
Ken recommends deleting "Related Sections" article. I find judicious use of the article helpful in situations where the normal "work results" are not clear. A case in point is lightning protection. The NFPA Standards for lightning protection include surge protective devices. It is customary in to size and provide the devices as part of the lightning protection work results. Yet few lightning protection installers are licensed as electricians. So the industry convention is to specify the installation in a section that includes other electrical work. I reference this in the Related Section article.
Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS
www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 03:23 pm: | |
I believe the reason for the Related Documents verbiage is to alert a subcontractor, who may only get a portion of the project manual/drawings, that all the documents will apply to the project.
For example, if the tile setter only gets the tiling section he can't complain about the number of submittals because he did not receive the submittal procedures section.
I too think Related Document verbiage is redundant and unnecessary. I take the language out of my specifications. That said, I do have a client that insists I leave the verbiage in their specifications.
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant
Axt Consulting LLC |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 03:26 pm: | |
One of the unintended consequences of putting the Related Documents language in each sections comes when it is accidentally left out of a section.
That leave the opportunity for the contractor to claim that the Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 1 Specification Sections, DO NOT apply to this Section.
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant
Axt Consulting LLC |
George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 823
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 03:51 pm: | |
If you are including the statement in every specification section, why aren't you including a similar statement on every drawing sheet? That seems to be a logical extension of the rule, and might point out to the unconvinced why the statement is redundant. The contract is the entirety of the documents, as defined in the agreement. |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 627
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 04:07 pm: | |
We do not have the statement on our in-house masters, and have never had an issue with it not being included.
An (uninvited guest) above is spot on in stating "Whether it benefits the sub contractors or not should be irrelevant. You are writing contract documents for the Contractor. How they handle their contracts with subs shouldn't be the concern. The subs aren't signing a contract with the Owner." What documents the GC gives their subs, and what responsibilities the GC passes down (or not) to their subs, is between those parties and is not our business.
We typically use Masterspec for government projects, and usually agencies have wanted the statement, in modified form, included. The modified form reflects that the federal government doesn't have "general provisions of the Contract" nor "General and Supplementary Conditions"; each agency gives us wording to use in lieu of these phrases. |
Dewayne Dean
Senior Member
Username: ddean
Post Number: 21
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 05:20 pm: | |
Thanks for the insights gals and guys |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 907
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 07:21 pm: | |
And while you're repeating stuff for the benefit of those who do not bother to read all of the documents, you may as well include the general conditions in each section, along, of course, with the supplementary conditions, all Division 01 sections, bidding requirements, contract forms, other spec sections, and the drawings. When you're done with that, add in the requirements of all reference standards, codes, requirements for a driver's license, a pilot's license just in case, local weather conditions, the Farmer's Almanac, your birthday wish list, Sweets... |
Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rbaxter
Post Number: 123
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 09:15 pm: | |
That argument cuts both ways. While you are not referencing Related Documents that apply to the individual section, why not also omit all references to standards that apply to that section? We may as well have one Division 01 section that indicates all the standards that apply to anything in the project. And while we are doing that why not have one Division 01 section that includes every warranty and one that includes every performance requirement and one that includes every allowed manufacturer and one that includes every installation requirement. Why not put everything in Division 01 and just skip all those other sections?
Here is why I don’t do that. I believe one of our major goals is to make the finding of information as easy and convenient as possible for the contractor and everyone else involved. It is the in the owner’s best interest for everyone to be able to find a specific piece of information as quickly and easily as possible. Conciseness is the general rule, but I’ll twist it a bit if it means making things easier for GC. Why do we bother assigning MasterFormat numbers to each spec section? It is for this very same reason. CSIs format’s make it easier for everyone to find the specified information.
So why would I abandon that goal? A Related Documents paragraph in each section makes it easier for the contractor to assure that subcontractors will know what other documents in the project manual apply to their work. Is that not true? I think it is.
I agree that it could lead to confusion when consultant sections fail to include the paragraph. But that can be addressed by also including the paragraph in Division 01. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 908
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 06:41 pm: | |
Well, that's an interesting idea!
Pretty much everything could be specified in Division 01, as you suggest. It would take some work to set up, more work to edit if for a given project, and more work for the contractor and subs, but it could be done. Using one of your examples, Section 01-7836 could be expanded by adding a schedule of requirements unique to each product, then removing that information from the other spec sections. Similarly, Division 01 sections could be added to list all performance requirements and all acceptable manufacturers. And it would work! However, unlike other Division 01 sections, which specify information that applies to all sections, those collections of things applicable to only a few sections would be difficult to edit.
But we don't do that, and we agree why we don't.
Here's another possibility: Eliminate all specification sections, and put everything in the finish schedule. Since becoming a specifier about thirty years ago, I have seen a lot of growth in finish schedules. At one time, they were just a list of finishes; they now include information that formerly was found in the spec sections. Properly used, the information now found in finish schedules should be removed from the spec sections.
I find it amusing that the paragraph referring to the conditions of the contract and to Division 1 (at the time) was once de rigueur, then deemed unnecessary if that relationship was defined in Division 1, and later replaced by multiple references, such as:
- Substitutions: Under provisions of Section 01 25 00
- Conduct pre-installation meeting in accordance with Section 01 31 19.
- Submittals: In accordance with Section 01 33 00
- Warranties: Comply with requirements of Section 01 45 13.
- Delivery, storage, and handling: Comply with requirements of Section 01 65 00 and Section 01 66 00.
- Examine conditions and proceed with work in accordance with Section 01 71 00.
- Closeout: Comply with provisions of Section 01 78 00.
I doubt there ever will be complete agreement about how much and what should be specified or shown on drawings, though the move to design-build will obviate the need for much of what we do now. I believe each entity of a project team should understand the general conditions and Division 01, and should know their own jobs, as required by the agreements they sign.
I also believe that designers must know about the products they use and how things go together, not so they can tell the contractor and subs how to do their jobs, but to know if what they want can be built, with some idea of how much it will cost and how it will perform.
Finally, I believe that both specifications and drawings are bloated and ignore what is required by the general conditions and Division 01, that designers regularly omit information needed by contractors, and that we continue to suffer from a lack of coordination within the specs, within the drawings, and between specs and drawings.
Richard, please don't abandon your goal of making necessary information easy to find. I'm certain that all specifiers, even those who want to remove all unnecessary information, occasionally do things they'd rather not do. Much of what we do requires a judgment call; will the benefit of doing something outweigh the potential risk?
In this case, I don't see much risk in using the reference to front end documents, but I don't see evidence of a benefit. Previous comments in this thread indicate that some specifiers include the simple reference to the front end, and others don't. Those who do not use it report they have had no problems, and that has been my experience, too. However, as they say, "Your experience may differ; previous performance is no guarantee of future results."
With electronic distribution of documents, this should no longer be an issue, as all entities should receive all documents. Will they read them? Possibly not, but they can no longer argue that "the contractor only gave me one section!" I realize that electronic distribution is not universal, though it's hard to understand why it isn't.
Documents that have exactly the right information in the right places will be shorter, easier to write and understand, and more likely to be read. |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 629
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 07:32 pm: | |
"Here's another possibility: Eliminate all specification sections..."
According to our friend Jerome, south Florida has been ahead of the curve on this possibility for some time. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 1617
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 10:53 pm: | |
Dave, what did I tell you about blogging while on vacation, shouldn't you be fishing right now, yellowtail and mackerel are biting. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 11:01 pm: | |
Actually, I never said all of SO FL, if that was true I wouldn't be writing specs right now, what I did say was there are 20, 30. 40, 50, 60. and 70 story condo towers being built thru out SFL without specs. Perhaps in 5-7 years when stucco starts delaminating and the real litigation starts, the Architects who blamed specs for all their past litigation will explain why they left quality control requirements out of the contract docs, I can't wait for that show. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 11:13 pm: | |
oops I forgot the 80 story tower, 1101 Brickell (has since been renamed), I was asked to write specs by the Architect in 2013, but the Developer (a past client) wanted Outline Specs for construction, I declined. Its under construction, their specs consist of a few Div 7 sections provided by the WP Consultant. The building is Owned by a gazillionaire with European backing....fortunately the architect took my advice and left off the stucco, all laminated glass and aluminum panels; the Owner originally did not have a Envelope Consultant on the team, but I reminded the Architect about quality control, eventually the Owner added one to the team. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 11:19 pm: | |
Of course, if I'm wrong and spec less documents succeed, I'll bet the trend will be heading north, by than I hope to be retired or fishing for yellowtail on a lonely beach next to my pal, Dave. |
Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bob_woodburn
Post Number: 173
Registered: 11-2010
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2016 - 11:34 pm: | |
I've always suspected that there were other reasons AIA requires Arcom to include the Related Documents article in each section: 1) to promote use of AIA A201 and other AIA documents; 2) as a reminder that A201 (or a similar document) governs everything, and is therefore presumably more important than (or at least as important as) the rest of the Project Manual in its entirety (take THAT, CS!); and 3) for copyright protection, as its embedded signature -- obvious evidence that a section has been based on, or copied from, MasterSpec. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2016 - 12:07 am: | |
Dewayne, back to your original post, I believe it depends on what your clients want, serve them well, listen to them, solve their problems, and you will prosper; my clients like the Related Documents statement, and so it remains. For those who don’t it is deleted.
I barely follow the say it once rule, when I do, my clients typically add the language back in when they review the specs (yes there are a few Architects who still read specs in So FL, I am honored to say most of those Architects are my clients for 10-20 years).
According to my peers on this forum, I dishonor CSI for offering 16 division specs, that are equal or better than my 49 division specs. My clients could care less about CSI or AIA when it comes to specs. They care about having the kind of proven protection my specs offer.
Oh, and while you are at it Dwayne, find errors your clients have made on their drawings and help them solve those errors, you will be like gold to them.
I just started a Miami-Dade Parks Dept job with an Architect, a new client, they sought my services because they heard my firm prepares tough specs in either format, in the case of this job, Miami-Dade County Parks will only accept specs in 16 division format, go figure. It’s a LEED project that involves construction of a new building & renovation of an existing building, and its my first project for Miami-Dade County Parks. The job starts this week. |
Dewayne Dean
Senior Member
Username: ddean
Post Number: 27
Registered: 02-2016
| | Posted on Monday, March 07, 2016 - 10:31 am: | |
Thanks to all who took the time to respond |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 508
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2019 - 10:47 pm: | |
This thread helped me a lot when I was sorting out whether to use a Redundant Repetitive Paragraph (RRP) or not.
I dumped the RRP concept a while ago, encouraged by many folks here like Sheldon, ken, Ron, Lynn, Axt, Metzger, Bob W., & An (unregistered). I've not mourned one bit, neither have any of my clients, nor the contractors and their subs who ultimately use my specs. The main thing is being clear about it early enough and unifying with the other disciplines. That's a good idea whichever route you take.
At the beginning of each project I usually send out format examples for my client to select from. Finally I apply project header/footer info and ask them to forward the selected version to the other disciplines (unless they give me a different format template). My example spec mentions that we do not use a Related Documents article.
Since we still sometimes encounter other consultants who don't seem to understand why we aren't using the RRP, I now also include this note in boxed text:
| We avoid using a repetitive "Related Documents" Article at the top of every Section, and we ask the same of other consultants. It is not a required statement. (For evidence of this: MasterSpec subscribers can see that the FL/Premium editor note says either use it or don't, just be consistent; MasterSpec's other libraries don't use the statement at all. Other guide spec systems do not have the statement.) CSI recommends "say it once, say it in the right place." The right place is in the Owner-Contractor agreement in the enumeration of documents. Please advise if we are directed to add this "Redundant Repetitive Paragraph" (as some specifiers call it) to every Section, for a nominal charge if we were not informed of this before the specs are started. |
If I were directed to use an RRP, I would not mention any Divisions, because too often I hear that the front end will get issued separately or I fear it does not happen at all. Furthermore, I do not have any way to know if there will be Supplementary Conditions or not. Seems perfectly adequate to just make a completely generic RRP based on the CSI MasterFormat subgroup titles. I would write something like this, which should be innocuous and would be compatible if a different RRP were used in some other consultants' sections:
1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS
A. Contract Drawings, Contracting Requirements, and General Requirements apply to the Work of all Sections.
(Contracting Requirements being the 2nd half of Division 00, after the Procurement Requirements. General Requirements being the title of Division 01.)
If we can't control what they call it, where they put it, and whether we will ever see it, or if it even exists for the project, why on earth would we put it in every Section? Probably every one of us on this forum at some point or other will have a client who does not make us privy to that information. But we can go by the industry standard terms for what it ought to be called and where people ought to be able to go looking for it. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 02:03 am: | |
Death to the RRP! |
Ed Storer
Senior Member
Username: ed_storer
Post Number: 33
Registered: 05-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 03:01 pm: | |
I'm with Sheldon and others who delete/omit the Related Documents article at the beginning of sections from Masterspec.
For some reason, I can't get the Structural consultants to omit it.
It is nothing more than useless repetition. I'm surprised that Masterspec has used it since inception.
I do not include the article in any of my sections. I don't worry about an inconsistency between the structural sections and mine. If I had a sub trying to claim extra compensation for his failure to realize that the "Related Documents" article was not included in the section he'd bid on, I pass it back to the GC whose responsibility is that the sub gets the full package. |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 511
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2019 - 02:24 am: | |
Some of us here do not use a guide spec that has it, but for those who do and would like this, here's a total deathblow to the RRP:
Sub DelRelatedDocumentsRRP()
'Deletes the Redundant Repetitive Paragraph, with the changes tracked for review.
'If revision tracking is not desired, revise by deleting the line near the end that says "ActiveDocument.TrackRevisions = True"
Selection.HomeKey Unit:=wdStory
Selection.Find.ClearFormatting
With Selection.Find
.Text = "RELATED DOCUMENTS"
.Forward = True
.Wrap = wdFindContinue
.Format = False
.MatchCase = True
.MatchWholeWord = False
.MatchWildcards = False
.MatchSoundsLike = False
.MatchAllWordForms = False
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
If Selection.Find.Found = True Then
Selection.ExtendMode = True
Selection.Find.ClearFormatting
With Selection.Find
.Text = "SUMMARY"
.Forward = True
.Wrap = wdFindContinue
.Format = False
.MatchCase = True
.MatchWholeWord = False
.MatchWildcards = False
.MatchSoundsLike = False
.MatchAllWordForms = False
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
If Selection.Find.Found = True Then
Selection.Find.ClearFormatting
With Selection.Find
.Text = "^p"
.Forward = False
.Wrap = wdFindAsk
.Format = False
.MatchCase = False
.MatchWholeWord = False
.MatchWildcards = False
.MatchSoundsLike = False
.MatchAllWordForms = False
End With
Selection.Find.Execute
Selection.MoveRight
Selection.ExtendMode = False
'Optionally, turn track changes on so user can review the automatic deletion and accept the change
ActiveDocument.TrackRevisions = True
Selection.Delete
End If
End If
End Sub
(The extra line breaks are the forum's formatting system, not mine)
Worth having and referencing from within your main reformatting macro! Or if you don't have one just save in your normal template as AutoOpen() or add to AutoOpen if you already use one. In that case I would definitely keep the track changes option. |
Ed Storer
Senior Member
Username: ed_storer
Post Number: 40
Registered: 05-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 02, 2019 - 02:53 pm: | |
Unless the client or Owner (e.g. GSA) insists on inclusion of the RRP article, I delete it. For some reason some consultants (Structural) find comfort in it.
I do suggest that deletion of the RRP article does nothing to weaken their spec. Usually they leave that RRP article in their specs. It's actually useful in one respect; During bidding and construction, I can see immediately that the section in question was not one that I wrote and let my client know that she should direct the question to the author of that section. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 02, 2019 - 03:41 pm: | |
ONe of the Owners I deal with has this RRP Article:
1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS
A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and other Division 01 Specification Sections, apply to this Section.
B. The Contractor's attention is specifically directed, but not limited, to the following documents for additional requirements:
1. Uniform General Conditions for Construction Contracts, State of Texas, 2010 (UGC).
2. The Owners’s Supplemental General Conditions and Special Conditions for Construction.
J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP
|
|
4specs.com Home Page