Related Sections

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Dewayne Dean Senior Member Username: ddean Post Number: 19 Registered: 02-2016 Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 02:57 pm:    "Delete it along with the Related Sections Article. Seen too many people list half the Table of Contents in Part 1 of some Sections." Ken raised this idea in another thread. How many of you don't include Related Sections or Related Requirements? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1387 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 03:10 pm:    I don't unless there is a very specific reason. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1464 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 03:11 pm:    I use Related Requirement (Sections) to tell the contractor, who is looking in the section, to look somewhere else. For example, in my joint sealants section I tell the contractor to look in the gypsum board section for acoustical sealants. I try to keep Related Requirements to minimum because, as you said, one could list the entire table of contents because all the sections in the project are related! David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 293 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 03:38 pm:    Dewayne, many Architects misunderstand the purpose of this article. I think it should only indicate items that a reasonably educated Contractor might need help finding. David's example of joint sealants and acoustical sealants is a good one; not everyone separates those two. In Section 055000 Metal Fabrications, you could indicate that some prefabricated metal things are in Division 10 Sections. It's a courtesy to help the Contractor locate the work within the project manual. Despite CSI MasterFormat, not everyone puts everything in the same places. - Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 906 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 07:13 pm:    SectionFormat/PageFormat states "The list should be limited to documents or sections with specific information that the reader might expect to find in this Section, but is specified elsewhere." Lisa correctly expands this statement; as David said, without some limit, this article would become another table of contents. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 351 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2016 - 12:12 pm:    Because of the limitations of related sections, many believe it is just as correct to delete them all if it is not a super-complex project, since their only purpose is to help navigate. I tend to extremely limit the use of Related Sections (Related Requirements) references. Partly because most often lately my clients have been preferring the Professional (formerly known as Short Form) library of MasterSpec as a base. Whether you BSD or MasterSpec or whatever, the principles are from CSI so they are the same with minor twists. Some of the readers here will have the same questions you have even though they MasterSpec so I will continue in MasterSpec-ese and I hope it is still helpful to BSD users as well. There are not multiple libraries in BSD to my knowledge. When I talk about Professional you can picture the level of detail of BSD but without Related Sections. When working in MS Professional library I sometimes add a few related sections, only for the precise reasons stated by David, Lisa, and Sheldon. When I work on complex projects or for some clients who prefer to only use MS Premium (Full Length) library, I find myself deleting a lot of them that are not used and revising many of them, becoming a burden of coordination that is ultimately not necessary for the contract. Some clients (and I too) prefer to always keep the very first article, Related Documents, even if using MS Professional library. This is the one right at the top that says HEY do not forget about all of Divisions 00-01. It is arguably unnecessary but also arguably a quick end to many arguments. I think contractors are better at finding things in the specs than designers are. The related sections seem to help the designers to make fewer misinformed markups and to find things during CA, more than they can make any difference in the Contract itself which is debatable. When I get misinformed markups from designers who think related sections are a fine way to add something to the scope of this subcontractor that is in another spec section, I suggest that it is not the correct use of the related sections and that sections actually do not 100% control how the Contractor divides it up anyway, it is simply "work results" and they can sub it out in various ways as long as the qualifications are met. Thankfully that is one suggestion they have always accepted. On a tangent, the list of reference standards in technical spec sections is also usually unnecessary and is a coordination nightmare. MasterSpec has taken to just having them in the Evaluations in case someone would like to paste them in. When they are not required (all except high-end Government work?) it may be better to leave out the whole thing, since references do not generally have any contractual impact until they are invoked elsewhere in the spec section in an actual requirement. There can be a list of all the references in Division 01, but is that even necessary? Who has the time to carefully edit that at the end of a project, anyone? When I'm using SpecsIntact I'll give NASA credit for an ingenious system that can edit those through XML, even including year of issue. For non-SpecsIntact I'm happy to use short paragraphs in 014200 to say where the Contractor can find lists of references, and forgo having any lists. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 26, 2016 - 03:13 pm:    I keep it, but only for sections that meet the following criteria (again, this is a MasterSpec hidden comment - quite useful to read the MS hidden comments - so many people do not): "...cross-reference requirements Contractor might expect to find in this Section but are specified in other Sections." using this as the guideline, it's amazing how few sections (if any) actually end up listed. Christopher Borcsok Senior Member Username: ckb Post Number: 49 Registered: 06-2013 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2016 - 05:26 pm:    I've been using Related Requirements as a cross-check in one of my Macros for QA. For example, if we are specifying a Split AC unit, in that Section I will include 23 23 00 as a Related Requirement in my office masters. If someone forgets to add that Section to the project the Macro will flag it as missing in the project. Not perfect, but it's something. Of course I also avoid listing any 01 xx xx Sections or xx 05 xx Sections in Related Requirements.