| Author |
Message |
Jerome J. Lazar, CDT, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 2050
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 07:14 pm: |    |
Contractor proposes to eliminate all of Division 1 on a 30 story project. What does the Contractor gain by convincing the Owner to do this? |
Brian Payne
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne
Post Number: 189
Registered: 01-2014
| | Posted on Friday, August 23, 2019 - 10:58 pm: | |
Depends on what the Div 1 requires. 24 Hour Security? Weekly Gant Charts? Complete submitted list? Perimeter Fence? There’s lots of items that could affect the GC financially. None I would think are significant on a project that large. I would ask that the contractor list out specific issues....of course Div 1 also includes how often the contractor is paid which is always fun to remind them of. |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 753
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 24, 2019 - 11:09 am: | |
What’s in it for the contractor?
No requirements for project administration: no coordination, no progress meetings, no construction schedule, no submittal protocols (the shop drawings weren’t returned in two days—delay!)
No requirements for quality assurance nor for quality control (including for code-mandated testing)
No requirements for temporary utilities nor temporary facilities
No execution requirements, no progress cleaning nor final cleaning
No closeout requirements: no punchlists, no substantial completion nor final completion requirement
It's not only what does the contractor gain, it's what does the owner and the project lose? |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip
Post Number: 498
Registered: 02-2014
| | Posted on Monday, August 26, 2019 - 03:57 pm: | |
Had this happen a few times. So I developed a Basic Division 01 (readily customizable to the type of project) that includes just the Sections that should be on every project. I send that under separate cover when discussions like this come up. There is no difference in my fee either way since I now do not charge extra for the Basic Division 01.
My goal is to help the Architect to push back to keep some sort of Division 01, otherwise how am I supposed to know what foundation the rest of the documents are built upon? If it turns out to be none, I want it to be documented whose decision that was and that they had all the information. The cover page would say this is the normal Division 01 I would have used and it is open to suggested edits by various stakeholders, but it will not be included in the Project Manual due to specific direction from ______ to exclude it, against the recommendations of AIA, CSI, and the Spec Consultant, unless they notify me within _ weeks or _ business days prior to final submission. |
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt
Post Number: 1826
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 26, 2019 - 05:40 pm: | |
On a related note, It really frustrates me when the Owner's General Conditions contain Division 01 requirements. It creates more work for me because I have to go through and modify my specifications. I guess if the General Conditions were really inclusive of all the pertinent requirements then they could forgo Division 01 sections.
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant
Axt Consulting LLC |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 633
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 03, 2019 - 02:28 pm: | |
We use MasterSpec. The way MasterSpec is structured, the individual sections are increasingly dependent upon definitions that reside in Division 01 rather than duplicated across 50 or 100 sections. I have informed our architect clients that no matter what, we need to issue Quality Requirements, References, Product Requirements, and Execution in order to provide complete specifications under their seal (and should include Submittals to keep architect control). If an Owner or a CM wants to usurp that, the architect has to push back by pointing out that they are placing their seal on the project and that they must meet the requirements of their state licensing statute as well as the requirements of their professional liability insurance carrier. That usually quiets any dispute. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 01:31 am: | |
Our specifications were coordinated with our Division 01 sections. Eliminating our Division 01 would require revision of all other sections to include those requirements stated in Division 01.
Fortunately, most clients had no objection, but a few agencies required use of their Division 01 sections, which required review of all other sections to ensure that all the stuff in our Division 01 sections was covered.
Again fortunately, those agencies almost always allowed us to incorporate our own Division 01 sections into theirs. Still a lot of coordination, but we made it work.
If a contractor asked us to eliminate our Division 01, we refused. |
Ed Storer
Senior Member
Username: ed_storer
Post Number: 34
Registered: 05-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2019 - 03:18 pm: | |
For a pre-selected contractor, I'll consider using her version of Division 01 or similar requirements covering the items that Dave Metzger cites "as no" what is really needed.
But my clients are so "budget conscious" that they let the preselected GC, run those aspects.
For note, I've been doing mostly multi-family residential work; it seems that budget is the most important driver.
For many of my clients, it seems that these are being done sort of "ad hoc" and Division 01 is largely ignored. I have no CA role other than answering my client's question, so I'm not in a position to enforce |
|
4specs.com Home Page