One Spec Section combining Traction &...

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1408 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 09:40 am:    I received a 72 page spec section today from an elevator consultant, it was labeled Section 142123/142423 - Traction Elevators/Hydraulic Elevators, catchy name, I've never received a combined elevator spec, is this common now? Seems these guys are getting lazy? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 189 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 09:41 am:    Efficient, IF you have both types on the project. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 590 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 09:49 am:    It's not uncommon to have both traction and hydraulic elevators on one project, eg for office elevators and garage elevators, respectively. But we've always specified them in separate sections. And we've usually had a separate elevator finishes section cross-referenced to the other two elevator sections, since both elevator types had similar finishes, and so there was no duplication of the finishes requirements. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1409 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 10:05 am:    I agree Dave, that is what I am used to as well, even on the mega high rise projects, the other elevator consultants like L&B issue separate spec sections. On this job VDA is the elevator consultant (first time working with these guys). I for one never prepare elevator spec sections, I require a consultant on the team or if that is not doable I will accept Manufacturer's canned specs, once again I never modify anyone else's specs, I too include an Elevator Cab Finishes spec section and coordinate it with the Interior Designer. I review the elevator spec section for coordination only, never comment on the guts of the spec section unless I see something that may be a liability issue. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1410 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 10:07 am:    Liz, this may be efficient, but long spec sections like this one is what is turning off architects to specs. Architects want less spec, not more, even at the cost of paper efficiency. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1317 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 11:19 am:    It can be done, but the proper way to do it per MasterFormat guidelines is to use number 14 20 00 and title "Elevators." Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 862 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 12:05 pm:    I've often wondered why it is that elevators, which are probably the most highly regulated piece of equipment in a building, require a specification the length of Poe's "The Pit and the Pendulum." Or longer; I remember one that was fifty pages. It doesn't have to be that long. The typical elevator specification includes the stuff consultants love to include: things that already are specified in the bidding requirements, general conditions, and Division 01, and assignment of work that conflicts with other specifications. And then there are the redundancies. Why is it necessary to specify shaft and cab dimensions, floor-to-floor travel, number of openings, number of stops, and other things that are (or should be!) on the drawings? And don't forget the rocket science requirements, such as "the plunger shall be of sufficient size to lift gross load the height specified." If elevator consultants followed the Practice Guide, their specifications would be much shorter. Because of the common requirements, having two types in a single section should not be a problem. Whenever we have a manufacturer's rep in the office, I ask them what they absolutely require to provide a safe, code-compliant elevator. The usual response is something like, "The purpose, capacity, speed, and finishes." For those architects who want less spec, they can specify just "Acme Elevators Model X with Fancy Cab Finishes" if that's what they need. I have seen a two-page elevator spec, and I suspect it worked. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1411 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 12:26 pm:    Well said Sheldon. Elevator Consultants are expert at CYA. Sort of like Civil Engineers, I just looked at a Parking Control Equipment spec (Michael are you reading this) Section 111200 prepared by a Civil Engineer, only 39 pages long, and the funny thing is that their spec for the Barrier Gates referred to the specs on their drawings not in the spec section, another overly long spec section. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 12:37 am:    Jerome: I am reading this. My specifications have gotten shorter ever since I started reading industry standards and realized that I don't have to repeat things already stated in the standard. Of course, reading standards has its own joys. When I wrote a guide specification for integrally colored concrete, I discovered that American Concrete Institute (ACI) has one standard for finishes on "architectural" concrete and another for the finishes on "structural" concrete. I explained this in a specifier note and suggested that if the project required architectural finishes on structural concrete, the appropriate thing to do would be to write ACI and tell them to get their act together. I doubt I caused much loss of sleep at ACI headquarters, but I had fun writing it and my client was ok with my expression of attitude. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1417 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 12:49 am:    Michael........WHAT! You mean to tell me another specwriter on this forum believes there is a place for humor in specwriting, I can't believe it, must be my imagination. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 09:36 am:    A few requests that one could make to the consultant regarding the section mentioned in the original question: It sounds as if the consultant wanted a broadscope section, in which case it should have been labeled Section 142000 - Elevators. 72 pages is extremely difficult to navigate, unless there is a section TOC, preferably with internal electronic links so that one can click on a line item and be taken to that article in the section. 72 pages also suggests that they included their own bidding instructions, general requirements and other information duplicating and probably contradicting Divisions 00 and 01. Some effort is needed to check and coordinate this language and convince the consultant to delete superfluous text. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1419 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 09:47 am:    Greta, the word bid appears 5 times in the 72 pages, not what I would call bidding instructions, no its just a very long spec section that as you penned is very difficult to navigate. James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 164 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 09:52 am:    I find consultants' specifications occasionally, and manufacturers' guide specs frequently, are written as if for a 'stand alone,' procurement situation and thus include general requirements language etc. This seems especially true for certain items of equipment. I suppose many types of conveying equipment could be sourced like that. Still, especially in the case of elevators, much, and very good, coordination with the rest of the design is required. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 849 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 10:58 am:    With elevator consultants, I suspect that this is a hold-over from projects where elevators have to be custom designed with components from various manufacturers. On most of the projects I do, a package system from a manufacturer is all that is needed. I don't know how complex the system has to get before it has to be customized, but I am willing to let it go unless I know that a simpler approach is needed. I did a project for a state university several years which did require some customizing even though it was a 3-stop elevator. The university was not located in a large urban area and had a preferred elevator contractor who did all the elevator work on campus (installation and maintenance--nothing over 10 stories, but lots of 2- and 3-story stuff). They integrated components from various manufacturers rather than order off-the-shelf packages. It is what the Owner wanted and made some sense in this situation. No elevator consultant on the project so I got stuck wading through all this stuff. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 58 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Monday, June 22, 2015 - 04:15 pm:    Nobody knows what's in a 72-page section, including the author! Many consultant specs duplicate and conflict with requirements in the conditions of the contract and Division-01 because, as James pointed out, they think they are writing a stand-alone contract. My experience with elevator consultants is that they also duplicate much of what's in the mfr's product specs. Like buying a new car and putting in the sales contract that steering shall be by means of a steering wheel and that a tiller is not acceptable. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEEDŽ AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 258 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 22, 2015 - 04:48 pm:    Louis; You have a problem with Tillers? http://justacarguy.blogspot.com/2010/08/curved-dash-oldsmobile-over-hundred.html Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 497 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, June 22, 2015 - 04:58 pm:    I have often wondered if the answer is that the bulk of elevator jobs are not new construction but replacement projects with no architect of record. Or otherwise, under a separate contract and permit, with tenuous connection to the DIV 01 for other project phases. In my work, the other culprit guilty of these ultra-long all inclusive specs is the signage consultant. There too, the work is often separated from the project schedule and delivery and frequently "Owner Provided" from the standpoint of the primary project. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1632 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - 03:32 pm:    Sometimes length has to do with formatting. Some elevator specs I've seen have multi-line listings (sometimes ALL CAPS) of things that could easily be reduced to short paragraphs. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 916 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - 03:37 pm:    I've received these in the past from several elevator consultants. For the most part it did not eliminate the 'department of redundancy department' content, it was just harder to find. The fun ones are those that have directly opposed content without identifying which requirements apply to which elevators. Ever have 3 Sections, one each for General, Traction, and Hydraulic? Again, good intentions but somehow they all get overloaded with extraneous content. Very frustrating.