|Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA|
Post Number: 133
|Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 11:49 am: |
This is one of those things that when I reviewed MF04 I said to myself..."that's nice they broke it down and gave it a place in each Division, making it clear, complete, and correct". Yes, I intentionally forgot concise. Is anyone else starting to have a problem with the following list, or getting complaints from MEP's saying that their specs are getting oversized and needlessly repetitive? The following list can be made for a number of subjects in MF04. This is only an example.
21 05 29 Hangers and Supports for Fire-Suppression Piping and Equipment
22 05 29 Hangers and Supports for Plumbing Piping and Equipment
23 05 29 Hangers and Supports for HVAC Piping and Equipment
25 05 28.29 (Why not 25 05 29?) Hangers and Supports for Integrated Automation?
26 05 29 Hangers and Supports for Electrical Systems
27 05 28.29 (Why not 27 05 29?) Hangers and Supports for Communications Systems
28 05 28.29 (Why????) Hangers and Supports for Electronic Safety and Security
Why do we need 7 sections for very similar, if not identical work? Why can't the differentiation of products be done in separate Articles in a single Section? Maybe it's because some of these areas are written by different consultants? Security? Communications? And, maybe I have no idea of the subtle differences between a hanger for a sprinkler pipe and a hanger for a cold water pipe. My engineers say they are virtually the same. Can anyone shed some light on the rationale for this perceived need for repetition?
Maybe this is a good use for the reserved Division 20. Title it "Common Work Results".
Post Number: 182
|Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 11:57 am: |
Good point. In fact, squatters have already staked out Division 20 for that purpose. As I pointed out in another thread (under MF 2004, titled something like, "Anyone else using 'Reserved' divisions?"), a major institutional owner here is using Division 20 for "COMMON FIRE SUPPRESSION, PLUMBING AND HVAC REQUIREMENTS."
|Mark Gilligan SE, CSI|
Post Number: 160
|Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:33 pm: |
Parallel specification sections are common when there are multiple consultants specifying the same materials and products. While there may be some technical or trade practice issues I suggest that the biggest difficulty is getting the various consultants to agree. You are asking them to think about what they want to accomplish, what requirements are real as opposed to personal preference, and how to manage the risks.
Separate sections allow everybody to avoid these issues. So unless the architect or the architects specification writer is willing to negotiate or facilitate a common section it is not likely to happen. If the Architect lacks personal expertise regarding the work product it becomes especially difficult to negotiate a single specification section.
There are often multiple concrete sections when you have the structural engineer, the site civil engineer, and the landscape architect specifying concrete. Often times there are real differences but there could be more coordination which tpically does not happen. Turf issues, ignorance about specification writing practices, and personal preferences often play a big part.
|Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS|
Post Number: 526
|Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 03:35 pm: |
or-- and this is the thing that those MEP folks forget: they can simply coordinate and reference one of the sections. in architectural, structural and civil work, we often all reference the same painting section. the MEP guys have never had to do that before, and they need to be reminded of it.
|Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA|
Post Number: 73
|Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 04:47 pm: |
See Mike King's postings in another thread on this subject (scroll down to about the middle): http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/1097/1098.html
There is perhaps not as much repetition as one might think. Mike has a lot of insight on this considering his engineering background, and his role in how Arcom chose to implement this in MASTERSPEC.
Another thread about a year later: http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/1097/1887.html
looks like its about that time again for the annual "what were they thinking" from engineers.
|Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA|
Post Number: 134
|Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 09:09 am: |
Thanks everyone. Chris, thanks for reminding me that I read Mike's comments when they were posted. Now all I have to do is figure out how to remember that I read them.
I guess the confusion comes from, and it is mentioned in the other discussions, the specific nature of the titles that tends to make people "scared"??? to combine or reference other sections. It is a jump in logic to think that HVAC piping would be found in a Plumbing Piping section, even if it is cross referenced. But, at least now I can point engineers in that direction and fend off some of the "what were they thinking" questions. I do think it is something that needs to be tweaked a bit.