What to do with 15010

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

Author Message dtratt (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 05:39 pm:    Can you give me ideas about what's been done with the 15010 General Mech Requirements being split into HVAC and plumbing sectiions in MF2004? Thanks. Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 113 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 09:29 am:    This could be divided up into "Common Work Results" for each respective division. Ie: 21 05 00, 22 05 00, 23 05 00, 26 05 00, etc. note the second "pair" 05 is the common work result identifier David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 241 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 11:44 am:    My experience with 15010 (and 16010) is that almost all of the information is a regurgitation, duplication, or conflict with General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions, and Division 01 requirements. The rest of the information (almost always) pertains to excavation (which belongs in Division 31), concrete housekeeping pads (which belong in Division 03), firestopping (which belongs in Division 07), access doors (which belong in Division 08), and painting (which belongs in Division 09). In about 99% of the cases where I've reviewed the M-E-P specifications, I have found this to be the case. For whatever reason, many engineers seem stubbornly compelled to think that it is imperative that they are to write subcontract scopes of work and divisions of responsibility, addressed ONLY to the trade who actually performs the work for which they have prepared documents. Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. Once you weed out all the duplicate, misplaced, and conflicting information, I think you will find not much left worthy of crafting a specification section around. My best advice would be to delete it and pretend it never existed. If there is anything of significance left, chances are it would nicely fit into the "Common Work Results" category that Mitch mentions above. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 485 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 12:08 pm:    David: Very nicely stated. I concur wholeheartedly. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 266 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - 09:39 pm:    Hear, hear, David! If your advice is taken by the PE community, the sale of red pens will drop precipitously! Excavation, pads, firestopping, access doors, and painting (and I add curbs and louvers) are never properly specified in PME specs, just given a passing mention, enough to get them wrong. We continue to work to get our PE colleagues to use the section cross reference method to fill out their requirements. Works much better in the long run. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 743 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 09:07 am:    To that, I'll add equipment curbs, roof penetrations and roof top pipe supports. Aside from being leak prone, much of the time they're not even securely fastened. (Ever see those clips of RTUs blowing across a big box store in a high wind?) Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 84 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 11:51 am:    I'm addressing the same issue of using proper cross references right now with a foodservice consultant. They actually had items in spec as "not included", or by "general contractor", or by "plumbing contractor", "by others"... Better to not even mention it than to say it is not included. And if we allow "by others", everyone could say they didn't include it because they thought someone else would. Appropriate cross references leave it up to the GC how they wish to assign work, and they avoid potential omissions and conflicting requirements. The coordination time that it takes to do this will decrease IF the majority of specifiers AND CONSULTANTS will ADOPT STANDARD (MF04) SPEC#'s & TITLES and use them consistently. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 311 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 12:34 pm:    Although agreeing with the responses above, I know that there are some unique and legitimate requirements for plumbing, HVAC and electrical work which Sections 15010 and 16010 could properly cover. These could be where there are requirements which differ, are more stringent than or more specific (focused) than those in Division 1. It's how to "say it once and in the most appropriate location" for these requirements. Are there legitimate reasons for "common requirements" Sections in Divisions 21-23 and 26-28? Kenneth C. Crocco Senior Member Username: kcrocco Post Number: 97 Registered: 04-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 04:29 pm:    Phil, . . .drop off precipitously!" isn't that rather abrupt? All: For items that pertain to multiple divisions we like to use Division 01. Would it be within anyone's consideration to open up Division 20 for the same purpose, but for engineers? Division 20 General Requirements for Engineers. ok maybe another title would do. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 192 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 04:52 pm:    As I mentioned in another thread a few weeks ago, some are already using Division 20 for this. One example is a major healthcare institution (with enough ongoing work to have standing agreements with over 1-1/2 dozen architectural and engineering firms) which has promulgated its own master specifications for all of them to use. Their "Division 20 Common Fire Suppression, Plumbing and HVAC Requirements" already has 11 master sections, plus 6 attachments (tests, forms and examples of checklists) David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 242 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 06:19 pm:    Mr. Woodburn: Just curious - What are the titles of the 11 specification sections this particular owner has created (if you are able to reveal)? Thanks. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 193 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 06:41 pm:    Division 20 - COMMON FIRE SUPPRESSION, PLUMBING AND HVAC REQUIREMENTS 20 01 00 Basic Fire Suppression, Plumbing and HVAC Requirements 20 05 13 Motors 20 05 16 Piping Expansion Compensation 20 05 29 Supports and Sleeves 20 05 48 Vibration Isolation 20 05 53 Piping and Equipment Identification 20 07 16 Equipment Insulation 20 07 19 Piping Insulation 20 08 00 Fire Suppression, Plumbing and HVAC Systems Commissioning 20 08 13 Fire Suppression, Plumbing and HVAC Systems Prefunctional Checklists and Start-Ups 20 08 13 A Attachment "A" Example of Request for Start-Up 20 08 13 B Attachment "B" Example of Prefunctional Checklist 20 08 13 C Attachment "C" Example of Prefunctional Checklist 20 08 13 D Attachment "D" Example of Prefunctional Checklist 20 08 16 Fire Suppression, Plumbing and HVAC Systems Functional Performance Tests 20 08 16 A Attachment "A" Example of Functional Performance Test 20 08 16 B Attachment "B" Example of Functional Performance Test Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 116 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 08:05 am:    better watch out for the MasterSpec police....touching Division 20 is a no-no Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 194 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 09:59 am:    Division 20 was "Reserved for Future Expansion." It's 2007, the future is here, and it has expanded. In real estate, this might be called "adverse possession" (otherwise known as squatting). The MasterFormat Police stonewalled Division 17 for decades, and what happened? The dam broke... Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: mking Post Number: 8 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 05:01 pm:    At the risk of being accused of being the MasterFormat or the MASTRESPEC police, I must respond. First, the notion of using Division 20 for common work results for facility services was discussed in finite detail by the MFETT during the expansion process. Many of these issues were debated and the ideas expressed here plus many more were put on the table for discussion. Many have merit, however for each there were lots of counterpoints of which each had merit. For example, sections listed above by Bob Woodburn are only for a part of the Facilities Services Subgroup. Where are the suggestions for electrical, communications, and electronic safety and security. If those are added, wouldn't it be prudent to add a level 1-1/2 (Super 2) for each of the divisions in the 20 series. Then if we did that we would be right where we are with a "Common Work Results for . . ." in each division. The attachments listed are part of the commissioning specifications that should be included in each division. There is NO commonality among these requirements; rather they are very specific to each division in general and each item of equipment or system in particular. If we activate Division 20 for Facility Services, what about a division for "Common Work Results for Facility Construction," say somewhere between Division 01 and 02 (or maybe we should reassign Division 02 for this purpose) and include those subjects common to facilities construction? I know we can find many subjects that are common to facility construction. Things like fasteners, adhesives, metal finishes, and on and on. I suspect that the MFMTT will receive, if it hasn't already, a suggestion to remove Division 20 from the reserved list to the active roster. Please know that that action is not within the authority of the MFMTT. It is limited to changes and additions at level 2 and lower. Now to the original question posed by "dtratt, the unregistered guest": Mechanical General Requirements" and Electrical General Requirements" never were "common work results" subjects. There were as Richard Combs put it, duplications of Division 01 and General Conditions written by engineers who either could not get access to those documents for coordination or didn't try to get access to them. I have seen both camps. I know several are in favor of activating Division 20. There truly are some (albeit not many) requirements that are common to more than one division in the Facilities Services Subgroup. There are many sections with same or similar titles which appear to be duplicating requirements. Among those there are even the same or similar article titles which seem to duplicate requirements. In my experience, that is where the similarity ends. The requirements for the products used in various systems are different. The sections that combined those products into the same section grew very large in an attempt to be comprehensive for fire suppression, plumbing, and HVAC. One needed to write separate articles or at least multiple paragraphs to differentiate between those products that were to be applied for plumbing from those to be applied for HVAC (for example). Most of commenters here have not taken the time to sort out the details at the article, paragraph, and subparagraph levels of these "common requirements" and that makes it difficult for good understanding. My 40 plus years experience writing mechanical and electrical specifications (as well as architectural specifications) gives me a different picture. Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: mking Post Number: 9 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, June 29, 2007 - 05:06 pm:    P.S. MASTERSPEC abandoned 15010 and 16010 in the late 1980s in favor of locating the requirements in Division 01 and providing engineers with a checklist of where those requirements are properly located. We also have successfully split the common work results of the facilities services with very little duplication. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 195 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, July 02, 2007 - 11:38 am:    Michael, I respect your views as those of one of the few engineers who have focused on specifications to such length and depth, and appreciate your comments, as well as your service on various CSI and MasterSpec committees involved in setting these standards. I am neither an author nor an advocate of the Division 20 I cited; my only point was that there is a perceived need, and some are filling it, sanctioned or otherwise--as some once used "Division 17" (for various, not nefarious, purposes). However, your posts raise questions (which reveal my ignorance): 1. "Level 1-1/2 (Super 2)" ?! 2. "somewhere between Division 01 and 02" ?! (If we could interpolate fractional Divisions ("Division 01.13"? 01.16? 01.19?), then we wouldn't need 16 divisions "Reserved for Future Expansion", would we?) 3. If removing Division 20 from the reserved list to the active roster is "not within the authority of the MFMTT" then who's authority is it? Is there an entity (or a process) that can activate reserved divisions? MF95 had Sections 15050 and 16050, "Basic Mechanical(/Electrical) Materials and Methods" Is there an equivalent in MF2004? David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 243 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 06:15 am:    I believe its the XX 05 XX - Common Work Results accommodation in the classification system, is it not? See Mitch Miller's Post above (second from the top). Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: mking Post Number: 10 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 04:43 pm:    Hello Bob, Here are my responses to your important questions: 1. There is no official "Level 1-1/2." Rather there is a set of level 2 numbers and titles in each division that act as placeholders for the hierarchical system. While, as we have seen in other discussions, these numbers which are XX X0 00 can be used as specification numbers and titles, they serve mainly to subdivide the divisions into groups of like "stuff" to set them apart from other subjects within the division. These placeholders (or more accurately, subdividers), are the first level of specialization within divisions. In division 23 they are: 23 10 00 - Facility Fuel Systems 23 20 00 - HVAC Piping and Pumps 23 30 00 - HVAC Air Distribution 23 40 00 - HVAC Air Cleaning Devices 23 50 00 - Central Heating Equipment 23 60 00 - Central Cooling Equipment 23 70 00 - Central HVAC Equipment 23 80 00 - Decentralized HVAC Equipment As in most divisions, there are 8 or 9 subdivisions to group like subjects within the division. 2. "...somewhere between Divisions 01 and 02 ..." was a tongue-in-cheek statement meaning common requirements for facility construction should follow Division 01 but be before requirements specified after Division 01 in order to be consistent with where common requirements are currently located at the beginning of each division. 3. The CSI Executive Committee charged the MFMTT with certain responsibilities and limits of authority. Currently those limits say that the MFMTT cannot change anything above level 2. Changes above level 2 must be deferred to the next major update, whenever that might occur and will be the charge of a different task team or perhaps an expansion of the charge for the MFMTT. Sections 15050 - Basic Mechanical Materials and Methods and 16050 - Basic Electrical Materials and Methods each became Level-2 numbers and titles in each division of MF04 (not just for M/E subjects). It was determined by the MFETT that every division could benefit from the concept previously limited to just Divisions 15 and 16. Additionally, there was extensive discussions about whether or not Division 20 should be used to consolidate common requirements for facility services with the conclusion that it should not. To illustrate my point in a preceding entry we can look at valves. There are literally thousands of valves possible for mechanical services within a building. Valves can be divided by type (i.e. gates, globe, ball, check, and on and on). Each type (i.e. ball valves) can be further divided by configuration, pressure class, materials, and more. The novice might conclude that all "ball valves" are alike and each type and subclass can be used in any application. This is not so. At the end of the day, a ball valve used in HVAC service for hydronic piping can be, but usually is not the same ball valve used in plumbing service for domestic water piping. So, although we have two sections 22 05 23 - General Duty Valves for Plumbing and 23 05 23 - General Duty Valves for HVAC and each of these sections has an article for "Ball Valves," it is probable that the descriptions for each of those ball valves is not the same. Additionally, the designer(s) have to carefully consider the design conditions for each of these separately, even if in the unlikely situation, the end result is the same. And even if the actual valve is exactly the same, it's likely the overall work results will be different based on varying system conditions. So, in MF95 general duty valves had to include descriptions that fit plumbing and HVAC for both product descriptions and installation requirements, and in some cases the Part 1 requirements. Separating it into two sections did not result in two identical sections. Separating resulted in the ability to create shorter sections that more comprehensively cover the unique requirements for the valves of each service, all of which must be consider separately during design and construction. This illustration repeats itself for most, but not all the subjects in 21, 22, and 23. There are similar examples when comparing common work results in 26, 27, and 28. Division 25 has little in common with anything else in the 20s. So, since there is a level-2 category for each of the divisions in the 20s, it would be redundant to use Division 20 for that purpose. It would be better to save this for an emerging construction category. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 150 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 05:23 pm:    The numbers and titles at the begining of each devision (XX 0X XX) are intended to be available for use for items common to more than one section in that division. Performance requirements that apply to subjects located in more than one division may be located at 01 80 00. In terms of the Facility Services Subgroup (2X XX XX): 2004 has taken two 1995 divisions (15 & 16) along with material from some other 1995 divisions (particularly 13) and turned them into 7 divisions with room for three more future divisions for expansion - this was done primarily to provide sufficient room for these subjects including room for expansion in contrast to the previous practice of sqeezing the subject matter into locations with available space (primarily division 13). Some people have a hard time changing long time practices such as writing single sections for subjects that relate to both plumbing and HVAC. The question of including a division in the 20's for common subects was debated intensively by the task team and the decision was not to include one. Mike King as given a good description of the reasoning for that decision above and in previous related discussion threads. Since MasterFormat is a voluntary consensus standard, they will always be users who do not follow all the recommendations in the standard - I have yet to see the "MasterFormat Police" in action to punish someone! Rather than publicize the actions of some who don't follow the recommendations, maybe we should be working at educating these people as to the reasons for the recommendations in the standard to convince them to follow it more closely. Maybe we could convince Mike King to prepare a short "white paper" on this issue to help in that cause since it has been coming up multiple times. Willing to take that on Mike? Anonymous   Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 05:35 pm:    "Separating it into two sections did not result in two identical sections. Separating resulted in the ability to create shorter sections that more comprehensively cover the unique requirements for the valves of each service, all of which must be consider separately during design and construction." While theoretically, this makes complete sense, practically, it is what the consultants I work with complain about the most. The valves may be different, but the Part 1 and Part 3 of the two sections are virtually identical. So, while it makes sense to have two shorter sections, the amount of repeated material for valves, hangers and other common work, adds pages and pages of repetitive information to the specs. Maybe we need a Common Part 1...oops, I think I just stepped in something real bad. Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: mking Post Number: 11 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 07:59 am:    To Anonymous: Those who are writing duplicate Parts 1 and 3 are copying boilerplate gobbledygook without the due diligence of careful thought about what makes the difference. I see this a lot among all diciplines. Specifiers blindly include requirements that are not only duplicates of other sections, but are also duplicate requirements to those included in Division 01. Yes, there are some similarities, but not identical. You can find lots of similar Part 1 and Part 3 content among many sections in Divisions 3 through 14 as well. To Bob: A "White Paper"? I suppose I could consolidate my several rantings into a cohesive paper or magazine article. I wonder if we could get the right people to read it. By that I mean more than the architectural specifiers who are frustrated by trying to convince their engineering consultants to understand the system. Most engineers (with a few notable exceptions) have notoriously avoided educating themselves in good specification writing practices. They are willing to spend many hours on a section that has given them a problem or that has not yet been written; and then are willing to risk using it for the next 20 years or until something goes wrong (whichever comes first). How can we change that attitude? This is the question. I have most recently presented many seminars in engineering firms who have finally requested the educational opportunity. Once they hear the message, they are die-hard fans. We just need a way to spread the awareness and these forums and CSI education programs don't seem to be effective. This has always been a golden opportunity for CSI. We know that the number of architects who specialize in specs is a small percentage of the overall architectural population. If we could convince that same percentage of the engineering population, the numbers would be staggering. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 151 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 10:33 am:    Mike I totally understand your point about the general lack of interest in the art and science of specifications (and the lack specification specialists) in the engineering community (with some exceptions of course). That is a bigger problem to deal with. I was just trying to deal with this particular problem of understanding the reasons for the lack of a Division 20 to allow single sections for some of the common works results similar to those used in 1995. Currently I don't think there is any written discussion to explain the reasoning for the 2004 configuration (not discussed in the 2004 applications guide) - such a white paper or magazine article could used by anyone in dealing with the issue with engineers or owners with their own guide or standard specifications. As a member of the editorial board, I would certainly help get it into the Specifier. I would imagine that you have the contacts to get it into some of the engineering association publications. Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: mking Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 05:30 pm:    Bob, You are, of course, absolutely correct. I will see if I can find the time to do this. I agree it's important. Holly Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 12:39 pm:    Gentlemen, This is a very interesting thread. I guess that I would be called one of those "few exceptions" who actually writes engineering specifications (to tell you the truth, I prefer doing them)I have been struggling with the very same issues with my engineering clients. The usual response that I get when I try to delete the General Mechanical and General Electrical requirements is that they don't trust the Architect to cover all of their issues. They never even see Division 01 most of the time. I try to tell them to ask for them. Most architectural specifiers are so overwhelmed trying to get their own sections finished that trying to coordinate the engineering sections seems impossible. If we could all work toward taking just a few moments to try to better coordinate between the Architectural and Engineering specifications we would get better project manuals as well as more cooperative engineers. I also think that some published information regarding engineering specifications and their issues would help a lot (I could use the written and documented backup to show my engineering clients). Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 631 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 11:49 am:    Ah, Holly; the "other" "C" word - coordinated! What a concept! Architectural specifiers reading the Engineering specs - and maybe Engineering specifiers reading the Architecturally produced Division 01? I managed this year to get the engineering divisions to refer to the Division 07 section on firestopping for their requirements instead of including that work for the mechanical contractor to do. I felt that was a huge accomplishment. I'll tackle the general requirements next. If you have any tips to share, it would be great. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 766 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, July 30, 2007 - 01:13 pm:    Though my current firm is full A/E services, when I wrote for firms that used engineering consultants, I would try to prepare Division 01 first. I would then send it off, even if in draft form, and tell them 1) if it's in Div 1 it should not be in their spec, and 2) if you need something that's not in there, let me know. It worked only part of the time, but it gave me the privilege of giving them a bigger dope-slap when they didn't pay attention.