Common Work Results for Flooring

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

Author Message Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 74 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 10:33 am:    Is it permissable to use 09 05 00 - Common Work Results for Finishes as a section to specify concrete slab testing (ASTM F710, F1869, etc) for sheet goods. I have a project with three different typs of flooring that require these tests. It doesn't make sense to repeat them in three differnet sections. If this is not the proper place to specify these requirements, then where? Thanks. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 338 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 11:01 am:    I like the idea of common work results. The only one I have done so far, I called 08 0544 Common Work Results for Aluminum Glazing Systems, to cover the performance and finishes of storefronts, windows, and curtainwall. I think 08 0500 would have worked as well because in that case I had no other common work results, but what happens where there is also a Division 08 Common Work Results for Doors? That was my rationale for dropping my one section out of the xx 0500 slot. Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 75 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 11:55 am:    George, glazing system performance is yet another set of criteria that often gets repeated in several sections. Your rationale seems fine to me, however here we go inventing section numbers. I suppose as specifiers find uses for the common work rsults sections, revisions will need to be submitted to the MF2004 Maintenance Task Team. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 204 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 12:04 pm:    What's a "work result"? Does CSI or MasterFormat define it? How does it differ from the industry-standard A201 term the "Work"--or does it? What's the reason for using that term (as opposed to some other term)? (A201: "The term 'Work' means the construction and services required by the Contract Documents, whether completed or partially completed, and includes all other labor, materials, equipment and services provided or to be provided by the Contractor to fulfill the Contractor's obligations. The Work may constitute the whole or a part of the Project.") The "Work" includes both the result(s), as well as the process (labor and services) that produces the result(s). So the "results" in "work results" result from the "Work"--from the process, but they are also part of the "Work"--as fully or partially completed. So the work results result from the work results. Right? But in this case, concrete slab testing is a quality assurance procedure--part of the process, hence part of the "Work", but not a "result" of that process, or a part of the completed result. It's a way of verifying the acceptability of the result (slab moisture content). So is it really "work results"? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 153 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 01:12 pm:    Bob I believe we have had this discussion on definition of "Work Result" about a year and half ago before at this discussion forum back when MF 2004 first came out – I wasn’t able to find the location of it quickly. The definition of "Work Results" that was used for the OmniClass (OCCS) Tables and for MF 2004 is from an ISO standard (all of the OCCS tables were organized based on ISO standards). The ISO definition of work results is: “Construction result achieved in the production stage or by subsequent alteration, maintenance, or demolition processes and identified by one or more of the following: the particular skill or trade involved; the construction resources used; the part of the construction entity which results; the temporary work or other preparatory or completion work which results.” "Work Results" is very differnt from the AIA A201 definition of "Work." The latter is a contractual definition and the former is a classification definition. To try to discuss the two in relation to each other is not very productive. We should also note that AIA A201 makes the distinction clear at 1.2.2: “Organization of the specifications into divisions, sections and articles, and arrangement of Drawings shall not control the Contractor in dividing the Work among Subcontractors or in establishing the extent of Work to be preform by any trade.” In other words, how we use MasterFormat to organize the project manual doesn’t directly relate to the work of subcontractors or the work of trades (assuming single prime contract). In terms of using the original topic of this thread, concrete slab testing probably doesn’t fall under 09 05 00 when you use the strict definition of work results although you could argue that it is included under “the construction resources used.” I personally would not have a problem creating a section title and number within the 09 05 00 area for it but I could also see using one of the the other 09 0X 00 areas – 2, 3, 4,7, and 9 are currently free. But I think that this is a very good question to submit at www.masterformat.com. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 609 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 01:27 pm:    if the concern is concrete slab testing, why not put that in the Division 01 section for testing and inspections? Its part of the quality assurance for flooring installation but the flooring installer has no control over the concrete mix, so its really acceptance and verification of existing conditions. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 154 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 01:40 pm:    That location in Division 01 (01 45 00) is described as for "administrative and procedural requirements" rather than the actual testing. The basic principle of the use of Division 01 is for general requirements that relate to all of the sections across multiple divisions. The basic principle of the new areas at the front of each division (0X 0X 00) is to have common requirements that relate to multiple sections within that division. Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 76 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 02:55 pm:    Thank you Robert for you insights. Since time is of the essence, for now I'm going create a section title and number within the 09 05 00 area, however I have submitted the question to masterformat.com. I also included George's issue regarding fenestration. This concept could also be appied to roofing and many other topics. I thought the principle of specifiying in one place the requirements common to work results that get specified in different sections was a major selling point of the MasterFormat update. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 205 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 - 04:05 pm:    Robert, thanks for the review. Yes, this topic may seem like deja vu all over again... Seems as if this could be considered "work results" based on the definition you quoted (excerpted): “Construction result achieved in the production stage...identified by... temporary...or other preparatory...work which results.” So does the maximum moisture criterion need to be specified in Section 03 30 00? Does the testing belong there, since the flooring installer has no control over it? What can the flooring installers do, except report the unsatisfactory condition in writing, and decline to commence installation before conditions are satisfactory? Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 121 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 02, 2007 - 08:53 am:    I would conssider this testing to be a part of the "work results" for the concrete slabs. Therefore I put it in with the concrete section. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 248 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, August 06, 2007 - 09:17 am:    Steven, I encountered the same dilemma two weeks ago when trying to write that very section. I ended up using 09 05 65 - Preinstallation Testing for Floor Finishes. I pulled the "65" from 09 65 00 - Resilient Flooring, since that is where most of the flooring sections that required the testing were included. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 92 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, August 06, 2007 - 11:56 am:    Because the organization of the specifications into divisions, sections and articles ... does not control the Contractor in dividing the Work... ... another way would be to cross reference the flooring sections' testing requirements from the concrete spec, under a performance requirements article. Not all flooring types have the same acceptable limits though many of the moisture sensitive type do seem to be 3 lb/1000 sq ft/24 hrs. Not sure yet how to use the probe test option as flooring mfrs don't all publish acceptable RH limits. My point is different cases will require different tests. Creating a somewhat generalized performance requirement within the concrete spec, that cross references the finish flooring moisture requirements, could help make the conc performance requirement more easily adaptable to different situations. Then you could have narrow-scope or medium-scope specs nearly ready to go for each flooring type with the typical requirements for that product built into it. So far I've used this on only a couple of projects. The language makes it clear the GC is accountable for the results, including choosing the method(s) of meeting the requirements, and assigning the responsibilities to intallers. It points out the cross coordination required, and options for meeting the requirements. Remedial treatments are included in the options [or by allowance for Owners who would prefer it that way], and should no longer warrant a C/O due to poor planning. Hopefully now there will be reason for any finger pointing among trades or anticipated C/O's in the bid. I've had 2 GC's review it so far, prior to bidding, on the first project I used it on (separate contracts for different building types on a project). They both seemed to believe it was a fair deal. We'll see if it works as intended through construction. Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 95 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 02:06 pm:    The idea to include the testing requirements in the concrete section would make sense if we were supplying the concrete, but in tenant improvements, we often don't. I like the idea of the section for flooring substrate preparation, particularly if you have a complex if-then scenario where the concrete has to be moisture-treated and then re-tested, as we have for tenant improvements in slab-on-grade buildings. In this case, the work result would be a substrate proven (or rendered) acceptable to receive flooring. I leave it to the capable volunteers to ask www.masterformat.com about whether this should be 09 65 xx or 09 05 xx. I also use the common work results concept for an 06 05 xx section that requires that a minimum percentage of wood on a project be FSC certified, either for LEED projects or for resource-conscious clients. (Deliberately not going into discussions of certified wood or contractor's responsibility to select it, here.) This is, I suppose, another intangible work result: Provide chain-of-custody documentation for wood work results specified in other sections. So I'll be watching with interest to see if some sort of "common performance requirements" or "common testing requirements" designation arises from your questions.