030500 is this section number ok for ...

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1465 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - 11:26 pm:    Structural Engineer has proposed using 030500 for Concrete Testing, can anyone confirm this is acceptable by the Spec Gods. If not what section number should be used? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1343 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - 11:54 pm:    Not per MasterFormat 2014: 03 05 00 Common Work Results for Concrete That does not preclude creating a new number and title. There is 03 08 00 Commissioning of Concrete, which can have a new Level 3 number for concrete testing. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1466 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:05 am:    Ron, oh god of specs, care to suggest a level 3 number I'm no good at guessing? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1344 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:14 am:    How about 03 08 16 Concrete Testing? Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1467 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:24 am:    I like it and will suggest it, thanks oh Spec God. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1468 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:28 am:    Since I am batting 1000, how about Concrete Formwork Piles (actually what the hell are Concrete Formwork Piles?)I did not realize auger concrete piles needed formwork, isn't that usually part of the auger concrete piling spec section? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 939 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:36 am:    Or try using the actual MasterFormat Division 1 section for testing and inspection where you can put it with all testing requirements. I have been doing that for years. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1469 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:40 am:    The Structural Engineers I work with won't touch Div 1 and I'd rather not write their spec section. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 940 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:46 am:    Hah, just send over a section master with no section number - or change it when it comes back. It's a nice service to the owner and the contractor to put all the testing and inspection services in a single section. But consultants we use don't get the right to veto where information goes in the spec, and in some 37 years none have ever complained either. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1470 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:46 am:    Wow, two Spec Gods...so here's another dilemma, the Structural Engineer wants to include a spec section entitled Metal Fabrications - 055000 which conflicts with the Architectural spec section of the same number and name, in this case, PE won't budge, what would be a good spec number for Architectural Metal Fabrications (or Misc Metal Fabrications), it certainly makes sense to combine all fabrications in one spec section, but that might take an act of congress....this is SFL, nothing comes easy, except for a tan and drugs. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1471 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:51 am:    In my typical scenario, I am a Consultant working with other Consultants who could care less what I thought...I expect to get all kind of complaints regarding the new spec section number for concrete testing, this engineer doesn't like changes. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1472 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 12:52 am:    William, I never change a Consultant's spec section, never, this one rule keeps me sane and out of trouble. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1345 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 01:04 am:    Never heard of "Concrete Formwork Piles." Formwork is in Division 03, while piles are in Division 31--where did he put them? As for your metal fabrications dilemma, maybe call yours 05 50 13 Architectural Metal Fabrications and his 05 50 16 Structural Metal Fabrications. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1473 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 01:16 am:    STRUCTURAL PE OFFERED 031000 FOR CONCRETE FORMWORK PILES, No explanation given, I've never seen this spec section either. I've yet to receive any actual spec sections, just an index. Interestingly, their Augercast Pile section number is 316213. Maybe there are messing with me? Ron, I like your clear thinking on Metal Fabrications, this is why we call you the Spec God!...actually we is me, perhaps it will catch on. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1346 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 01:47 am:    Spec "god"? I think you're dyslexic, Jerome. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1474 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 02:12 am:    More like tired, I received a commission on last Thursday to prepare specs for affordable housing project in Miami, twin 5-story CBS buildings, the Developer was being forced to include specs in order to close the loan, so time was paramount. I agreed to finish the specs by 9/21/15, crazy, but fairly simple construction. By Monday I had worked thru the weekend to get ahead of myself when the client informed me that they needed a draft set (not part of our agreement) for Wednesday morning, reading the writing on the wall, I expected the Developer would take what ever specs I issued for the meeting and present them to the bank, so I wanted to present as complete a package as possible. I issued 75% complete specs, sans MEP a few hours ago. Along with a progress invoice (I had received a retainer for 50% of the fee the day I started). Architect has approved my 2nd invoice and promised to send a check tomorrow (this architect actually keeps his promises). Whether or not I will receive any more of my fee is the question, if the bank approves the loan based on what is submitted, the Developer may not include the specs in the Contract Docs, and so the possibility of the specs not being completed is high...actually in SFL that is pretty normal. Fortunately my client is a mensch (he had to google it), so I expect to be paid fully whether the specs are completed or not. But I really want to complete them, they are a fine set of specs for the short time I've worked on them and I'm actually proud of them. And so why am I still working at 2am after a grueling four days, because I am starting a job ten times the size (in sf) of my five story with another obscene schedule, 50% CD specs due in 6 weeks, and this is no simple job - mixed use, multi buildings consisting of housing, retail, hotel, massive PG, and restoration of an existing iconic building....actually its the one with the Concrete Formwork Piles? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 764 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 03:00 am:    Specific tests and inspections should be defined where you define the technical requirements for the work. I have always seen Division 1 as the place to address non technical issues related to testing and inspection programs. It is not obvious what is meant by "Concrete Formwork Piles". The primary problem with combining architectural and structural metal fabrications is the fact that the architectural metal fabrications are probably not within the SE's scope of service. In my experience architectural metal fabrications specifications do not do an adequate job of addressing the technical requirements. They also often address materials such as bronze, stainless steel, and aluminum. The task of identifying all of the architectural metal fabrication items and making sure that the technical provisions including materials and fabrication would be a non-trivial task. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 873 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 09:27 am:    Sheet pile formwork? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1475 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 10:10 am:    Sheldon Wolfe is officially a Spec God - You are correct I spoke with the Structural PE this morning and Concrete Formwork Piles is Sheet Piling...isn't this industry wonderful you learn something new everyday. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1476 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 10:37 am:    I've advised the Structural PE that "Concrete Formwork Piles" is an unacceptable label, have requested a change to "Sheet Piling" Section 314113. Thanks again Sheldon.