Section Includes statements

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

Author Message Brett M. Wilbur Member Username: brett Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 02:39 pm:    I'm curious to know what others think about beginning the Section Includes paragraph with a statement to the effect of "Labor, materials services, equipment, and appliances required in connection with or incidental to design, fabrication, delivering, erecting, and installing..." I have recently taken over a position as specification coordinator in a fairly large A/E firm and inherited a set of office master specs from my predecessor. Most sections are well written, however, the above statement is common. Personally, I feel a statement of this sort is highly redundant, implicit, and explicit as it is covered elsewhere in the General Requirements. PRM secion 5.5.4.6.3 advises not to duplicate statments that are contained in sections of Division 01. What would be the purpose of restating this information? Is this one of those "manufacturer’s guide specs" that has been reformatted for our viewing pleasure? Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 60 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 02:56 pm:    I'm with you. I think that it's redundant. Could a MasterSpec user like to comment on the following standard MasterSpec Language: "1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 1 Specification Sections, apply to this Section." Gee! That’s why I have them bound in one or many volumes entitled “Project Manual.” The phrase "No S*%@ Sherlock" comes to mind. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 44 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 03:22 pm:    When terms such as "provide" are properly defined, all one needs is something simialr to the following: "This Section pertains to the provision of ....." Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 177 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 03:42 pm:    Yes, a statement like that is redundant. CSI makes the point, as do the AIA and EJCDC General Conditions, that the documents are complementary and that Division 1 applies to all Divisions. However, some governmental agencies insist on an article like the following: "Applicable provisions of Division 1 shall govern work under this Section. Contractor shall consult these provisions in detail prior to proceeding with work." Why? I haven't a clue, other than that's the way it's always been done. I've pointed out the redundancy, suggested the change and been told thanks, but no thanks. Maybe that's why MasterSpec includes it; they're trying to be everything to all. D. Marshall Fryer Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 47 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 04:07 pm:    I am a MasterSpec user that leaves the offending language in. Is it redundant? YES Is it obvious to every spec writer? YES But is it obvious to every subcontractor and material supplier? NO In a perfect world, GC's wouldn't rip apart the PM and send individual sections out to subs for pricing. But in the real world, they do. And although it's not my responsibility to direct how the GC interacts with his subs, I believe the statement can act as a red flag to the subs, that there are more requirements to the job than just the product section, and if the sub is conscientious he better find out what those other requirements are. Talk to your CA people, they will tell you that the real name of the game is conflict avoidance. Sure you can wave your Division 1 around when the project is almost done, and force the tile installer to work between Midnight and 6 AM. Will the sub blame the GC for not providing this information up front? Not likely. He will blame the Architect/specifier, for hiding the information from him. And as we all know, an unhappy sub is much more likely to cut corners to the detriment of the project. If a little thing like this Related Documents language can possibly help reduce construction conflict (and does no real harm), I am happy to leave it in. C. R. Mudgeon Senior Member Username: c_r_mudgeon Post Number: 34 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 04:33 pm:    Golly gee, if the contractors and suppliers don't know they're supposed to look at the drawings and read Division 1, we darn well better put that redundant information in there. Now that I think about it, we should probably tell them to read look at the other sections, too. And since we're making sure they know what to do, we should probably include in each section a requirement that anyone who drives to the site should have a valid drivers license and insurance, too. In fact, we should repeat the entire front end at the beginning of each spec section, kind of like the M/Es do. Hold off for a couple of days, though, so I can invest in paper companies. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 325 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 04:50 pm:    Marshall, >>But is it obvious to every subcontractor and material supplier? NO<<< but is that a relevant issue? No. The project manual specifically does not address subs and suppliers, and the AIA standard general conditions address them only through the GC. I have been removing this clause from every project I have ever done going back to the mid-1970's - as well as requring consultants' documents to also remove it. There has never been a problem on any project that resulted in the kind of response you are concerned about. Since I have also overseen the CA department since the mid 1980s, the same from them - there has never been an issue that resulted from this. Rarely has there been any problem at all that resulted from this. And on those few occassions when it has happened (I would have to say less than 1% of all projects), the sub is not unhappy even if he has to perform additional hours or odd hours - he has likely written his contract correctly based around the information provided by the GC. Thus anything the GC failed to provide him he gets additional fees for...he won't be unhappy. In the so very few times when this has been an issue, that's the way it has resolved. Now, the GC might be unhappy because its his foul up and he is paying for it. But that clause is not going to help anyone out of the bad habit of not including the information. The sub is still going to write his contract around what the GC actually gives him to protect himself. If he fails to do that, then whether he has this paragraph or not is not going to help him out. The point where all this is worked out in CA is at the Project Startup Meeting, where one of the first items on our agenda is a caution to the contractor that he familiarize himself with the Division 1 requirements and assure that all work complies with it. Always wave Division 1 around at the start of the project, not at the end. William D. Marshall Fryer Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 48 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 05:40 pm:    C.R and William, Your arguments are very good (and very familiar). I guess I was purposefully being a bit provocative, because I think this issue warrants discussion. Maybe MasterSpec will even speak up with an explanation for their language! Yes, as you say, we are not responsible in any way for contractor/subcontractor relationships. But does that mean we should never provide any tools to facilitate those relationships? Without going off the deep end, of course (and thanks for the ideas for my next paid-by-the-pound spec, C.R.) Admittedly, my example was a bit far-fetched, but you never really know where your next headache is coming from. I recall the Institute's position that Masterformat is not a system for work divisions. Unfortunately, nearly all contractors use it as one. There appears to be no real harm in allowing them to do this. As a result, we HAVE provided them a tool for work divisions, like it or not. I think it's the same with the Related Documents language. It's not condoned by the party faithful, and probably not needed, but if it's there it could possibly make a difference and avoid a conflict or two. Now I am curious; other than "redundant," "violates the PRM," and "wastes paper," any thoughts on how this language could actually be harmful to the Architect or Owner? Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 8 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 06:00 pm:    I agree with William, generally, but the fact that problems were not brought to the Architect’s attention on all those projects does not mean that the job could not have run smoother if comments had been included in the appropriate spec sections. I tend to avoid repetative text, but at the same time, I don't see the harm in including a few repeated comments that might be helpful to the subs. I do not believe Marshall was attempting to suggest that specifiers should completely ignore the good practice of avoiding unnecessary redundancy, but we could go to the opposite extreme and say that since the Table of Contents already indicates which CSI numbers go with which Section Titles, there is no need to indicate the Section Titles AGAIN at each individual section. Never mind the annoyance and frustration it would cause – obey the no-repetition-rule at all costs! I believe CSI provides an excellent set of guidelines, but I do not believe they release us from the responsibility to use common sense in our specs to help the Contractor to do his job well and to eliminate what we believe may be commonly occurring conflicts in the field. Brett M. Wilbur Intermediate Member Username: brett Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 06:01 pm:    Friends, thanks for the thoughtful discussion concerning the Related Work paragraph. However, I started the thread to discuss the Section Includes paragraph. We got side tracked, which is fine, and we can continue on that track. However, I would still like at some point to get some feed back on my original issue. William, in response to your comment about addressing the Div01 requirements at the beginning rather than the end of the project, would it be beneficial to provide a statement in the Instructions to Offerors document to the effect that "Offerors (Bidders, Proposers, etc.) shall thouroughly familiarize themselves with Division 01 General Requirements as they are applicable to all specification sections"? Or is that yet another thread? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 106 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 06:13 pm:    D. Marshall: As long as there are no conflicts, I suppose you could say that redundancy wouldn't harm anything. Aside from the possibility of conflicts, the biggest problem with redundancy is the sheer quantity of information. It is my firm belief that the more there is to read the less likely it is that it will be read. One of contractors' common complaints is the "boilerplate" we like to throw at them. With so much repetitive text, it's hard to find those requirements that are unique to a given project. When the architects who issue the project manuals are afraid to look at them because there is so much to read, you have to have some pity for the contractor who has only a short time to try to comprehend what is often two or three volumes of project manual and hundreds of sheets of drawings. Even if they were perfectly coordinated, had all of the cross references needed, and had no errors, it's still an awesome task. David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 42 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 07:29 pm:    The focus should be on helping the users of the specifications find the material they are looking for and relating it to the drawings. The Summary Article is not so much a legal paragraph that has to be comprehensive, as it is an expansion of the Section title. I use it to describe the contents more specifically than the title does, such as "Stained wood finish custom casework, bookshelves, and countertops" in a Section titled "Transparent Finish Wood Cabinets". I also try to include the words that are found on the drawings if they are not generic and if I can't influence the drafting process. Where the drawing might say (poorly) "Compo shingles", I can say in Summary: "Fiberglass reinforced asphalt composition self-sealing strip shingle roofing system." I don't have to include all the accessories, installation, etc., but I do want to create a link to the drawing terminology. When I look at Sections prepared by others, I don't want to see a paragraph referring to the General Conditions, I want to see what is in the Section. If it is not there, I have to turn to Part 2 and deduce it from a manufacturer's model number or similar detailed breakdown of components. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 107 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 08:24 pm:    Good grief, David! Since when does reason have anything to do with it? That's the way I use it, too. Using your example of the shingles, I sometimes say something like this: Asphalt shingles, indicated as "Compo shingles". And sometimes, when the section title says all there is to say, I don't use the article at all. George A. Everding, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 12:44 am:    I quibble a bit with David’s thought of using this article as a sort of glossary to tie into what the drawings say. If your documents are coordinated (and all of ours are always totally coordinated, right?) the words used on the drawings will always be consistent with the terms used in throughout the section. (Said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, of course). I agree that helping the user find materials within the section, however, is the real purpose for this article, Think of the “Summary” or “Section Includes…” article as being a mini-table-of-contents to the section. Use it as a quick guide to clue the reader into what follows. MasterSpec is into lists, and for some sections this works fine. An example might be “Loading Dock Equipment” where I can quickly tell you on this project it is dock levelers, bumpers, and dock seals. Sheldon’s idea of eliminating the article completely makes sense for sections that deal with single specific products. When I title a section “Roof Hatches”, do you really need to be told in the Summary that “This section includes…uh…let’s see…oh yea…roof hatches!”? I have been leaving self-evident sentences like that in for a consistent section format, but probably will start leaving them out. But it is when we get into systems specifying or assemblies specifying that I think we can make the most valuable use of the “Summary” or “Section Includes…” article. We want a complete warranted granular-surfaced modified bitumen roofing system, including insulation, vapor barriers, protection boards, and accessories. We’ll tell you more specifically what all that stuff is later in the section, but for now you know this is more than just mbr membranes and hot or cold goo to hold them down. Also, an assembly section like “Unit Masonry Assemblies” sometimes requires use of “Items installed but not furnished…” [steel lintels] or “…furnished but not installed…” [dovetail slots in concrete] as part of or immediately following the article. We are putting a lot of stuff in this assembly that might ordinarily be found elsewhere [flashing, insulation, vapor or air retarders], so it’s good to outline what is and what is not included here. But beyond these general road map descriptions of what follows within the section, I’ll jump in on the side of keeping everything else out of “Section Includes….”, especially keeping out the redundant (“be sure to give us everything we want”) statement that Brett asked about to open the discussion. David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 43 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 09:37 am:    The use of the Summary Article in all Sections preserves a consistency for the user. It serves as a place holder in case I find it necessary to expand it for special situations. Believe it or not, Sheldon, my Roof Hatches Summary Article says "Section Includes: Roof hatches", but, when necessary, may expanded to include equipment hatches and ladder safety systems. Besides the Section Includes Paragraph, I include a variation of the Related Sections Paragraph called Referenced Sections. It includes the full title of all Sections referenced in the body of the Section. In those locations, it is not necessary to repeat the full name of the title--only the Section number is required. It follows the "say it once" axiom. It also makes it easier to edit when the Section name changes, since it only has to be changed in one place. For Sections that are related, but not referenced, a paragraph called Related Sections can be added with a description of the relationship. As recommeded by SectionFormat, paragraphs referencing Alternatives and the like are also included. I also like to locate my Coordination paragraph at the end of the Summary Article where it will be noticed, but I have sometimes put it in the Quality Assurance Article.