4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

MasterSpec "Related Documents" text r... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Specifications Discussions » MasterSpec "Related Documents" text removed « Previous Next »

Author Message
Chris Sanders
Senior Member
Username: chris_sanders

Post Number: 20
Registered: 05-2016
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2022 - 07:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

It appears that MasterSpec has removed the following text from the boilerplate technical sections:

"Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 01 Specifications Sections, apply to this Section."

If that's the case, what are your thoughts about the deletion? Is that phrase required, or redundant?
Senior Member
Username: davidc

Post Number: 20
Registered: 02-2015
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2022 - 08:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post


The consensus seems to be that restatement of this provision in every spec section is redundant and no longer required. MasterSpec addresses this issue in Section 01 10 00 - Summary; Article 1.17, paragraphs B. and C.
But I know of some who retain the original mention at the opening of every spec section under the belief / premise that the GC / CMAR does not furnish Division 00 docs or Division 01 Sections to the various subcontractors.
Personally, I’m not convinced this is a valid argument, since the overriding tenet that Division 01 governs all other Divisions of the specifications has been in place for well over 50 years. Plus, construction subcontractor agreements are typically a “pass-through,” meaning that whatever the Contractor is bound to by the Owner, the sub is likewise bound to by the Contractor. As such, there is an obligation by the Contractor to furnish the subcontractor with all the pertinent documents and sections that impact the subcontractor’s scope of work. Not sure what incentive the GC would have to withhold these documents. Either way, most savvy subcontractors will be diligent enough to ensure they have (or at least ask for) all the documents necessary for their portion of the work.
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Corgan Associates, Inc.
Senior Specifier
Brian Payne
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne

Post Number: 263
Registered: 01-2014
Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2022 - 08:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

If it can be said in every section then it definetely belongs in Division 1. It's about time in my opinion.
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg

Post Number: 1436
Registered: 12-2006

Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2022 - 09:13 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Many of us have been advocating this for decades.
The "department of redundancy department" is closing. Good riddance.
Loretta Sheridan
Senior Member
Username: leshrdn

Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2021
Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2022 - 11:49 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The thing I did like about it was it was a good place to add some kind of disclaimer when you had something strange* about the applicability of a specific section or the project manual as a while.

One example was a contract for a school district for various upgrades during the summer break which involved different schools and different degrees of work in the different buildings. The School District wanted the DRAWINGS packaged by school, but a single project manual for the whole "summer upgrades" project. That was where I added a second paragraph that included a disclaimer that the section applied to the project as a whole, and the may contain requirements for part of the project that is not applicable to another part of the project.

* - "Strange" things were usually at the request of the Owner. They are signing the checks, so...
Stephen Wilson
Senior Member
Username: swilson

Post Number: 23
Registered: 02-2019
Posted on Friday, February 18, 2022 - 09:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

That's great. I always disliked including language like that in each section because if it was missed in a technical section (by a MEP consultant, etc.) it might be implied that Division 01 didn't apply there.
Dan Helphrey
Senior Member
Username: dbhelphrey

Post Number: 81
Registered: 12-2018
Posted on Friday, February 18, 2022 - 03:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Good riddance!
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip

Post Number: 549
Registered: 02-2014
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2022 - 02:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Glad for this. Also now we will know at a glance when seeing outdated MasterSpec sections.
John Bunzick
Senior Member
Username: bunzick

Post Number: 1867
Registered: 03-2002
Posted on Monday, April 11, 2022 - 11:16 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The MasterSpec Architectural Review Committee discussed this regularly for as long as attended - about 15 years. It was said at the time by Arcom that "it doesn't hurt to have it." However, I always felt that if you wanted something like this, you had to be careful about the documents you cite, and the terminology used. Not every Contract used or had General and Supplementary Conditions, for example, particularly if not using AIA docs. Some public bids required the bidding docs to be contract docs (you don't have to agree with that approach, but you don't have a choice!). So, to my mind, it was a mine-field, or extra work. Glad to see it go.
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 1470
Registered: 07-2002

Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2022 - 03:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

It was originally in there because GSA required that phrase as part of their specs, and GSA was a big client and regular user of the documents. And that was taken directly from the old Federal specifications. (from the era where the project manuals ("spec books") were taken apart and handed out to the subs.
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe

Post Number: 1055
Registered: 01-2003

Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2022 - 08:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

It's about time. I stopped using that after digesting the old MOP.

Did ARCOM really say "it doesn't hurt to have it"? Following that logic, you may as well include the conditions of the contract in every section.
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

Post Number: 1471
Registered: 07-2002

Posted on Monday, May 09, 2022 - 06:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

No, it was more like "our biggest client insists that we have it". We (us regular users) were told we could delete it. I don't know if GSA is their biggest client anymore -- or if GSA doesn't care about that language.
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman

Post Number: 1612
Registered: 03-2003

Posted on Monday, May 09, 2022 - 09:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

When I joined the MasterSpec Architectural Review Committee back in 2008, I thought that was my chance to help kill the "Related Documents" article. Unfortunately, I was neutralized before I had a chance to fire off my first salvo. It was explained before the meeting started that the article was sacrosanct just for the reason that Anne stated.

The sad thing about the "Related Documents" article is that hundreds of manufacturer product specifications and specifications from specialty consultants and MEP consultants have copied this practice.
Ron Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP
Brian Payne
Senior Member
Username: brian_payne

Post Number: 269
Registered: 01-2014
Posted on Monday, May 09, 2022 - 10:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Related documents is just “navigational help” in my opinion. Without totally sidetracking this conversation, is it common to entirely do without it in your specs?
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip

Post Number: 560
Registered: 02-2014
Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2022 - 07:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I've been RRP-free for about 10 years and have only had push-back one time, from a consultant who believed it was sacrosanct but didn't know why they believed that.

So I re-wrote it to say "Contract Drawings, Contracting Requirements, and General Requirements apply to the Work of all Sections" and asked them to do the same. That way we could avoid implying that these things might not apply to some other sections, and we avoided referencing documents that didn't exist. Those are the issues that bother me the most about it, besides the repetitiveness.
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip

Post Number: 561
Registered: 02-2014
Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2022 - 07:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

(RRP = Redundant, Repetitive Paragraph)

See also http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/23/7940.html
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP
Senior Member
Username: david_axt

Post Number: 1925
Registered: 03-2002

Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2022 - 11:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

I have always thought the Related Documents language was stating the obvious.

The only time it made sense to included that language was on a complicated project with several separate project manuals where Division 00 and 01 were in their own separate manual.
David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Specifications Consultant
Axt Consulting LLC
George A. Everding, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: geverding

Post Number: 934
Registered: 11-2004

Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2022 - 11:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

If you are required to have a "Related Documents" article in each spec section, shouldn't you also insist on a "Related Documents" note on each sheet of the drawings?

Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Options: Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration