What specification sections truly req...

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

Author Message Gail Ann J. Goldstead, AIA, CSI, CCS, CDT, LEED AP, BD+C Senior Member Username: ggoldstead Post Number: 31 Registered: 03-2015 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 03:22 pm:    Hello esteemed fellow specifications writers, In out of the box Masterspec, it seems like many specification sections require Preinstallation Conference at the project site. However, I've noticed that some of the highly experienced Project Architects that I work with frequently strike that article. What are some of the major reasons and for which specification sections would you be inclined to use this article or just strike it. Thanks for your input. Gail Goldstead John Bunzick Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1872 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 04:04 pm:    I only used preinstallation conferences for very technically demanding systems, and in sections where close coordination was needed between trades (if it seemed likely that the sections would be by different subs). This would include roofing, curtain wall, windows, waterproofing and similar things. It could also include complex procedural installations such as clean rooms. It was my belief that these were the situations where the conference could make a difference. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 211 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 04:06 pm:    Hi Gail. I think you will find little rhyme-or-reason while the preconstruction meeting requirement is in some Masterspec sections and not another. I suspect the architects that are wanting the requirement deleted, have a better understanding of when a preconstruction conference is really necessary, and when it is just taking up everyone’s time for no real benefit, and eating into the architect’s construction administration fee. I require a preconstruction meeting for Sections requiring special inspections; Sections requiring field quality control testing; most exterior envelope Sections; Sections that are responsible for a substrate to which finish products are installed that are highly dependent on the tolerances or moisture content of the substrate material; and most floor covering Sections. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any Division 10, 11, 12, 13, or 14 Section where I would require a preconstruction meeting. There would be a few Division 31 and 32 Sections where I would consider requiring a preconstruction meeting. Ron Edward R Heinen CSI CDT CCS LEED-AP Member Username: edwardheinen Post Number: 3 Registered: 04-2022 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 04:15 pm:    I think they can be valuable to project and owner for critical/complicated work and integrated systems; noting they don't relieve contractor of coordination responsibility. Meeting provides opportunity for direct dialog and may lead to adjustments of approach and methods, along with potential changes - minor or major. Stay ahead of that curve vs more costly surprises. I also include review of mockups and field samples with pre-install meeting. Seems like a good approach vs ad-hoc. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 856 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 04:33 pm:    It really comes down to fee. As budgets get squeezed, meetings get reduced. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 937 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 05:37 pm:    Leave it in. Ronald, it's a Preinstallation Conference which is in Part 1 of a typical technical section. Preconstruction conference is in Section 013100. It can always be reduced during the Architect hosted preconstruction conference. Our version of MasterSpec with eSpecs for Revit includes Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 703 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 05:42 pm:    The real question may be: Isn't it the Contractor's/CM's job to hold preinstallation conferences, or carry out any other QA activities they think are called for? If that is the case, the only stipulated conferences should be those that the Architect wants to attend. And given CA fees these days, those may be rather few and far between. I would miss the practiced "deer in the headlights" look accompanied by "Gee, that wasn't what we bid" though. Phil Kabza FCSI CCS AIA SpecGuy Specifications Consultants www.SpecGuy.com phil@specguy.com Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 212 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 05:43 pm:    Opps, sorry; I meant preinstallation meeting My post is still reflects my practice for preinstallation meetings. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1607 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 06:01 pm:    I agree with Phil. If the architect wants to be involved in the meeting, then specify the preinstallation meeting. Otherwise, do not specify it and let the contractor decide if they want a preinstallation meeting or not with the applicable subs. Ron Geren, FCSI Lifetime Member, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSC, SCIP ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1457 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 06:03 pm:    You folks remind me of a day when a coworker came down to discuss how to respond to issues raised at the "preinstallation conference" he just returned from. Before I could say anything my boss, a very well-known Specifier in his own right, came out of his office to correct the Architect's terminology. I doubt the poor guy ever confused Preconstruction Conference and Preinstallation Meeting again. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1458 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 06:24 pm:    Hmm, you want the Contractor to take responsibility for coordination? I like the way you think. Maybe one day MasterSpec will have this go the way of Related Documents. Maybe bracket the Article or Paragraph to let people know that there's a decision to be made. David L. Heuring, AIA, CCCA Senior Member Username: daveh Post Number: 10 Registered: 04-2020 Posted on Monday, April 25, 2022 - 06:40 pm:    I guess I am of a different mindset than most architects. I am also a contractor. I do a lot of CA, and write a lot of specifications. I leave the Part 1 Pre-Installation Meetings article in ALL specs with at least one general paragraph. This verbiage simply conveys in writing an Owner expectation to the GC/CM and their subs/suppliers to review and finalize the construction schedule, availability of materials, sequence of work, facilities needed, inspection/condition of substrates and other preparatory work, etc. so as to make progress and avoid delays. No where does it state that the Architect has to attend. No where does it state that the Architect is directing means and methods. Each Article can then also have any specific paragraphs pertinent to that spec section- i.e. Concrete work to review a control joint layout (surprising how this is often left off drawings and the contractor does it how they want- after the fact it does no good to cite a specification that says every 15', ....), roofing, air barriers, stucco, painting, etc. Then require meeting notes as an informational submittal. You can choose which meetings you want to go to as the design professional. As a contractor, I had these meetings anyway. And I documented them. David L. Heuring, AIA, CCCA, LEED AP, NCARB Gail Ann J. Goldstead, AIA, CSI, CCS, CDT, LEED AP, BD+C Senior Member Username: ggoldstead Post Number: 32 Registered: 03-2015 Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2022 - 11:26 am:    Thanks all for for interesting points of view on this topic. I agree there are some very obvious sections where you would use it. But otherwise, my sense is that Masterspec has overused this article, without any meaningful reason for using it either in the editor notes or in the Supporting Document. The other interesting piece is that conducting Preinstallation meetings used to be placed under Quality Assurance, but now it has it's own prominent article. Gail Goldstead T.J. Simons, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tsimons Post Number: 38 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2022 - 11:47 am:    I think David has some very good points-the Architect does not need to attend all of the Preinstallation Meetings; you might want copies of the meeting minutes as an Informational Submittal. Typically I will retain this Article only for significant and complex areas of work, and delete it for all of the other Sections. From an office master/editing perspective, if you're working in e-Specs it's easy enough to add a Section Checklist tag to this Article in all of your Sections so you can delete as needed very quickly. Dan Helphrey Senior Member Username: dbhelphrey Post Number: 92 Registered: 12-2018 Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2022 - 02:23 pm:    I'm with John, Phil, and Ron on this one. I also tend to apply the same thinking to mock-ups (except I'll also include mock-ups for some finish items that are important aesthetically). Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS SCIP Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 338 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2022 - 03:23 pm:    I generally concur w/ David's approach and typically leave the requirement unless the architect specifically wants it deleted. If retained, the architect can elect not to attend. As an independent consultant, I ask about the need for Preinstallation Meetings for less critical work results, but don't always get a response. Many of the issues can be handled during regular progress meetings, and I'd be surprised if bidders are adding significant cost if the requirement appears in a spec section that doesn't involve much coordination with other work. Jeffrey Wilson CCS CSI SCIP Wilson Consulting Inc Narberth PA Steven Bruneel, Retired Architect Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 707 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2022 - 03:16 pm:    I was a philosophy major in college before Architecture caught my fancy. The philosophy side of my brain wonders that for the biggest, gnarliest projects, think Hoover Dam, do you need a Pre-installation Conference to review requirements for all of the pre-installation conferences? Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2022 - 06:24 pm:    Am I the only one who reads the hidden notes to specifiers in the MasterSpec sections? The note for the preinstallation conference paragraph (apparently only in the full length versions) recommends retaining the paragraph "if the Work of this Section is extensive or complex enough to justify a conference." It's a judgement call. Div 01 section for project management and coordination goes over what is required for these conferences including attendees unless you further elaborate on it in the technical section. I rarely think more than a second about this before deciding to leave it in or take it out on my initial edit of a section. If I leave it in the architect reviewing my sections can always strike it if they feel it isn't necessary. Likewise, they can always request it be added if they think it is warranted. I've seen it go both ways. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 938 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2022 - 07:04 pm:    Thank you Guest. Gail wrote "In out of the box Masterspec, it seems like many specification sections require Preinstallation Conference at the project site." Use is not mandatory nor required. It is boilerplate language. Need the Article. Keep it in. Don't need the Article. Delete it. Personal choice. Please put this discussion to bed. Edward R Heinen CSI CDT CCS LEED-AP Intermediate Member Username: edwardheinen Post Number: 4 Registered: 04-2022 Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2022 - 07:12 pm:    One good thing about being a consultant, is that if I disagree with an architect's decision, I can frame my judgement as a recommendation. We have never disagreed on a preinstall meeting and having it struck out in a markup. Probably because I only keep it in for the more critical work (and mockups). The Lean Construction advocates talk about "over-specifying". I believe that is a result of a lack of attention to specifications rather than an over-abundance of it, in contrast with drawings. Hence if out-of-the-box MSpec includes a wealth of data and options, it's up to the specifier to achieve clear, correct, complete, and concise. Phil Babinec Senior Member Username: pbabinec Post Number: 43 Registered: 09-2004 Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2022 - 08:29 am:    All good discussions here and thoughts to consider as "rule of thumb". I did have an Architect wanting Preinstalltation meetings in more sections than not. I argued with some there was not a lot of coordination required with other sections or decisions to coordinate. The bigger concern from an QAQC was having technical rep on hand for review of first install. As far a overspecifying, I agree. Our legacy specs were developed orignally around the Design Bid Build project delivery and that is not the typical delivery we are involved with now. Leave it in - Take it out? What's important to you? Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 556 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Friday, April 29, 2022 - 03:55 pm:    Conference vs. meeting? I still don't know why it was changed in SectionFormat.