Level 4 Specifying

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

Author Message Dean McCarty, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: dean_e_mccarty Post Number: 33 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 02:04 pm:    What is the practice of my fellow spec writers in using narrow scope, er, I mean, uh, Level 4 sections for products such as Vapor Retarders and Non-Structural Metal Framing? Most of my projects are less than $5M, and I have always kept these materials within the related sections (Thermal Protection and Gypsum Board Assemblies). But it seems like the trend is to separate out these types of products that are often referenced in multiple spec sections. We have a difficult enough time with clients that want us to specify a project by the thickness or the weight of the project manual, adding sections seems like an unnecessary task. If using the Level 4 spec section is the trend, what other common materials would be candidates for this narrow form of specifying? Thoughts? Comments? If this has already been addressed elsewhere, please let me know. Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 199 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 02:10 pm:    Our projects are $2-50 million. We roll up our sections to higher-level section numbers and titles wherever possible. We do not use the decimal points whatsoever at this time - however - we prepare procurement specifications for industrial equipment, and eventually we will get to a place where that system will be employed for RFP's on industrial equipment. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 572 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 02:50 pm:    Dean, I specify ar barries in a stand alone section. I use... 07 27 00, Air Barriers. I don't break it down further than that, and I have about 5 generically different systems (multiple manufacturers / products in each. Typically on any given job though it is limited to only 2 kinds. I don't see a use to go down to each generic type with its own section where you are dealing with sections numbers like 072713, 072716, etc. We do mostly large projects (corporate headquarters, hotels, high rise residential, office buildings). From time to time we also do small scale projects for some owners, and I keep the section as it is, no problem from anyone on that. I would think that it might serve better to break this particular topic out rather than carrying it internal to other work. The air barrier should go over the entire exterior facade, so on a typically concrete framed brick faced building using stud wall construction you would be covering the exterior sheathng, going over concrete (slab edges, columns that are flush to the plane of the sheathing) perhaps some cmu backup - so where would you put it? Put it in the sheathing section could be inferred that you only intended to cover the sheathing and the contractor might say that though you show it over the other substrates he priced it as only over sheathing, is now pointing it out as a conflict and requesting an extra. Or if you try to cover that by putting reference in the other substrate sections, that makes for more coordination foul up potential if it is not. It works better in its own section. William Dean McCarty, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: dean_e_mccarty Post Number: 35 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 03:26 pm:    William and Doug: Do you then use the two representative sections I noted at the beginning of this post as well? What other sections would fall under this topic that you can think of? Dean George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 143 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 03:37 pm:    Not sure if this is tongue in cheek, rule of thumb, or worthwhile policy but... “If a spec section gets to be more than 12 or so pages, you probably need to go narrower scope; if a section is fewer than three pages, you probably need to go broader scope.” Okay, I acknowledge we can find exceptions galore to that rule. Still, I find it a useful self-check, and it is also a worthwhile statement to make the concept more tangible for beginning specifiers. Regarding the original example, I tend toward narrow scoping air barriers when the project warrants it. If the same fluid applied air barrier system is used in several different wall assemblies then I write a separate section for it. That also allows addressing William’s points about continuity and conflicts. If, however, we are spraying bituminous dampproofing on cmu backup with brick veneer, while using tyvek on sheathing elsewhere in the project, I would probably address these with masonry and with sheathing, and not break them out. Intersections between the two, I guess, would be a drawing detail issue. Ultimately, the decision to narrow scope (er…higher level) needs to be driven by the scale and complexity of the project. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 144 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 03:46 pm:    Other sections for this topic: Insulation by itself, or with roofing, concrete, metal studs, etc. Sealants by themselves, or with glazing, acoustical assemblies, exterior concrete, etc. How about sheathing? By itself, or with metal studs? With Miscellaneous carpentry? Or even in Division 16 (or 20-ish) when used as backing for electrical and telephone panels? I did that once, when we had no other logical section to put it, on a project that was mostly MEP work. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 573 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 04:14 pm:    vapor retarders are a fomr of air barriers in my air barrier section. The term 'non-structural metal framing' is always a mystery to me. MF2004 has a category 054000, Cold-Formed Metal Framing. If that is what you are talking about, I use the section ... 054100 Structurla Metal Stud Framing as my stud wall system as well as framing of the light gage type that the structural engineer advises our PAs to use/show. For the other topics... I have 2 sections for insulation - one is 072100, Thermal Insulation which I use to cover all insulation types except roof insulation. 072200 Roof and Desk Insulation, covering all types of roof and deck insulation. I do have an EIFS section, which appears in this grouping, but when used it is never for its insulation properties. Sealants are specified in their own section, well, actually 2 sections, as I separate out gaskets and joint fillers from sealants. 079100, Preformed Joint Seals and 079200, Joint Sealants. They are not disperesed into separate sections. The only item that is an exception to that for me is when we do do EIFS, and there I state specifically that the sealant type must be compatible with the other sealants on the facade, but are required to be sealants specifically recommended by the manufacturer of the EIFS system. Its too easy to screw up and use the wrong sealant with EIFS and pull the face material off the insulation because the sealant is too strong. I don't even specify a product, its part of the EIFS system. I do have a rough carpentry section for all projects. William Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS Senior Member Username: dbrinley Post Number: 200 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, April 07, 2006 - 04:28 pm:    We have migrated to a common wall type repeated on numerous projects consisting of (inside to outside): 09 20 00 - Gypsum Board Systems (gyp, lt gage metal framing, exterior sheathing) 07 25 00 - Weather Barriers (fluid-applied or peel 'n stick) 07 21 00 - Thermal Insulation (rigid) [airspace] 04 05 00 - Work Results for Masonry 04 22 00 - Concrete Unit Masonry (or brick unit masonry) We employ SectionFormat zealously and that's that. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 120 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 08:52 am:    We do projects from $500K to $120M, and, for the most part, employ the following narrow-scope sections: 03 30 35 - Under-Slab Sheet Vapor Retarder (tired of seeing 6 mil poly on the structural drawings, so we cover it ourselves). 05 41 00 - Structural Metal Stud Framing 06 10 53 - Miscellaneous Carpentry (includes blocking and backing panels for predominantly metal-stud buildings) 07 21 00 - Thermal Building Insulation (covers all types except roof insulation) 07 27 13 - Modified Bituminous Sheet Air Barriers 07 27 26 - Fluid-Applied Membrane Air Barriers 09 21 16 - Gypsum Board Assemblies (includes both gypsum board and non-structural metal framing) Our office masters are set up as narrow-scope sections. Yes - there is more labor in maintenance, but I have found that the time saved on the editing end to be much more beneficial and far outweighs the maintenace issue. Dean McCarty, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: dean_e_mccarty Post Number: 37 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 11:41 am:    David: When you specify the Under Slab Sheet Vapor Retarder, do you then make certain that the structural engineer deletes it from his spec section? In the past, I have worked with my clients to specify the roof equipment curbs in Division 07, and I inform the mechanical engineer of this, yet the documents go out with both of us specifying the equipment curbs - one as a manufactured item and one as a standard wood curb. Guess who specifies which curb? David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 121 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 09:36 pm:    Dean, Good questions. 1. Yes, we ask that the engineer to not specify the under-slab vapor retarder, neither in their concrete sections nor or on their drawings (as many structural engineers are prone to do). All that we ask is that they identify it merely as "Under-Slab Vapor Retarder." They need not say anything else. 2. Roof curbs are another matter. Yes, we tell the mechanical engineer we have it covered in Division 07, but somehow, in their typical tunnel-visioned, creature-of-habit way, they seem to feel compelled to duplicate the provisions in Division 15/23 anyway. But the duplication isn't so much the problem as the roof framing. With the pre-maunfactured, pre-engineered curbs we specify, we don't need supplemental framing around the roof opening; the curbs are capable of handling the load and span indicated without it. The rooftop equipment manufacturer's curbs, on the other hand, may not have that capability. If you have the framing in regardless, no problem. But if there is no framing (as would be the case if the structural engineer acknowledged our spec), and the contractor decides to provide the Division 15/23 curb, guess what? - No framing to support it. Here's an excerpt from our spec: B. Fabrication: Unless otherwise indicated or required for strength, fabricate units from minimum 0.0747-inch-(1.9-mm-) thick, structural-quality, hot-dip galvanized or aluminum-zinc alloy-coated steel sheet; factory primed and prepared for painting with welded or sealed mechanical corner joints. 1. Provide preservative-treated wood nailers at tops of curbs and formed flange at perimeter bottom for mounting to roof. 2. Provide manufacturer's standard rigid or semi-rigid insulation where indicated. 3. Provide formed cants and base profile coordinated with roof insulation thickness. 4. Fabricate units to minimum height of 8 inches(200 mm) above finished roof surface, unless otherwise indicated. 5. Fabricate curbs to accommodate roof slope, so that top of curb is level. 6. Provide other features and components as required by applicable Division 23 sections. Hope this helps. Dean McCarty, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: dean_e_mccarty Post Number: 39 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Monday, April 10, 2006 - 10:07 pm:    David: What you write does help. In fact, it confirms that engineers, as a generalization, have a difficult time in letting go of language that has traditionally been specified in their spec sections even when we clearly specify the requirements in the architectural spec sections. Dean David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 122 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 07:15 am:    Other areas where some (and I emphasize some, not all) engineeres feel compelled to include "non-discipline" specifications: Penetration Firestopping (Division 07) Access Doors (Division 08) Earthwork (for M-E-P) - Division 02/31 Concrete for housekeeping pads (Division 03) Having them include these merely by habit tends to create conflicts with the provisions that are specified in their rightful location. Review carefully; coordinate accordingly. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 70 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 11:15 am:    Davids advice "Review carefully; coordinate accordingly" is appropriate for all. All too often it is obvious that the Arhitect hasn't reviewed the structural specification sections. Engineers are in the habit of showing Under Slab Sheet Vapor Retarder because architects often do not show it and at times appear ambivilant about taking responsibility for this part of the building envelope. If you provide consistent feedback most engineers will change their practices quickly. There will be some engineers that stick to habit but I have also seen that same behavior in architects. Maybe I am unclear but what is the problem in specifying the concrete for housekeeping pads in Division 03? Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 63 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 11:52 am:    They create a separate section specifically for housekeeping pads. It is unnecessary if there is already a concrete section. Dean McCarty, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: dean_e_mccarty Post Number: 41 Registered: 08-2002 Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 01:46 pm:    The question I am asked often by clients is in what section the sidewalks near the building are specified. I tell them that it can be either Division 03 or or Division 32. If there is extensive work in Division 32 on the project, then I would leave the exterior walks in that section. If there is little Exterior Improvements, then the walks could stay in Division 03. How far off base am I with this answer, and could the pads not be specified similarly? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 505 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 11:14 am:    I agree with Dean, but note that many structural engineers I have worked with believe that they are not specifying sidewalks because it is not a structural item. Even though they have a complete concrete specification section, they don't want to tweak it to include sidewalks or housekeeping pads. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 71 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 12:05 pm:    Typically the structural engineers scope of service excludes sidewalks and thus they are defined by other members of the design team. Sidewalks are not very structural in nature and- they are excluded from consideration by ACI 318. In my experience housekeeping pads are addressed in the structural concrete specification sections. Sidewalks could be addressed in the structural concrete specification but typically arn't because: --The landscape architect or civil engineer has his own prefered specifications for sidewalks. --It is perceived that some of the provisions appropriate for a full blown concrete specification are overkill for sidewalks. --There are unique finishing requirements for sidewalks. --It is seen as too much of a hassel to get the structural engineer, landscape architect and civil engineer to agree on common language for a concrete specification. This is more difficult than you think. On one project the civil engineer was specifying site concrete using standards that were 20 years out of date. I am not opposed to editing concrete specifications to address sidewalks but in my experience this seldom happens. While specification sections are not intended to assign work to the different trade contractors they are often written to reflect the scope of work of the author. Thus if two or more consultants were to make use of the same concrete specification sections then each of the consultants must find those specification provisions acceptable. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 65 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 12:24 pm:    Also, it is usually two different installers with different sets of skills. We generally want to keep building and sidewalks separate. The problem we have is the civil and landscape both fighting for the "site concrete". That is what needs coordination. With regard to housekeeping pads, the concrete is the same as the concrete that goes into the building, why isn't this a drawing issue? Show the pad on the drawings and the concrete guy should do it. He may have to come back to pour it, if it is separate from the slab, but at least it's in the documents.