Deleting Div. 1

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 281 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 03:18 pm:    Well I thought I'd heard it all, but today I received a request from a client (the developer) to delete Div. 1 in its entirety because it conflicts with the Owner-Contractor Agreement and GMP. This is a privately funded rather large condominium project in Florida. Any thought from my fellow specwriters on the impact on my Div. 2-14 sections other than deleting references to them? Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 463 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 03:37 pm:    Who's going to review submittals? Who will approve substitutions? Who's overseeing quality control and reviewing test results? Payment Procedures? Mock-ups? Construction Facilities? If you are responsible for any of these (or others), then your sections should remain. If you are not responsible for these, then let them do what they want and change references for Division 01 Sections to "Owner-Contractor Agreement". steven bruneel New member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 03:52 pm:    You had similar Florida adventures down the page around 4-19-2005 called "specifications dilemma". Did your DIV 1 as well as the rest of the Con Docs preceed the O-C agreement and GMP? Is this then their idea of a value engineering item? In my experience, no matter how comprehensive the O-C agreement is, it in the end is about money and contractural responsibilities and not about day to day construction procedures or about setting standards of quality. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 506 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 03:58 pm:    We have corporate clients who want to use their own Agreements and General Conditions, but we have found that they are not nearly as comprehensive as A201. We use a "pecking order" provision wherein we note that the project is controlled by Owner's documents, but situations not covered in them maybe covered in the specs; and it neither cover the circumstances we defer to A201-1997. There is so much in A201, and it includes ALL paties, that not to have it at all is a real loss-- and threat! Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 232 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 04:02 pm:    Does your audience assume your firm will not perform CA? Are the General Conditions of the Contract between Owner and Contractor proprietary? What kind of general conditions and agreement will conflict with generic (non-AIA A201) administrative and procedural requirements of Division 1 (01)? If your firm is not providing CA and the client has the administrative and procedural requirements covered in some other form, I would say "now worries" but put your position in writing to your client to CYA. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 97 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 05:09 pm:    Another possible issue...Are the so called conflicts created because the O-C Agreement contains criteria that is better placed in Div 01? Many Owner created agreements and conditions I have seen, creep into and create conflict in this manner. It can be a major process to dig through the Owners docs and find all the conflicts. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 617 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 05:52 pm:    The best way to attack this is to try to get a redacted copy of the general conditions. (One without the senstive issues of cost and whatnot.) Barring that, there is another general approach that may work. There are a number of Division 01 Sections that are quite intimately linked to the technical sections, and some that hardly are at all. Those that are closely linked really need to be included and you could make the pitch for those. Typically they'd be: 012500 Substitution Procedures 013300 Submittal Procedures 014000 Quality Requirements 016000 Product Requirements 017100 Examination and Preparation 017300 Execution 017500 Starting and Adjusting Sections that owners are more touchy about controlling would be: 012600 Contract Modification Procedures 012900 Payment Procedures 017700 Closeout Procedures 017800 Closeout Submittals Those that are in the middle, where the owner may or may not have strong opinions, but the contractor probably does (and may therefore prevail) are: 011400 Work Restrictions 013100 Project Management and Coordination 013200 Construction Progress Documentation 014300 Quality Assurance (as regards qualifications) 015000 Temporary Facilities and Controls 017400 Cleaning and Waste Management Figure out what's really important in the Division 01 to make the technical sections whole. Focus on that. Then if you can get some of the more important stuff in the third group, maybe. The second group, leave it up to the owner. If you have to, merge the critical sections into a single one that makes it seem like it's no big deal, you just want this one section. Good luck. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 05:41 pm:    There is no reason to object to minimizing, or even deleting, Division 01 if necessary requirements are otherwise stipulated to the Contractor, and it may well be that this is the case with the Owner-Contractor agreement. Division 01 sections are an augmentation to General Conditions. I know of many Owners that include General Conditions items within standard forms of agreements, and some that combine the agreement along with the general conditions (and there are some AIA documents that do this as well...). What you need to do is examine the form of agreement and then make a persuasive argument for developing Division 01 sections for their intented purpose. Make sure that things in the Owner/Contractor agreement are NOT in conflict with what your duties are, as stipualted in your agreement with the Owner (specifically CA duties during construction). This is a common problem. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 102 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 06:08 pm:    There seems to be a misunderstanding by this developer of the purpose the General Requirements. Every section of your specifications relies on information in Division 01 to some degree. If you omit the General Requirements, you will have to put all of those pertinent articles about submittals, quality, products, etc., back into each individual spec section. The result will probably be a doubling of the size of the project manual, but if that makes them happy, so be it. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 763 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 06:59 pm:    Jerome, Every time you post something I cringe. I often review the Owner's edited General Conditions of the Contract for Construction and delete items that may be already covered. Sometimes I will advise the Owner to delete the requirements in the Contract. But I don't ever throw the baby out with the bath water. (Was this the same Developer that did not need the specs?) If you delete Division 01 in its entirety, you will have to go back and edit every section where there is a reference to a specific Division 01 section. Tell the Developer to stop playing Architect and let you do your job! Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 34 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 07:37 pm:    I have been told before to use an owner’s general conditions in place of Div. 1, but as I compared Div. 1 to the general conditions, it became clear that the general conditions covered the Owner’s requirements while saying very little about the architect’s requirements for the contractor. Leaving out Div. 1 is simply another way of telling the Architect to hand over the contract documents and take a hike. If the architect is to be completely removed from the construction administration process, then this might be alright – stupid on the Owner’s part – but alright. Otherwise, we have to use Division 1 to address what we will require of the contractor, as per the list that Lynn pointed out. On my project, I decided to painstakingly compare the GC to my Div. 1 documents and I just deleted everything from Div 1 that conflicted with or repeated text in the GC. Stansen Specifications Senior Member Username: stanspecs Post Number: 12 Registered: 11-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 07:59 pm:    How about pulling out the good old Uniform Location of Subject Matter and showing that to the client along with a discussion of topics as suggested by the other posts above? That can be a wonderful guide to what should be where, especially as an industry standard. We all (should) follow the same general location of information; Division 1 being no exception. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 282 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 11:18 pm:    David - Actually this is a different Developer than my previous 'specification dilemna', the Contractor and the Developer on this project are ones whom We'd like to have on every project, very professional, very fair, however they have placed us in the situation of having to review Div. 1 compare it to the executed A111 and A201 and come up with a modified Division 1 or recommend deletion of Div. 1 all of which they need by Monday in order to close on the construction loan. The developer has agreed to compensate us for additional services, but having other deadlines this week and only so many hours in a day, what to do....its a difficult choice to make, the Developer is one of our better clients, we are currently working on our sixth project together within the past four years. The project in question being a 52 story high-end condominium project...looks like it will be a long night...thanks for the posts they have been very informative. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 283 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 06, 2006 - 11:21 pm:    Richard - looks like you hit it right on the nose, that is exactly what we are doing...its good to see we are not the only schmucks out there...p.s. for a explanation of the word "schmuck" talk to Helene. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 144 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, December 07, 2006 - 12:16 am:    Issue a COORDINATED Div 1 at a later date via Change Order. Do NOT agree to live without unless the Client/Owner is also the Contractor. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 225 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:37 am:    Sorry to sound like a broken record, but I suspect I've suggested in a posting before that it pays to read state architectural licensure statutes about once a year. Just because a construction manager or an owner doesn't think it's necessary to practice architecture completely and asks an architect to only perform 50 percent or 80 percent of their job doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea. The preparation of specifications is part of the practice of architecture. The preparation of key Division 01 sections is part of that obligation. Otherwise, I'd advise the architect of record to not seal the documents. See John Bunzick's list above for the details. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 109 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 12:57 pm:    OK, now I have an Architect (my client) who wants me to leave out Division One. They say thay have consulted their lawyer and the lawyer says it's ok. This is a traditional Bid (negotiated), build project, mixed use condos, private work. Help! Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 447 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 01:07 pm:    Advise them about the items mentioned in the posts above, document the conversation, then let the architect hang him/herself. Mitch Miller, AIA ,CSI, CCS, MAI Senior Member Username: m2architek Post Number: 106 Registered: 02-2004 Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 01:14 pm:    I would love to know who "anonymous" is in this posting...hopefully no one writing project manuals of any consequence (or, more than likely never sat in the seat beside the judge having to answer questions about defining responsibilities. I would tell your client you will not prepare documents that will potentially put them in jeopardy. You are hired to do a job, and one of the roles is to protect the parties during the construction process. I believe your client will thank you. If not......go along Ronald's statement......document and inform....let the Architect hang him/herself. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 193 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 01:38 pm:    Robin: Ask the the Architect (your client) to ask the Owner if his lawyer is a CCS. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 01:29 pm:    Get it in writing At the end of the day, no matter what the lawyers say, your Architect/client will have to answer to it's client as to why it did not previously "warn" about such "missing" (Div 1)req'ts...and still does not resolve a problem after it's occurred; try to prevent the problem from occurring in the first place. Do you Architect/client a favor and have them insert a precedence clause in their client's GCs that cover GCs and Div 1 conflicts only...and then use your Div 1 sections. Or you can propose added services to review GCs and relocate all pertinent Div 1 req'ts, that GCs don't cover, to respective Div 2-16 tech sections; given those two alternatives, I think that they'd take the precedence route instead. I would not easily "give-in" and let them have their way; that would be a disservice to your client...even though they do "pay your bills." As a profession, principles need to be adhered to, otherwise, deviations such as deleting Div 1 altogether, will become a "norm". David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 229 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 03:03 pm:    One of the primary purposes of Division 01 is not only to spell out the administrative and procedural requirements that govern the other Divisions, but also to keep the Supplementary Conditions from being an additional 80 - 100 pages longer. Absent a 200-page General and Supplementary Conditions, Division 01 becomes an essential and integral part of the Contract Documents. Sounds pretty obvious, I know, but this, too, needs to be considered: • In privately negotiated work – especially with a repeat contractor, it is not all that uncommon for owners to be a little loose with the rules of the game. That is entirely their prerogative. Sure there are risks with that approach, but the owner is apparently willing to tolerate those risks, presumably for some trade-off (maintaining the relationship, getting a better price, whatever). And the architect who takes on such a project (negotiated / private / condominiums) likewise knows there are risks and has every opportunity to walk away, don’t they? • Nonetheless, Architect takes on the project, and the deletion of Division 01 has apparently raised a red flag, to the point where they have gone through the process of engaging the services of legal counsel regarding this matter, and have received advice that - in all likelihood, TOOK INTO ACCOUNT ALL OTHER FACTORS – and seems to provide a comfort level for those who are signing and sealing the construction documents and will be assuming the liability there for. • The services of a Specifications Consultant were engaged to prepare a finite set of documents. The Architect / client determines the scope of those services for which they are engaging, and pretty much has veto power to anything that might subsequently be determined to be needed or added. And they have an attorney’s ruling to back them up. Also as part of that service, was the Consultant given a copy of the proposed Owner-Contractor Agreement, the proposed General Conditions, and the proposed Supplementary Conditions for review and coordination? For that matter, was the Architect and their attorney? (Basically, what is it about those Documents that gives the Consultant concern that Division 01 specifications are not included? One must establish a strong basis for their argument, in order for their argument to carry any weight.) • If they were never given the opportunity to review the front-end documents, then can they truly say there is a gap? Indeed, there MAY be a gap, but without having seen or reviewed the documents first hand, one cannot really assert for sure. They just don't have all the information to render such an opinion. And architects are not prone to giving credibility to those who cry “the sky is falling!” From my past experience, the best tool to show an architect is a side-by-side comparison of the front end and the proposed Division 01 sections. Educate them. Show them all the information that may be missing. Maybe the architect does not fully comprehend the contents, or their importance. But once they are brought up to speed, they are then better able to evaluate the potential for risk, consider consequences, respond to their attorney, consult with their client, etc. Presto – the specifications consultant has probably just created an ally that can now speak the same language! • The consultant, thus having acted in a professional manner and pointing out a potential gap in the documents, advises their client accordingly (in writing, of course). The client acknowledges the gap, says it is indeed intentional, says they have consulted an attorney, and the attorney's ruling is that it is okay to leave out the documents. In my book, that’s pretty much the end of the discussion. The architect has been informed by the best advice available, from both their attorney and their expert consultant. The architect has proceeded accordingly, and any potential consequences that may be incurred are those of the architect and the Owner. If they are united in steering the ship, they should likewise be united in going down with it, when the condominium HOA iceberg hits it. The specifications consultant safely watches from ashore, saddened to watch that which was so avoidable. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 448 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 03:55 pm:    What architects and some owners don't understand, is that Division 01 is the bridge between the Owner's Contract (Agreement and Conditions of the Contract) and the Architect's technical specifications. It is to everyone's benefit to spell out the specifics of how the contract will be administered. For example, any of the following could happen if no Division 01 is prepared: - Contractor: The Architect or Owner can make excessive demands regarding submittals (number of copies, days to review, etc.) - Architect: The Contractor can submit anything that is required in any form that he wants. - Owner: Non-specific requirements in the Conditions are left to interpretation by everyone, leading to possible claims. An Owner who provides Division 01 sections for the Architect to incorporate into the project manual, especially if the Architect can't modify them, is only constraining the Architect's ability to administer the Contract; thereby, transferring some of the risk from the Architect to the Owner. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 534 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 04:29 pm:    I'm with John Bunzick on this one. I've found that a lot of Owners want to delete Division 1 -- for whatever their reason. usually these are projects with the same owner, the same contractor, comparable projects (for instance: the 6th and 7th projects on a campus) and a lot of examples to demonstrate what is expected. if the owner has done a lot of construction projects before, they qualify as "sophisticated" owners and most likely have attorneys who have either advised them on this matter ... or not. So, I tended to issue an abbreviated Division 1 (3 or 4 sections) and simply explain that our liability requires that we issue those sections as part of our administrative responsibility. I've never had an owner refuse those sections when incorporated in that manner. I think instead of saying "I'm doing this for YOUR own good", the easier approach is "I'm including this because its necessary for my services". when you're consulting and your client is the architect, not the owner, the approach would be the same -- appeal to the architect's sense of how they do their job. obviously if they are not doing construction administration, then their issues will be somewhat different. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 259 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 07:20 pm:    The conditions of the contract describe basic responsibilities and relationships between the parties to the construction contract - usually the owner and the contractor, the design professional coming into play as an agent of the owner. Division 01 sections, just like the rest of the specifications, are instructions to the contractor, explaining how things are to be done. The difference between the two sets of documents is clear in the way they are written: the conditions are written from the perspective of an entity outside the contract, in passive mode, while specifications should be written as if the author were speaking in person to the contractor. I use this explanation when teaching certification classes; it often makes the difference in understanding how the documents are used. Many owners - especially government agencies - do not understand the basic rules of organization and specifying that are necessary to eliminate errors caused by misplaced or repeated information. Examples are endless: instructions to bidders in the advertisement, specifications in the conditions, conditions in the advertisement and instructions, lengthy legalese in place of simple statements, and so on. Owners or construction managers who want to use their own front ends appear to be unaware of the problem they create for specifiers, whose master specifications are written with the assumption that important information is properly addressed in specific locations. When dealing with owners or CMs who want to eliminate Division 01 or use their own, or use their own brand of general conditions, specifiers must make it clear that additional work will be required to ensure coordination of the specifications with the unfamiliar documents, possibly by adding into each specification section many requirements that should be specified in Division 01. Helaine K. (Holly) Robinson CSI CCS CCCA Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 316 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:11 am:    I recommend showing folks PRM Fig. 5.6-A Division 01 Relationship to Other Documents (Page 5.40 of the PRM) Harold S. Woolard Senior Member Username: harold_woolard Post Number: 49 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:57 pm:    Two things from my stand point, first I bet the late Ben Greenwood, FCSI, who is considered the father of Division 1, is probably turning over in his grave, and second being a Industry member means no division 1 for submittals so it is "nothing beats quality like a cheaper price". Just something to consider!