Who Should Produce Division 01?

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

Author Message Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 210 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 01:37 pm:    My dilemma is this: Normally we produce Div. 01 sections as part of the specifications. On a number of occasions we have been asked/told by Owner that the Construction Manager they have hired will be producing the Div. 01 sections. 1st option is to review the CM's sections for coordination with the technical specification divisions, but not include them under our seal. 2nd option is not to review them at all and not include them under our seal. Any uncoordinated issues are CM's problem. (I don't think this is a responsible position on part if A/E) 3rd option is how do we convince owners that Div 01 belongs to the A/E and not to the CM's? Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 531 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 01:49 pm:    We usually operate under 1a: we review to check for coordination, we request that the CM review for coordination, and then we include those Division 1 sections that are pertinent to us - Substitutions and Submittals, mostly, if we're responsible for them, and sometimes a reference section (where "furnish", "install" and "provide" are defined). I prefer to publish the CM Division 1 separately and ours with our Documents. References in our specs are changed to "Division 01" instead of "Section 017800", for example, since it's usually the CM who handles that. A good CM will want to coordinate documents and will even welcome suggested changes. If the CM is truly operating as a CM, most of Division 1 requirements are theirs, but there is a division of Division 1 requirements and consequently, documents. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 215 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 02:19 pm:    We have a few projects going on right now where the CM wrote both the Supplementary Conditions and Division 01. General Conditions are A201 CMa Version. Interestingly enough, since the CM had the luxury of authoring the Supplementary Conditions, they took the liberty of deleting many of the CMa's responsibilities. Their Division 01 sections (or at least the sample they were willing to share, from a prior project) were archaic at best. We asked for their Division 01 sections for review and coordination, and incorporation into the Project Manual (although we had no intention of signing and sealing them). The project architect was told by the CM that the sections wouldn't even be written until AFTER the CM received our 100% complete documents. So how were we to coordinate? When then asked for a meeting with the CM to review and coordinate. Their response - in a most condescending manner - was that such a meeting was a waste of time. As I said to the PA, how do you sit down and have an intelligent discussion with someone whose starting point is "go away kid - you bother me."? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 498 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 03:43 pm:    with many large corporate (or govermental) owners, Division 1 has already been produced by the Owner, or CM, or someone else, and its not changing for anyone. What you need to do is produce the few sections that are critical to how you do your portion of the work -- I usually included submittals, and closeout -- and then let them deal with the headaches caused by their own documents. You have a contract for services with the Owner, and if it includes CA, you will need some procedures to carry out that task. Include those. don't include anything else. Take out references to Division 1 in your other documents unless you know the thing you're referring to actually exists. I figure in those conditions, the best thing is to protect our ability to do our job -- and then if the temporary facilities, or the substitutions or whatever else is messed up, you have a legitimate reason to not be responsible for it. the reality is, that Division One isn't always your job. when I consulted, I prepared it about half the time. in my previous job of 8-1/2 years, I prepared it about half the time and used owner provided documents the other half. Certainly do not sign and seal them, and I wouldn't even bind them in the manual. the owner, like the contractor, has the right to parcel out the work any way they want to. You have the responsibility to make sure your contract reflects your reduced scope of work and responsibility. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 211 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 04:07 pm:    I think what we are probably going to do is review the sections as prepared by the CM and mark-up as necessary, those sections like submittals, product requirements (including substitution procedures), and whatever else my PM feels we need to address. In any event, he will not be sealing Div. 1 and it will not be bound with the technical specifications. I also will not be including references to Div. 1 in my technical sections and will advise my consultants to do the same. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 41 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 05:56 pm:    We have many clients who provide a DIVISION ONE. These include city and county governments, colleges and universities and some large health care organizations. Frankly, we have stamped these documents. Clients who provide their own DIV ONE usually also provide the DIVISION "ZERO" bid and contract documents. We review and comment for our areas of concern (our duties and responsibilities, timing, etc.). Often at this point the Contractor or CM has been selected and this becomes a 3-way review. We usually also provide additional Sections under compensation, in the past our own Sections for Mock-Ups and Off/On-Site Testing of exterior systems that we have historically placed in DIVISION ONE. Recently we have helped a county government client adapt their DIV ONE for LEED projects. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 147 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 02:07 am:    Doing nothing is not an option. You have to do two things 1) advise your client and 2) limit your liability. Thus I propose: 1) Review the documents not prepared by you. 2) Disclose to your client the issues that you identify and how they will impact the project. Your professional obligation to your client requires that you at least do this much. Note specifically those issues that impact your contracted scope of work. 3) Notify your client that if these issues are not resolved you will be availible to assist in resolving problems on a time and materials basis. As long as the risks do not significantly impact life safety your client has the right to make stupid decisions. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 81 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 08:59 am:    I represent the 5th largest school district in the US...so we are the Owner (we're also the 11th largest developer in the US). We write our own Divs 0 & 1, along with all the other Divisions we publish as Master Guide Documents. However, once the A/Es we hire to design our projects, put their name, license number, and seal on those docs, they become the A/Es...not ours, their errors & omisions, not ours. Similarly, your Owner is writing Div-1 for you (via their CM), but once you put your name, license number, and seal on those Div-1 docs, they're yours. So treat them accordingly. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 45 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 09:03 am:    Owners and CMs tend to regard Division 01 as part of the "front end" rather than a critical bridge between the Conditions of the Contract and Divisions 02 through 49. They often do not understand what benefits my Division 01 specs can bring them. Although I have been compelled to relent on this in certain situations, most of the time I get my way when I methodically lay out the benefits of my Division 01 sections and the possible consequences when they insist on using their own. When I lose the argument, I have some additional effort in reading and coordinating their Division 01 specs with the rest of the specs. I also have to make sure that the rest of the specs, which often make references to my Division 01 sections, are properly revised. You can protect the Owner's interests by incorporating "Basic Materials and Methods" Sections or "Common Work Results Sections" for each Division to overcome this problem. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 333 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 10:40 am:    David, Do you plan an article in Construciton Specifier describing the method described in your last paragraph? I for one am interested to learn how to utilize these types of sections. My mind is still partially parked in MF95 mode while I switch to use MF04. Wayne Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 575 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 11:06 am:    David and Wayne, I agree. Would like to the explanation. Does this, though, begin at least to "eat away" at the "say it once" princple, in that with Div 01 you can, indeed say things once, and they apply to all Divisions? Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 431 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 11:08 am:    Russell: You say you provide "Master Guide Documents" and that the A/E assumes the liability when he seals them. Do you permit the A/E to modify those guide documents for the particular project, or does the A/E have to use them "as is"? If it's the former, then I would have no issue with sealing the documents, since I can edit them to suit the project and my procedures. However, if it's the latter, then I'd identify them as "Owner Provided" and exclude them from the "sealed" set of documents. But I would include them in the bound Project Manual and modify my other sections as needed to coordinate with them. In either case, it would be nice to know that the owner is providing those sections during the proposal preparation stage. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 216 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 11:41 am:    We do the same as Ron describes above. Its not that we refuse to sign and seal them to be difficult; we don't sign and seal them because it would be against the law to do so. Texas state licensing laws prohibit the Architect from signing and sealing anything that was not either prepared by them, or prepared under their direct supervision. We clearly identify those documents that are Owner-furnished, and those that are prepared by the licensed design professionals, in our Division 00 document 00 01 07 - Professional Seals Page. David J. Wyatt Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca Post Number: 46 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 11:53 am:    Wayne: Yes, I think that would be a good topic. I'll work on it for the June issue. I appreciate the feedback. Ralph: Good question. Yes, it compromises the principle of single statement to an extent, and that is something to think about. The main areas of concern are common requirements for quality, products, and execution. It is obviously better to do it correctly. Every time you can avert a problem by way of your Division 01 specs after persuading the owner that they will protect his/her interests... those are sweet moments. Sometimes turning down a job for an unreasonable client is the best thing you can do for your reputation. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 245 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 07:20 pm:    When deciding when to go to the mat regarding Division 01 sections, it might be helpful to look at the relationship between each of the Division 01 sections and the instruments of service produced by the A/E. For instance: Project Management and Coordination can certainly be written and enforced by an owner or CM. However, Product Requirements is intimately bound to the specifying methods and terminology used by the A/E in Divisions 02 - 49. The first may be considered part of the CM's management responsibilities, but the latter is definitely part of the practice of a licensed architect or engineer. With that in mind, at a minimum I prepare Submittals, Quality Requirements, Product Requirements, and Execution Requirements. The rest are up for grabs. Although I like my sections better than their sections. Owner or CM provided sections appear by themselves and are identified as owner or CM documents not under the seal of the A/E. I likewise agree with David Combs' point concerning Russ' district's practice. Shouldn't be done. The district probably loses access to the A/E's liability insurance through this practice. Hope for everyone's sake it never comes to that. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 576 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 08:26 am:    Despite all the scenarios we can conjure up, isn't the production of Divcision 01 fundamentally a function of the design professional, in the role of "agent" of the owner? In that, isn't it sound professionally to convince even the most staunch client from writing all or part of Div. 01, since even that client does not have the depth of insight into the whole of the project, that the design professional has? Basically, Div 01 is a set of "ground rules" for how the client's project "game" is to be played. In lieu of piece-mealing it, seems most prudent for the design professional to produce it, in total, with eyes on all aspects and all parties involved. Too, the CMs may have a tendency to convert Div 01, wittingly or unwittingly, into a document for construction without proper consideration of the role, authority and responsibilties of the design professionals.