In Accordance With/Under Provisions Of

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

Author Message Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 142 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 04:46 pm:    1.3 SUBMITTALS A. General: Submit in accordance with Section 01 33 00. 1.6 DELIVERY, STORAGE AND HANDLING A. General: Handle materials under provisions of Section 01 60 00. Question: Are these statements redundant? I have seen many Project Manuals (or whatever AIA calls them now) with statements like these. Masterspec does not use them. There are some Figures (5.13A and 5.15D, among others) in the PRM that show similar statements in the examples. However, I can find no text in the PRM directing one way or the other. Are these statements personal preference? Do they serve a purpose other than directing readers to the obvious? Is it to make sure that the subs, who get only their specific sections from the GC/CM, understand that there is a Division 01? I'd like to hear opinions on both sides. Personally, I don't like them and don't use them. Is there a reason out there to make me change my mind? Yours truly, Curious in Specland (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 05:29 pm:    MasterSpec addresses this in the following way: 1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 01 Specification Sections, apply to this Section. This is in EVERY technical section of the Full Length versions. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, and I never use it in my specs. This Article does not appear in Short Form versions. I used to work with a firm where the old codger spec writers insisted on including reference to a couple of select Division 01 sections, with no reasonable argument as to why those and none other. Crazytown. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 578 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 05:51 pm:    Don- I'm mostly in the school of "they have the table of contents, why do I need to provide internal references?" but I have heard that having the internal references makes it easier for the person doing CA who may not be as familiar with the structure of the documents as I am. When I started at my new job I asked the managing partner about such internal references and he said that it provided some "additional ammunition" on the job site and he preferred to keep them in. They didn't always make a difference, but apparently helped enough that it was useful to keep them. I think there is some redundancy, as you have pointed out, but my focus in the past few years was towards doing whatever made the CA person's life easier, and a minimal amount of redundancy seemed like a small price to pay. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 270 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 04, 2007 - 01:00 am:    Don: Yes, they are redundant. If you follow the recommendations of the PRM, 5.6.2.5, and use the supplementary conditions to establish the authority of Division 01, there is no need for repetitive references to sections of Division 01. Not following this logic would require for consistency a similar statement in nearly every article of a specification section, negating the benefits of the "say it once" principle. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 209 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 01:32 am:    <<<A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 01 Specification Sections, apply to this Section.>>> Obviously the use of the above paragraph, or something similar, reflection one’s philosophy or approach to preparing a project manual. The trend has been to discard it. I disagree with this trend and choose to keep it in place. Not because I’m an old codger; but, because it is has an impact on how one handles other sections and how it redirects others reading your project manual. As a general philosophy, I prefer and try to write only short sections of about no more than 6 pages. Hey, it’s only a goal. I try to avoid large broadscope sections especially those of about 10 to 20 and sometimes 30 pages***. By breaking them up into smaller narrowscope sections I can usually achieve my goal which, hopefully, keeps the eyes from glazing over. For example, I more often than not breakup concrete (concrete work and ready mixed concrete) and masonry (masonry work, masonry mortar, and masonry units) into two or three sections. On large projects with lots of aluminum products, I have provided, upon request, a section governing quality. One of my elevator consultants specifies elevators in three narrowscope sections. Several decades ago, when I was in the power industry, I was writing specs for a single $3 million pump. I used narrowscope sections to keep from writing a 150 to 200 page section. But when I use multiple narrowscope sections, I always have one of the sections as the “dominate” or governing section. By modifying the use of the paragraph in question, I make “subservient” sections a part of the governing section by adding a paragraph similar to: “A. General: The requirements set forth in Section 04010 - MASONRY WORK in its entirety are made a part of this Section as if herein written out in full.” While this type of paragraph is in fact repetitive, it is only two lines. And, believe it or not, it brings one’s spec closer to Sheldon’s "say it once" principle. I agree with Anne’s comment about writing to her CA person. The CA person is most often the one on the front line and sometimes is the least experienced. As an independent, I cannot control, or even know, who is providing CA services for any given project. I have to assume they are the “weakness link.” But one has to keep in mind there are many others who have an interest in the project manual - - lenders, code officials, owners, inexperienced architects and subcontractors, and, shutter the thought, attorneys. Going back to Don’s original post, I don’t think it is necessary to repeat, or even mention, all the requirements of Division 1. It is important to specify specifics pertaining to the section or trade. For example, one should specify what submittals you are asking for. Not every material needs a submittal. If you don’t specifically ask for a submittal, the CA personnel has no “ammunition” in demanding one. The Division 1 sections are usually administrative not material specific. Cross-referencing should not considered “directing readers to the obvious” because, depending on the reader, it may not be obvious. _______ *** Has anyone ever counted up the number of sections with 10 or more pages in MasterSpec? ...obviously in their final form. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 579 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 12:34 pm:    as a comment to Ron: I'm finding that its the contractor who is the "weakest link" in the process. CA in most offices I've worked in is done by fairly experienced people who know the office details and know the office specs reasonably well. the contractor (and especially at the office I'm in now) has never worked on one of our jobs before, will probably never work on one again; and wants to bid the way they always bid, rather than actually reviewing the documents. what they are not looking for is how we modify the systems or how we enforce the requirements of the documents. and since the contractor has a profit incentive to protect their interpretation of the documents, we have to be as clear as possible, which often (I think) means repeating some information. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 313 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 01:26 pm:    comment on Ron Beard's post above --- Including the statement about General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions and Division 1, I assume, "completes" the Section by tying it to the overarching documents and Sections cited. That implies that there are no other documents or Sections needed in order to bid (procure) and construct (perform) the Work under the Contract. That's not true. There is information in other documents, such as the Instructions to Bidders, Supplementary Instructions to Bidders, the Bid Form, Information Available to Contractor (geotechnical report, site survey, and record drawings of previous construction) and various affidavits which must be submitted with the bid or proposal. Omitting reference to these makes them not applicable? Sections where the statement is not included means the General Conditions, etc. don't apply? (Think specifications prepared by other than the architect/spec writer.) After all, the (General) Contractor already knows about the General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions and Division 1. It is redundant (and needlessly repetitious) to include the statement in each Section. So to whom it this statement directed? It's to subcontractors. The statement, I believe, is meant to be an alert to subcontractors that there may be important information in these references that the subcontractor should know and consider in preparing a bid or performing the work. It's an attempt to mitigate claims for extra costs and time because "we didn't know about that and we didn't include it in our bid" (a claim that should not be considered in the first place). Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 647 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 01:28 pm:    Since I'm the oldest [older than dirt--OK?] I think some traces of the past are not all that bad, and since I have seen some indication of them elsewhere on this thread, let's consider these; 1. It is true that to enforce the specs [why else write them?} CA needs a full load of ammunition, i.e., proper provisions which can be directly and easily accessed; 2. We need to stop "assuming" and creating what we "think" should be-- i.e, many subs do see nothing but their Section and without "Related Documents" they can easily feel there is no recourse for them in some instances-- surely they cannot risk being certain that Div 01, etc. exists as they need them [hence protective, higher costs]; 3."Say it once" is an artifical posture-- I vote for "selected but judicious redundancy", i.e. say it when you need to! 4. Our documents could well show a new path for clarity in codes, and other related documents, even with repeated text IF that serves to make things easier overall. Being convoluted, assumptive or hiding intent/text isn't too wise or professional. Our documents need to properly serve and assist others!!!!!!, so we need to pay due attention to our end-users. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 122 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 01:54 pm:    Does that mean I should start writing my specs with spanish subtitles? (slightly tongue in cheek, slightly serious) If i start writing my specs for the lowest common denominator who might use them...where do I draw the line? Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 210 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 02:07 pm:    Well... if you work in the restaurant business nowdays and you don't you are only hurting yourself. With the continual (and increasing) shortage of construction workers not to mention stuipd/non existant legal guest workers policy, spanish is not a bad idea. I believe the documents should stay in english. I believe that the GC needs to communicate the design intent (our documents) and their means and methods to their workers - however they can. Communicating is the point after all. Marc Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 648 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 02:28 pm:    Sorry, Ms. Snyder if my comments lead you to your last conclusion. I am NOT advocating specifications "to be all things to all people". In that, I agree with Marc, but add that in the GC conveying the design intent, that comunication needs to be most clear and complete-- often, unfortunately not everything required is said. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 02:34 pm:    We're in South Florida here...the land of beans and rice. In the past I've received shop drawing submittals in Spanish...I guess...well lets just say it wasn't Englaze. For similar reasons our Division-1 docs. actually specify that submittals must be in English. Welcome to the future! Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 210 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 02:36 pm:    John: General Conditions and Supplementary Conditions as defined are conditions of the Contract and therefore are “overarching” and apply to all technical and administrative sections. Unless otherwise designated to be “overarching” (ie, my use of a “dominate” or governing section), all other sections are equal and complimentary. Bidders, Supplementary Instructions to Bidders, the Bid Form, Information Available to Contractor (geotechnical report, site survey, and record drawings of previous construction) and various affidavits legally no longer have a contractual basis because they are not contract documents unless specifically written into the agreement. Many governmental agencies do this but most private work does not. Readers Digest writes to the 5th grade reader. Obviously readers of specifications have a higher education level, but the average spec reader does not have the “attention” level of a specification writer. I would guess that less than 20% of my clients actually read my specs; and, less than 5% actually read them page by page. We shouldn’t write down to the reader but there is no reason we can’t make reading easier by using skillful writing techniques and keeping our text clear, concise, complete, and with "selected but judicious redundancy." You are absolutely correct about mitigating claims. A problem-free project delivered on time and under budget is where everyone ends up making money. It even makes Uncle Sam happy because there is more to tax. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 211 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 02:47 pm:    Question to CA People Pertaining to Cross-Referencing: What happens if a section cross-references something to another section and it is not included that section? What happens if a section does not cross-reference anything? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 580 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 04:27 pm:    obvioulsy the cross references have to be correct -- if not, we're causing our own problems. it is more coordination to cross reference specs and I find that when I make a change in one section, it often tracks to 5 more sections. but.. we're the ones in position to monitor those changes and references. the comment above regarding the references being for the subcontractors is right on the money; and I've often included cross references because the General Contractor requested them -- I've been told that some of those repetitive comments help them enforce their subcontract requirements and the references serve as reminders to the subs to include those requirements in their bids. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 211 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 05, 2007 - 04:29 pm:    No problem is your spec is a relational database like SpecLink ;) Doug Frank FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 192 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 08:31 am:    I don’t use the “Summary” article or the “Related Work” article in any of my spec sections,, Unless I’ve spec’d something in a location that might be thought of as unusual; fabric awnings in a curtainwall section for example. I don’t include cross references to other sections because I don’t think it’s my responsibility to determine whether sealant is a work result related to toilet accessories. The Drawings show the Contractor, and his subcontractors, what materials go where,, and how they “Relate” to one another. Further, by including a listing of related sections, an unscrupulous contractor could deny responsibility for truly related work if I didn’t include that section in my listing. “But you didn’t tell me that I needed wood blocking behind the crash rail”. Further still, if I add or delete an entire section by addendum, I’d have to revise and reissue every section that might be related to it to either add or delete that section from the listing of related work in those other sections. (now don’t tell me that you wouldn’t do that for an addendum. If it’s important enough to do in the first place, then it’s important enough to included in an addendum isn’t it?) And finally, it just takes too much time (fee). I’ve got plenty to do in my normal work week without having to spend a bunch of hours doing stuff that isn’t necessary. The very last thing I want to concern myself with right before the project goes out the door is spending a bunch of hours checking every section to ensure that I have all the references correct. Here’s a fun story: Recently we did a project for a client who Demanded that I include a Related Work article. Further the client Demanded that I include specific section numbers, rather than Division number, where referring to related work within the body of a section. I had to change every occurrence of phrases like “Sealant as specified in Division 07” to “Sealant as specified in Section 079200”. That simple little exercise took a ton of unscheduled and unbudgeted hours to complete. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 11:16 am:    Doug - I agree with your strategies...especially the time and coordination factors. I view the "project manual" as a single/whole entity...one doesn't cross-reference within a paragraph, so why do it within the "project manual". Regarding your fun story, don't you have it written in your agreement that "extensive" deviation from your master spec layout, format, nature, etc., is add'l/extra services? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 316 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 04:24 pm:    I'm afraid that I am not smart enough to be a general contractor or construction manager. I don't know how to divide the work (results) into Sections that coincide with the subcontracts and materials procurement arrangements that all bidding general contractors will want or how the construction manager will eventually dictate. I guess I actually believe that statement in the prototypical AIA A201 General Conditions that the specifications are arranged in Sections which do not establish subcontract scopes or trade jurisdictions and that the Contractor is responsible for the means, methods, techniques and sequences of construction. I think the PRM states that too. I long ago gave up on the idea of producing fool-proof specs. Fools do not think in logical terms like specifiers. They are much more inventive and illogical and will beat us every time. That's why I focus on information management rather than construction management when organizing specs. Besides, we're not paid to do the jobs of the general contractor and construction manager. Bob Woodburn Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 200 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Friday, July 06, 2007 - 04:54 pm:    John, we dropped "fool-proof" from our spec vocabulary some time ago, in favor of the more realistic term "fool-resistant"... Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 615 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, July 09, 2007 - 10:45 am:    "Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool." Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 155 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 11:12 am:    Getting back to this thread, I'm just a couple months behind. I agree with Doug and carrying this farther by deleting the References article. Why do we need this summary if the references are specified in Part 2? In this day and age of "Lean and Green" why waste paper? Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 203 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 11:41 am:    If the General Conditions and Division 1 have been properly coordinated there should be no legal basis of a claim from the sub due to a lack of references to Division 1 sections. Thus these reference are not needed. If your person handling CA is not familiar with the role and contents of Division 1, I think you have a larger problem. If you use these magic phrases in the architectural sections should they not also be in the sections generated by your consultants? Given the current level of coordination of specifications I expect that this would cause difficulties. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 70 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 02:55 pm:    Sometimes I am requested to make special references to some new and special thing that is dear to the heart of the person making the request. Think of the cars of the '50's that would have a chrome script on the fender announcing "air conditioned". That went away when they all had it. Lately I have been asked by a sustainable design consultant to add references to the Submittals and Quality Assurance articles that go beyond what I previously included even for LEED projects. This is really obvious on some "little" Sections like "Wallcovering". My previous Section template worked out to about 5 pages. Now it is at 7 pages for that project, with 2 of them just about green issues. The interesting thing is how many sustainable design issues and criteria will evolve into industry standards, and like the "air conditioned" tag on the car, will disappear from the specs except for a quick reference to an ASTM or some such standard. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 626 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 12:24 am:    when the sustainable design consultant stamps the drawings and specs -- or even better -- prepares them, then you can take their requests seriously. we see the same thing from the elevator consultant who turns a 25 page spec into 72 pages; the fabric people who add three pages of stuff that only they care about, and the roofing consultant who specifies the fasteners.