RELATED REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN SHELL AN...

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

Author Message Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 18 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 11:21 am:    We use the following paragraph at beginning of PART 1: "Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 01 Specification Sections, apply to this Section." I am now preparing specifications for the Tenant Improvements to this project. Requirements of shell and Core Division 01 sections and several technical sections will also apply to TI work. It is Monday and my mind is in first gear. I am looking for wording to include at the beginning of Part 1 to cover these conditions. Any takers? Thanks, Wayne Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 289 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 11:49 am:    Hey Wayne, why bother. I mean the documents all relate to each other. I asked the folks at ARCOM why they placed this exact language (redundant in my mind) at the front of every one of their sections. I was told that this was required by GSA (or other government organization)and that it could be deleted for other Owners, if the user would like to. I like to, so I ruthlessly trash it all the time. Why oh Why would we repeat very general information in EVERY Part 1. If we need to say this at all (which I do not believe we should) it’s a Division 1 item. Who is going to argue that one section has no relation (in a general way) to another? That's why the contract has places to list all the drawings and spec in it. If they are in the contract they are in the contract. Now, if you don't have any table of contents for the project manual (OH excuse me, spec book) or cover sheet for the drawings, then how is a contractor to know what's in the contract or not. but following this logic, a general statement like above won't cut it. You'd have to place a TOC in every section under related sections. And, so I'm back again at what nonsense the whole thing is. For example SpecLink repeats: "See Section 01300 - Administrative Requirements for submittal procedures." in every submittal section. Why? habit I guess. I delete this too. now that I've teed off both companies I buy spec product from have a good morning. Marc Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 799 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 11:51 am:    Is this a continutation of the Shell/Core work contracts, or a new one? If new, isn't it just that your client has changed and specs would be worded the same way? Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 19 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 11:54 am:    Marc, I agree with everything you said but it is beside the point. The paragraph is in. Case closed. I need to modify the existing paragraph or create a new paragraph to include shell and core requirements. Thanks, Wayne Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 20 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 11:57 am:    Ralph, It could be viewed as an extension of the shell and core, but may be issued as a standalone project. I do not want to repeat some of the shell and core requirements. TI work will be performed by the Shell and Core contractor. Wayne Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 740 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 12:02 pm:    I agree with Marc in general. It's a no-brainer; the documents relate to each other because they are part of the Contract Documents. Conversely, we do not list all the documents that are NOT part of the Contract Docs/project; therefore, the ones that are listed/included are part of it and have a relationship with each other. I've argued with our government to remove that sentence to no avail. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 290 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 12:05 pm:    Ok, you are trying to driect the contractor to look at their specific documents as well as the existing docs for the core and shell. Are the existing docs included in the TOC? Certainly the division 1 is, so if in the TOC then your good. the existing paragraph relates the docs to each other and the toc lists them all. If you have to add a sentance do something like: "Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions, Division 01 Specification Sections, and included sections from other contracts apply to this Section." How's that? Bob Woodburn, RA CSI CCS CCCA LEED AP Senior Member Username: bwoodburn Post Number: 232 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 12:54 pm:    "...included sections from other contracts"? What sections? What contracts? That wording, of course, doesn't actually incorporate anything. IMNSHO, that standard MasterSpec paragraph is redundant, superfluous and unnecessary, and violates the principle that "Each requirement should be stated only once and in the correct location (CSI PRM, 5.1.1)." Those separate provisions are not actually incorporated by that statement, it's just a reminder that they are inherently part of the Contract, and govern all Work. It's like repeating a standard note at each plan, elevation, section and detail on the drawings that "General provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 01 Sections, as well as General Notes on the Drawings, apply to this drawing." Of course, no one ever does that. But it's the same logic. If the shell and core contract's Division 01 and various technical sections are not issued as an integral part of the CDs for a Tenant Improvement Contract, but nevertheless govern the TI Contract, they do need to be incorporated specifically by reference "once and in the correct location." And the right place is probably not "Information Available to Bidders" (i.e., for information only), unless that document explicitly identifies them as governing Contract requirements. In this case, the correct location for the various referenced provisions may well be various locations in the CDs -- i.e., in the document or section corresponding most closely to each provision. If a "reminder" needs to be added somewhere, how about putting it at the top of the list of the General Notes on the drawings -- perhaps listing all the referenced provisions there? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 800 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 01:10 pm:    Wayne, at the risk of running afoul of the others, we issue specs in odd arrays too, and when we issue new Sections in addition to older ones, we many times will list the "previously issued" Section [noted as such] at the very head of the TOC. Now in your circumstance, can you not refer the Shell/Core guys to those "previously issued" docs, and perhaps modify your Summary or Scope of work to include the "new" work on the TI end of things? If you want, can share copies via e-mail Hope that's clear! Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 308 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, March 17, 2008 - 10:38 pm:    Marc, Not sure where you heard the anecdote regarding the GSA and the Related Documents statement at the beginning of MASTERSPEC. If you look at the current GSA Division 1 on the MASTERSPEC disc, there is no Related Documents statement in their sections. My understanding of the rationale behind the Related Documents statement is that some retain it who wish to inform the users of individually published sections (as Contractors are want to do with subs and suppliers) that other documents contain requirements that may bear on the work results and services specified in that section. As for those who don't wish specification master sections to violate the integrity of CSI dogma, there's always the delete key. I've elected to retain the statement in my practice out of respect for the contributions of former ARCOM director Roscoe Reeves, who insisted for several decades that the Related Documents statement be retained in MASTERSPEC. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 09:25 am:    Once again, Mr. Kabza delivers a clear, concise, and comprehensible comment on an issue. I am an architect and specification writer. Right now I work for a developer. The leadership of the firm is, in essence, sophisticated contractors (there is an internal constuction company in the organization). We corporately strive to "do it right" but have little use, again corporately, for the dogma of specifications writing. Threads like this one, with comments like those from Ms. Javoroski, Mssrs. Chavez, Woodburn, Liebing, and Kabza, help me to get the point across to the firm, on the whole, as to why well written specifications include some things and don't include other things. If I accomplish one thing before they wheel me away in a strightjacket I would want it to be convincing some other people in the organization of the sagacity of "writing it once and in the correct place."