| Author |
Message |
Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: don_harris
Post Number: 239
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 10:58 am: |    |
I'm reopening this discussion because of a situation on a project. OK I admit it. I did something stupid. Not the first time and probably won't be the last. In 054000 Cold Formed Metal Framing (CFMF) I used a Summary Article that stated "Exterior non-load-bearing wall framing." There was also a requirement for delegated design. Problem is that the Architect put some CFMF in the interior of the building, because of height and loading conditions. I missed it, but it is clearly noted as CFMF. Contractor says they don't owe us the CFMF or the delegated design because the Summary Article only calls out for exterior framing. We will get out of this mess because the drawings were noted properly. However, this incident is beginning to lead me to a decision to never use a Summary Article again. I have a suspicion that many bidders look at the Summary and never read the rest of the Section. Maybe if there wasn't a Summary they would maybe glance at the rest of the Section. Any thoughts other than to be more careful with the Summary Article? |
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 328
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 11:41 am: | |
Rather than eliminate good information, would it be more practicle to loosen up the summary to more inclusive by eliminating the word "exterior"? If it's non-load bearing, all you really need to establish for criteria are deflection ratios, spans, and windload "where applicable". This would allow reference to interior and exterior metal studs.
But...aren't your interior metal studs listed elsewhere, perhaps in Division 9? |
Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: don_harris
Post Number: 240
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 11:42 am: | |
Not the ones that are 0.053 inch thick. |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 834
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 11:49 am: | |
Nathan:
I agree with the deletion of "exterior."
But, Division 09 should only specify non-structural (i.e. nonloadbearing) metal studs. If they are structural, whether interior or exterior, then the Division 05 CFMF section should be used.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 213
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 12:19 pm: | |
We would stick with the "exterior" description for 05 40 00, simply because 90% of our projects (big, medical) break out into entirely seperate "Core and Shell" and "T/I" permit and bid packages, often prepared sequentially.
I would just hope to be lucky and notice a single use of structural grade studs and include it in our office standard "09 22 10 - Interior Metal Framing". |
Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rbaxter
Post Number: 104
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 12:26 pm: | |
Without the summary articles, people will basically have an even more difficult time finding information. I don’t think it serves the project team well. Without summary articles, contractors might be forced to glance at the rest of the section; but a glance is still all they would give it (if that is all they are inclined to do) and they’d then be all the more annoyed that it took longer to find it. It is more likely that they would just not bother looking at all rather than take extra time trying to figure out where the information is. I’d expect an extra handful of RFIs asking where this and that was specified – or claiming that things were not specified. Architect’s, also unwilling to spend time searching specs, just might take the contractor’s word for it that those things were not specified. (It’s bad enough as it is. An architect recently asked me why water repellants were not specified. The contractor was already salivating over the sizable pending change order. It turns out they were looking for it in the concrete section and didn’t think to look at the section misleadingly labeled “Water Repellants”.)
Regarding “Exterior Non-Load-Bearing Wall Framing”, I’ve always accepted Masterspec’s standard industry terminology, but I admit that I’ve always thought this particular terminology was foolish and misleading - for the exact reason indicated by Don above. It isn’t always exterior, and technically, if it is sufficiently protected inside the wall, it really isn’t even 100 percent exterior. Also, not every piece of a load-bearing wall is necessary load-bearing and most non-load bearing walls still bear some loads (wind, earthquake, attached finishes and furnishings, etc.)
There is nothing particularly important about such framing being titled as “exterior” or even “non-load-bearing”. It is just heavy-duty steel framing. We don’t call wood framing “exterior load-bearing wood framing". I’d prefer that they just called the metal framing "heavy-duty steel framing" and let the spec indicate the requirements of structural designing and the need for certain treatment when used in exterior walls. I’d even be okay with including the interior light-gage framing in the same section. I’m not saying I’m going to bother changing it in my specs. That would be more work for me than it's worth. I’ll go with the flow and assume there are valid reasons, as yet unknown to me, for the terminology. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 303
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 02:37 pm: | |
Summary is just that. A summary that is not all inclusive. It provides the reader a reasonable idea of the contents of the section. Not to be confused with system description.
In the early days "scope" was used but was ultimatley replaced with "summary" for the obvious reasons.
The contract documents are complimentary documents. The GC must carefully study and compare various drawings and other contract documents relative to that portion of the work. These obligations are for the purpose of facilitating construction. If something is on the drawings but not in the spec or vice versa, it is in the contract documents. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 304
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 02:38 pm: | |
Peggy,
I had a call from Tamae S yesterday. She is doing fine but out of work.
Wayne |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 931
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 02:41 pm: | |
Against what used to be my "better" judgement, I do include a summary paragraph in each section, and it does more or less scope the section. I've been told over and over that it makes the job of the field guys (our field guys) easier, and gives them a way to answer contractor questions.
As for the cold formed metal framing, I was caught by that as well some time ago, and now in the "summary paragraph" I put words along the lines of "exterior metal framing, and additional interior framing where needed for stiffness, long spans and other structural reasons. See Structural drawings for full extent of work".
its pretty common on the west coast to use the 05-series steel on the interior in order to meet seismic issues, and/or for stiffness necessary for some tile or stone facings. the language above is clumsy, but it gets the job done. of course, we get a chance to check their work by asking for calcs, drawings, and structural analysis and treat the 05 section as a delegated design section. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 388
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 03:08 pm: | |
RELATED DOCUMENTS Article: I have stopped using this because it is exceedingly redundant, but have been told by more than one person that this article saved their ass(ets) in dealing with an obstinate contractor or subcontactor.
I always include "Section includes" because it is a good check as to what is in the section; I always tell my clients that if they look at nothing else in the section, look at that section. It is not supposed to be all inclusive; it is a summary.
Related Sections: I have begun to do less of this type of cross-referencing. I have one client who pretty much insists on taking it out altogether. I like to say to the contractor, "Don't look here in the appliance section for electrical and water service; look there." Most would say that should be obvious, but. Someone told me that this is for stuff you might be expecting here, but you have specified it elsewhere. If you have a glazing section, but decided to specify acid-etched decorative glass in another section, it seems like a good idea to insert the crossreference. I do agree that it can get out of hand. Why should I put a "Related Secton" crossreference to door hardware in every door section.
I have always included s "Summary" section in Division 01 (unless others have developed it). It is a convenient catchall place for several items (see David Combs' posting above) that usually don't deserve a separate section, but should be mentioned. I especially like to put something in here about specification formats and conventions. You may consider it a "standard of care" issue, but I would suggest that it needs to be explicit. If any of the topics mentioned in David's posting wind up being more than a page long, they probably deserve a separate section.
As for the cold-formed metal framing issues, this has been tricky for me and our clients. Interior cold-formed metal framing that is not "structural"; i.e., not required to support some sort of live load, is still supposed to support certain dead loads. I believe that interior partitions are required to withstand a certain uniform lateral load, but I can't find it in the 2006 IBC. I have inserted performance requirements before for load and deflection, but have allowed submission of tables indicating compliance rather than a delegated design submittal. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 422
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 05:33 pm: | |
Division 01 Summary: Yes. I try to keep it concise, but complete. I locate phase descriptions here when there will be multiple substantial completions. Rest is largely informational.
PART 1 Article "Summary": Yes. Very brief naming of the major product(s) or system(s)only. Not intended to scope the work.
I do use the Related Documents statement on most publicly bid projects for same reason at J. Peter and also out of respect for Roscoe Reeves, its staunchest advocate. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 305
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 05:46 pm: | |
Peter and Phil,
I remember a debate about related documents or related sections or related requirements. For and against. Do either of you have a record of each side of this debate or a source to go to for each side of the arguement?
Thanks |
Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rbaxter
Post Number: 105
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 06:03 pm: | |
here is something I prepared years ago when the question arose in my office:
An Argument for Removing “Related Sections”:
Some Contractors use the sections listed in “Related Sections” articles to determine which specification sections require coordination with each other. These Contractors assume that the Architect has made a special effort to compile these lists. Thus, they expect the list of related sections to be accurate and thorough. This assumption places unintended burdens on the Architect.
First, the architect is forced to assume a greater responsibility for the Contractor’s coordination of the specifications sections. If the Architect neglects to include a related section anywhere in the specifications, the Contractor might fail to coordinate that unlisted section and can assign blame to the Architect. In effect, the Contractor is being excused from fully coordinating any sections that were not listed. The Contractor’s mistakes in coordination are then made to appear as the Architect’s failure to protect the Owner’s interests.
Second, a perfect and thorough list of related sections is being required for every specification section. This leaves the specification writer without a safety net. A system is flawed when it leaves no tolerance for unavoidable human error. As designs are altered and new materials selected (sometimes late in the construction documents phase of a project) the burden of listing every section that might possibly be related to another section becomes a daunting task that is not worth the trouble.
Finally, the “Related Sections” article is being interpreted differently than how the Architect intends it to be interpreted. The understanding of the Architect is that the “Related Sections” article is merely a list of products, construction, and equipment that the reader might expect to find in the section but that are specified elsewhere. Thus the “Related Sections” article exists to make it easier for Contractors, Owners, Architects and others to find products, construction, and equipment specified elsewhere and perhaps to heighten the Contractor’s awareness of some of the more important related sections.
The “Related Sections” article was never intended to relieve the Contractor of the contractual obligation to perform to all the contract documents or to coordinate who does what amongst its team of subcontractors. This view is shared by ARCOM (the A.I.A. sponsored creators of MASTERSPEC) and CSI (The Construction Specifications Institute). If such incorrect interpretations are being made, it may be best simply to eliminate the article and all the potential trouble that is coming with it.
An Argument for Keeping “Related Sections”:
The responsibility to coordinate the specifications is, to an extent, the Architect’s obligation. At one level, the Contractor is of course obligated both to perform to all the contract documents and to coordinate who does what amongst its team of subcontractors. At another level, however, the Architect is expected to protect the interests of the Owner in whatever reasonable way possible. If the Contractor fails to coordinate spec sections, the Owner could be overcharged and likely will not get the same amount of money credited back - especially if the error goes undiscovered. While Contractors will have a harder time placing blame for such coordination failures on the Architect, the fact remains that the coordination failure might have been avoided if a “Related Sections” article had been included in the specifications to alert the Contractor to the need to coordinate the sections. Placing blame squarely on the Contractor does not eliminate the fact that the Owner was not well served by the Architect’s decision not to include the “Related Sections” article.
The burden on the Architect is increased when the “Related Sections” article is kept in the specifications, but someone has to take on the burden and there is no reason why the Architect should not share it. The Sections have to be coordinated regardless of whether the Architect chooses to help. The burden on the Architect can be lifted a great deal simply by stating that the related sections “include but are not limited to” the listed sections. This allows the specifier to do the best job possible without being required to be perfect.
If the Architect is worried that the “Related Sections” article is being misunderstood by the Contractor, the specifier can easily include a statement in the general requirements, clarifying the intent of the “Related Sections” articles. The article might say:
“‘Related Sections’ articles are included herein as a courtesy to assist in the locating of items in the specifications that the reader might expect to find in the Section but that are specified elsewhere. The list of sections may or may not be complete. ‘Related Sections’ articles do not relieve the Contractor of the contractual obligation to perform to all the contract documents or to coordinate who does what amongst the team of subcontractors.”
The addition of this article to the general requirements and minor modification to each related sections article will do the same job as removing the article altogether, without releasing the Architect from the obligation to protect the Owner’s interests. |
Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: tracy_van_niel
Post Number: 296
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 09:28 am: | |
Ditto Lynn and Ralph
Tracy L. Van Niel, FCSI, CCS |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 997
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 09:39 am: | |
Thanks for this discussion. Since I am now doing a few projects in seismic areas, I will pay more attention to the specification of steel studs and the coordination between Div. 09 and Div. 05 stud specs! |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 998
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 10:22 am: | |
Here's what I consider the wrong way to do it:
1.1 SUMMARY
A. Section Includes: Furnishing all materials, labor, equipment, and transportation to provide [product deleted to protect the guilty] complete as indicated and as specified herein.
1. Work specified in this Section includes coordinating work of this Section with work of other Sections to properly execute the work and maintain satisfactory progress of work of other Sections.
B. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 1 Specification Sections, apply to this Section.
C. Related Section
1. Section 01 73 29 - Cutting and Patching: For requirements and limitations for cutting and patching of Work. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 386
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 11:22 pm: | |
In so many ways... |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 506
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 10:12 am: | |
"Section includes but is not necessarily limited to...." would make it perfect.
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 387
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 11:25 am: | |
include: to have something as a constituent element, to add as part of something else, to take in as part of a group
Note that the definition does not suggest that a list of items following "includes" is complete or exclusive.
I would prefer to rely on existing definitions, and I refuse to keep repeating "but not limited to", but to avoid dragging out the dictionary I address it once in Division 01 definitions:
include, includes, including: These terms are not restrictive; they do not define the total extent of items or exclude items not listed
The word comprise could be used to indicate a comprehensive list, but it has been abused so much that it has lost its meaning. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 388
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 11:34 am: | |
Lynn: That is some of the ugliest BS specification text I have seen. Did you assemble it from a number of sources, or did it come from a single manufacturer? Unfortunately, it is too close to reality.
I think I can match it. This is for real. If you can't see the problem, you should consider a different occupation.
The words "Furnish", "Provide", "Include", "Supply", "Erect", "Deliver", "Install", "Apply", "Lay" or "Place": These words are intended to be synonymous and to indicate that the material or work specifically mentioned is to be furnished and installed completely by this Contractor and incorporated into the Project. Whenever a material is to be furnished by this Contractor and installed by another Contractor, or installed by this Contractor and furnished by another Contractor, it will be specifically specified. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 12:09 pm: | |
May I suggest that this has degenerated into a....["horrors!!!!!!!] "specifications comparison?????
I'll be d _ _ _ _ _ !
Ain't that wonderful??????? |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 507
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 12:15 pm: | |
All of this added verbiage springs from so-called contractors who refuse to understand that the contract documents represent "the entire and integrated agreement between the parties", and that they are intended to include "all items necessary for the proper execution and completion of the Work by the Contractor" and from architects and owners who refuse to acknowledge that contractors are required to perform only "to the extent... reasonably inferable from" what’s actually in the contract documents.
But there I go spoiling the mood by quoting from that pesky A201 nonsense.
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 389
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 12:25 pm: | |
If it's already stated, why restate it? My observation is that most of the text added into supplementary conditions and specifications is redundant, and is there simply as a reaction to not enforcing what is already in the documents. Despite the stated goals of CSI, specifications tend to be verbose rather than terse. |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 999
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 12:38 pm: | |
To answer the question, I copied that article directly and only edited it to remove the incriminating name. I am continually astounded at what some writer thinks is good specification language. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 12:02 pm: | |
I find it unhelpful to show examples of specification language and claim that something is “wrong” with it without bothering to explain what you believe is wrong with it and how it could be improved. Anyone new to specifying is apt to assume that there is nothing right about any of the indicated sentences. Sheldon’s example is much more obvious as to what is wrong with it, but Lynn’s example includes at least one sentence that is very similar to what is included in every section of Arcom’s MasterSpec. Any criticism of commonly accepted standard language at least should be backed up with an explanation. |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 508
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 03:32 pm: | |
1.1 SUMMARY
A. Section Includes : Furnishing all materials, labor, equipment, and transportation to provide [product deleted to protect the guilty] complete as indicated and as specified herein. (Because it is covered in General Conditions)
1. Work specified in this Section includes coordinating work of this Section with work of other Sections to properly execute the work and maintain satisfactory progress of work of other Sections. (Because it is covered in General Conditions)
B. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 1 Specification Sections, apply to this Section. (Because it is covered in General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions, and General Requirements)
C. Related Section
1. Section 01 73 29 - Cutting and Patching: For requirements and limitations for cutting and patching of Work. (Because it has already been covered in General Requirements)
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 390
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 03:34 pm: | |
Thanks, George! I was waiting until this evening to respond; now I can have a glass of wine instead! |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 509
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 - 03:35 pm: | |
Have one for me too.
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO |
Julia H. Hall
Member
Username: julia_hall
Post Number: 3
Registered: 12-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 05:22 pm: | |
The reason that language like this finds its way into so many (particularly manufacturer's) specifications is the common misconception that the Section is a description of a scope of work, or subcontract. The A201, 1.2.2 states "The Organization of the Specifications into divisions, sections and articles...shall not control the Contractor in dividing the Work among Subcontractors or establishing the extent of Work to be performed by any trade." However, because we all know that GC's generally do break out work to their subs in that way, I find it's a good idea to include in "Related Sections" work that is actually related (such as Div 05 for priming steel and Div. 09 for top coating same steel)so subcontractor is aware that there is more information elsewhere he should ask for. Otherwise, it's just something else to coordinate. |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 09:34 am: | |
Thank you, George, for your very effective explanation! (I was gone Friday afternoon until this morning and so didn't see the request). Additionally, if all that George stated wasn't enough, "furnish", "install" and "provide" have specific meanings; "provide" includes "furnish", so to state "furnishing all...to provide" is a redundancy. The use of the words "all", "herein", and similar words, are not recommended. "All" is unnecessary. Section 5.8 of the Project Resource Manual will help with an understanding of what is wrong with the quoted text from a language standpoint.
If, as some jurisdictions insist, the repeated reference to Division 01 sections applying to the work of a specific section are included, the additional reference to a particular Division 01 section is redundant - say it once and in the appropriate place. (4.4.4 "Duplications" in the PRM).
Good specification language and writing adheres to the 4 "C"s as well; this quote does not. The sentences are convoluted, difficult to comprehend, (1.1.A.1, for example, left me saying "what?" because of the repeated word "work"), lengthy, and repeat information. The only "C" to which they adhere is "correct".
I think there is a misguided perception that some spec writers have that the more words used, and the more times words and thoughts are repeated, the "better" the specification is and how often the word "shall" is used has an impact on the contractor's performance. Nothing could be further from the truth. Writing a direction clearly and simply so there is no misunderstanding and no "wiggle" room is the way to ensure "best" specifications and performance.
Sheldon, hope you enjoyed the wine - both glasses. |
Ron Beard CCS
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs
Post Number: 329
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 11:46 am: | |
Is concise always clear?
To whom do we write specifications? What is concise to the sophisticated specification reader may not be clear to the unsophisticated user. Should a specification be written for the least of us or the novice estimator/contractor?
"Fast is good, but accurate is better."
.............Wyatt Earp |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 12:17 pm: | |
All 4 C's should be considered equal. You can't sacrifice clarity for conciseness or correct for completeness. All must be satisfied; it's not an either/or situation. One part may require 40 words for clarity - and that's as concise as it can be. Another may only need 5 words - or 2!
I think we need to write to an experienced contractor (or course, that may depend on the type of project, too). I don't think we can write to the least experienced, or we'd be explaining and specifying details that are considered common knowledge. We need to assume a certain level of construction knowledge and education on the part of the General Contractor or Construction Manager - that they have gotten to that point by experience. It's up to them to explain anything not understood to the sub-contractor - or to ask if something isn't clear. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 12:24 pm: | |
You make a very intersting point, Mr. Beard.
I would say this is our dilemma, but in that I think we write for the "Contractor", under the assumption [not the best of basis!] that there is ample sophistication there to deal with the specs.
The risk of using novice or inexperienced personnel lies, I feel , with the Contractor, and is not the measure we should use in writing our specs. We can establish a proper and acceptable [and understandable] level for the majority of "readers"-- but some may have to raise to that level.
Here, education, at an early interval, is a necessity [like well prior to CDT]
"We must learn to walk before we run"
- Anon [or I just made it up] |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 389
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 02:06 pm: | |
Unfortunately, we may wind up writing for an attorney trying his/her first case in construction litigation or (better or worse?) for a juror who knows nothing of construction.
I guess if you write it for the informed, experienced contractor, maybe you can avoid the others. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 02:29 pm: | |
Well, perhaps it has been a "crap shoot"all these years!
But also, it may be that our collective specifications have met the challenge and hence the relatively low level of construction litigiation-- over technical specifications.
The whole of the process, I would think, has always relied on the knowledge, sophistication and expertise of the Contractor-- whomever! Unfortunately, even the GC who's total expertise is a pickup truck, a claw hammer, and a deep bed wheel-barrow. |
Mark Gilligan SE, CSI
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 256
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 02:48 pm: | |
You can never write for everybody. Somebody will interpret the documents in some way that is totally wierd.
What you can do is follow good practice as defined by a professional organization such as CSI. This will minimize confusion and make it possible to defend what has been done. Will this guarantee no problems? No but it is the best overall strategy. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 214
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 03:22 pm: | |
There is also a "5th C" that comes into play here: Consistent.
The decision to include or not include something like the following in each of your spec sections is one thing:
"Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 1 Specification Sections, apply to this Section."
But to have it in some sections, but not others (often when bringing together spec sections by multiple parties) is where we open ourselves up to problems. |
Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 01, 2010 - 06:03 pm: | |
The "Summary; Section Includes" format does not imply scope of work. It just gets you oriented, e.g. does EARTHWORK Section cover buildings, roads, rough and finish grading, trenching, topsoil, termite control or do you read elsewhere.
Having written specs for certain public works, I understand all the reasons mentioned above. however when I have to run cost estimates on projects with project manuals in that format I found it annoying, and at times impossible, to tell what a section of a specification intends to cover without digesting every word.
It is one thing to say the Contractor has six months to read the Project Manual while he builds a project; it is another to say the Owner should pay a hefty premium because the specs or drawings are not easy to digest. |
|
4specs.com Home Page
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page