Div 00 page formatting different than...

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

Author Message Lee Orosco New member Username: leeorosco Post Number: 1 Registered: 07-2010 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 01:57 pm:    PageFormat enhances the readability of specification sections, makes modifying a section easier, and brings visual uniformity to the specification page. I am working with an Owner whose adaptation of CSI PageFormat for Div 00 is different from the rest of the sections. Different fonts, margins, paragraph numbering, etc. Their reasoning is that Div 00 documents are different from Div 01-49 so they should look different. QUESTION: Have you seen this approach? What would you recommend? Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 391 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 02:23 pm:    Sometimes, due to the documents (i.e General & Supplementary Conditions), it isn't always possible to format them exactly, but I do try to maintain the same headers, footers, margins, and page numbering as the rest of the specifications. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 418 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 02:25 pm:    I've had the same problem, with owners and with consultants. It's a great opportunity to do a little proselytizing, but you have to pick your battles. I try to convince them to change, but at some point let it go. No sense getting them upset over something that, in truth, doesn't really affect communication. Assuming, of course, that they're not using 7 point font and 1/4 inch margins, or bold uppercase... Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 868 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 02:26 pm:    In my opinion, Division 00 are inherently different in formatting than that used for sections in Divisions 01 through 49. Take the general conditions, for example. If standard AIA documents are used, there is no way to reformat the documents to conform to PageFormat. Only a very few documents I use conform to PageFormat. Also, Pageformat specifically states in the first paragraph under "Using PageFormat" that it "provides an orderly, uniform arrangment of text for each page of a specification section." Since Division 00 documents are not specification sections, PageFormat is not intended to format those documents. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 345 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 03:07 pm:    Lee, As nice as it may appear to have everything look like it came from one source, as long as the documents are clear, concise, coordinated and correct, I would not worry. I struggle with this on many projects and I now fight the fights worth fighting and I can win. Move on. The client is always correct. Make *.dot templates for this clients documents for future use. Headers and footers can look the same with the same correct information. If you are trying to win the CSI spec competition, if it still exists, ignore my comments. Wayne Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 244 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 03:21 pm:    Many of our clients provide their own DIV 00 and 01 and I only see it long past when I should in PDF format. If your client is at least using MasterFormat 2004 with 6 digits, you should count your blessings. I become very cross if they are still using MasterFormat 1995. I currently have two projects at a world class university (Go Cardinals) where the latest revision I can find in the template documents they provided is dated 1999. Most of our projects are big enough that DIV 00 and 01 become a seperate volume and after my initial review and coordination of an Owner's front end I may never look at it again. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 869 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 03:34 pm:    If I'm given the Division 00 documents to incorporate into a project manual, sometimes (as time permits) I would create a "cover sheet" for each document in the PageFormat format. This cover sheet would provide, as applicable, the document title, form number, a disclaimer (e.g. for geotechnical reports), date, and number of pages. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 870 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 03:46 pm:    To add to my post above, this works great when the names or titles of the documents in Division 00 do not exactly match those used in MasterFormat. Therefore, if the project manual's table of contents states "00 62 00 Certificates and Other Forms," the cover sheet would list the documents by their exact title, form number, and number of pages, and list them in the order they are inserted in the project manual. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Lee Orosco Junior Member Username: leeorosco Post Number: 2 Registered: 07-2010 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 04:37 pm:    Wonderful discussion. I really appreciate your thoughtful feedback. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS SCIP LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 240 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Monday, July 19, 2010 - 05:09 pm:    It doesn't bother me if someone provides some of the front end documents in a nonconforming format, unless they want to provide legal-size documents or use colored paper. When that happens, I try to issue them as separate documents and insert a properly formatted placeholder page to direct attention to the odd document. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 979 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 12:37 pm:    I'm the same as Rick on this; and sometimes I advise the Owner to issue their front end documents in a separate volume -- that way they can change all they want, and don't have to interfere with my project deadline. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1076 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 12:56 pm:    Amen to that, Anne. As long as there are no conflicts, and I'll have reviewed for that, I'm more than willing to let someone else have the responsibility for the front end. Issuing in a separate volume more clearly indicates that separation. And if in a separate volume, nothing else is required - no placeholder page, no cover sheet. Volume 1 is divorced from the rest of the manual. It can be pink and green if it wants to. (Those are the colors used by some Owners in my area of the country for Divisions 00 and 01) David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 101 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 02:46 pm:    It seems the CMs are taking over Divisions 00 and 01. I rarely see the Division 00 documents since they are inserted in the bid sets at the last minute. The CM represents the owner, so there is nothing much the design professional or specifier can do. Most of the time, they develop the front end for the subs to bid the project, and they are just included with the Project Manuals. I do try to determine the content for the Table, but most of the time I end up including the statements: PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS Bidding and Contracting Requirements (Issued Separately) CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS General Conditions of the Argeement (Issued Separately) It's a pain when the CMs provide a selecton of Division 01 Sections that don't conform to anything resembling a section. They violate all the basic specifying principles, but that's another frustrating issue. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 445 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 09:13 pm:    Wait just a minute while I change into my "Is anal retentive hyphenated?" specifier's t-shirt. There. Now: Division 00 documents are the owner's documents. They can be pink Comic sans serif font if the owner wants them to be. If a contractor is crazy enough to sign on for some of the one-sided contract requirements I've read in owner's custom documents, well, god bless them. I do, however, care about owners and CMs interfering with the professional practice of architecture, which is what happens when architects surrender control of Division 01. Division 01 requirements by definition apply to the work results in all Division 02 - 49 specification sections. The technical sections we write depend on definitions, administrative processes, and procedures that are spelled out in Division 01. The Quality Requirements, Product Requirements, and Execution Requirements sections speak specifically to the practice of architecture as defined by state licensure statutes. Certain aspects speak directly to code requirements that design professionals carry responsibility for. The content of Division 01 sections is far more important than what they look like on a page. Unless the owner or the CM are providing an architectural seal on the Division 01 documents, and are not requiring the architect to certify payment applications, they should negotiate their content with the architect responsible for them, or the architect should require they be issued in a separate volume, and charge for services required to coordinate them during the CA phase. So I don't mix up the definitions of Division 00 documents and Division 01 General Requirements sections as belonging to a poorly defined "Front End." There is a BIG difference between the content of the two divisions, and as specifiers we shouldn't sit passively by and let others confuse them. Instead, we should promote responsible treatment of Division 01 documents by insisting they be prepared by design professionals and by coordinating their content between Division 00 documents (however odorous) and the specifications we prepare. End of sermon. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 419 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 12:01 am:    Amen. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 432 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 09:32 am:    Fought that battle and lost... Lost to a set of Division 01 documents that contained requirements for submittal of Diazo prints and transparencies on polyester film. When I told the people in charge that their requirements were unenforceable, they said that it was their standard and my concerns didn't really matter. Oh, well; and good luck getting those transparencies. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 79 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 09:53 am:    Phil, Can I send your sermon directly to the Architect who told me (this week), 3 days before the final deadline, that the Owner's representative would write Division 00 and 01? I did tell her that it is too late for me to coordinate the technical sections with the Owner's rep work. I'm sure he won't make the deadline, but I will. I should remind her that her firm's construction administration will take longer and cost more too. Oh, and the Owner wants to be LEED certified, good luck with that. And, no, we're not giving back the fee for the Division 01 that I had already prepared. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 80 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 09:58 am:    I've recently had a large retail client replace my clear and streamlined Division 01 with their own documents which contradict each other all over the place. I don't know how they get anything built, unless everyone ignores it anyway. I think this happens much more often than I know about. The Owner or CM walks into the preconstruction meeting and drops their new and improved front end on the table. I do the best I can with the information I have available and try not to worry about the rest. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 346 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 10:25 am:    I agree in principal with Phil but David's scenario is more common than most realize. CM's gain control of Div 01 early during negotiation with Owner and the Architect never regains control and in most cases (as with one national GC/CM) never see the documents to coordinate. For our risk management, we produce our own 4C's Div 01 regardless of what the GC/CM is going to do. We issue our 4C's Div 01 to the GC/CM for review and comment with a drop dead date for reply. The typical reply is "yes we will and on time" but in reality "the check is in the mail." On other projects, we have split the contents of Div 01 with the GC/CM. For these projects, the table of contents becomes a spreadsheet with columns for a responsibility matrix. And finaly, DAMN this is a good forum. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 546 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 11:59 am:    A few years ago, there was a great seminar on, among other things, the division of Division 01. The point the speaker (Phil) made was that Division 01 needs input from and coordination among A/E, Contractor, and Owner. So, I don't mind sharing Division 01, as long as we keep control of those things that "speak specifically to the practice of architecture", or the "Quality Requirements, Product Requirements, and Execution Requirements sections..." On the other hand, do we really care about Temporary Controls and Facilities? Other than our paved covered parking space at the jobsite trailer and six-pack of cold beer in fridge...let the Owner and Contractor work the rest of it out. Do we really care about Payment Procedures, beyond what form is used and when we need to show up to certify it? A major part of Summary is Owner restrictions and requirements. Demonstration and Training, why do we care about that? So, shared Division 01 is not onerous to me. What is unacceptable is not having at least those sections that relate to our CA responsibility, and to quality, product, and execution, and those sections that have general information relating to Divisions 02 onward. I include those Division 01 sections even when the C/M or Contractor "owns" Division 01 because without them, we cannot do our job as A/E. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 420 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 01:24 pm:    No problem with shared Division 01 here, either. For CM and negotiated contracts, it would be difficult to produce meaningful specifications without input. As George notes, there are a few sections a specifier should care very much about, as the remainder of the sections rely on what's in them. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 871 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 01:39 pm:    That brings up another animal called Design-Build. When I prepared a fee proposal for one project, I had all the Division 01 sections included. Then I found out it was a D-B project. My estimated Division 01 count went from 19 to 5. I only needed to cover those sections that affected product requirements, quality control and assurance, submittals, and substitutions. Everything else regarding owner-contractor requirements should have been covered in the D-B agreement. Even if they weren't covered, it's not a concern of the architect--or the specifier. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 447 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 10:02 pm:    Shared Div 01 - absolutely. George, and Sheldon and Ron, are correct. As specifiers we can often help with the project management portions of Div 01, but we need to give our architects shots of the appropriate hormones when it comes to those crucial components that control the practice of architecture: quality, products, and execution. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 980 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 01:16 pm:    agree with Phil on this one - -for the Owner-issued "front end" I should have said "Bidding Documents". I see Division 1 as the architect's bullet-resistant vest and tailor it to the architect's needs. This was taught to me at my last office, where I was very sternly informed that the Owner could change the contract requirements with the contractor all they wanted and we needed documents to protect OUR interest in the project. Karen L. Zaterman, CCS, LEED-AP, SCIP Senior Member Username: kittiz Post Number: 65 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2010 - 12:23 pm:    I also agree with Phil... we typically work with Owner-issued Div.00 and 01 and actually will match our format to whatever their hearts desire. It's never occurred to me to use PageFormat for Div.00 -- our client/owners have their own requirements for format so even the rest of the Divisions will not conform to PageFormat. I use PageFormat, SectionFormat, and yes, even MasterFormat as guides -- not Bibles. I guess I'm lucky I haven't had to deal with the CM problems described here. That would drive me nuts. I'm too used to writing in coordination with the owner's "front end."