| Author |
Message |
Steve Taylor
Senior Member
Username: steveatwi
Post Number: 51
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 02:57 pm: |    |
Woodwork Institute is introducing a new program for installation of casework in California that requires attachment to meet seismic requirements. The program is similar to our Certified Compliance Program, but it requires installation to be according to methods Woodwork Institute has gotten approved by the Department of the State Architect and OSHPD.
My question is, should I specify it under Quality Assurance (which is where our other programs are) or Administrative Requirements? |
Gerard Sanchis
Senior Member
Username: gerard_sanchis
Post Number: 73
Registered: 10-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 06:16 pm: | |
Actually I believe that part of the text that you sent me belong in Part 3 of the Section under the FIELD QUALITY CONTROL Article which includes field tests and inspections. I think the document will have to be divided between QUALITY ASSURANCE in Part 1 and Part 3.
I'd like to hear what the other contributors to 4specs - those who work in California and adjacent states - have to say on the subject. |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 506
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 07:07 pm: | |
Steve, Could you please send me the text as well and I'll provide some additional feedback.
richard.matteo@stvinc.com |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 257
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 09:00 pm: | |
Steve, we require various systems to be submitted as delegated design to meet seismic, such as ceiling systems and lab casework, when required by Code.
Your program is a welcome addition.
It would seem to me that the performance requirements belong in Part 2 per the current SectionFormat (used to be Part 1) but your program could belong in Part 1 under Quality Assurance. If the Specifier wants to include a list of Approved Installers, that could go in Part 3. As Gerard points out, resultant Field QC would also be a Part 3 Article, presuming there is some means of testing or confirming that the work is compliant.
I'd love to see a copy of what you've put together. Please send to khercenberg@payette.com. |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1266
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 12:26 pm: | |
Steve: same with me (I would like to see content also)
anne_whitacre@gensler.com
thanks |
Steve Taylor
Senior Member
Username: steveatwi
Post Number: 52
Registered: 07-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 01:09 pm: | |
Gerard, Richard, Ken, and Anne,
Thank you for your interest. I've sent a copy of my draft guide spec, and a copy of the brochure for the program. I would appreciate your suggestions.
Steve |
Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 02:26 pm: | |
Steve,
Please send me copies, too. We frequently do work in California.
Lynn
ljavoroski@flad.com |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 343
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 02:38 pm: | |
Steve,
I would greatly appreciate a copy too. The great majority of our work is healthcare, and the rest university, and of that, most is in California.
Steven
steven.bruneel@stantec.com |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wayne_yancey
Post Number: 527
Registered: 01-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2012 - 04:00 pm: | |
Me 7
wayne.yancey@callison.com |
4specs.com Home Page