| Author |
Message |
Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: presbspec
Post Number: 253
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 10:00 pm: |    |
Last week I received an interesting request for help from a design/build contractor in my area.
He was in the process of completing the estimate for his project when he realized that the civil engineer supplying the specification sections for the water/sewerage utility work (ie outside the 5 foot line of the building) had used sections from Div 22 instead of Div 33.
He was most concerned because the Utility sub was pricing his work out of Div 33 ignoring 22 and the Plumbing sub was only including the water and waste inside the building. This was an issue he had come up against on a previous project many years ago. Upon being questioned, the Civil Engineer informed my friend that he only used those sections available to him from MasterSpec and as far as he (Civil engineer) was concerned if MasterSpec said that was where it belonged he was not going to change it.
I did some research and made some recommendations to remedy the situation: Change the numbers and titles to the correct MasterFormat numbers, provided the sections in question are properly written to describe the work results needed to supply the utilities to the building.
In doing my research to understand why this engineer mis-numbered his sections, I believe the following has occurred:
MasterSpec as currently offered, is directed predominately to the Architectural community dealing solely with the building itself. SpecText also owned by ARCOM, is being positioned to address the engineering disciplines and specifically the infrastructure subgroup of the Project manual dealing with the site (ie outside the 5 foot line) dealing with paving, earth work, and utilities to the building as well as the Process Equipment Subgroup (Div 40-49). This Engineer was using MasterSpec which places the Utility water and waste piping squarely in Div 22 and only have a common work results (33 05 00)for utilities.
Yes, if it is in the Project Manual it is included in the project and the A/E is not responsible for designating trade scope of work. That is the Contractor's responsibility. However as my friend stated this afternoon; we need to encourage some action/push from CSI to get work results assigned to their proper MF numbers in the commercial guides that are provided by ARCOM and other Specification master systems. We advocate MasterFormat as a way of identifying where information is located in the project documentation. As people learn it correctly, when a system like MasterSpec uses it incorrectly there becomes a major disconnect.
I realize this is a long post, but my friend asked me to get the awareness of this issue out to my fellow specifiers to be on the lookout when working with your consultant engineers. |
Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 02:06 pm: | |
Thanks, Margaret. (I'm always on the lookout when working with consultant engineers)
Seriously, MasterSpec has MEP packages. The consultant engineers I've worked with use them. MasterSpec mentions Earthwork, Exterior Improvements, and Utilities, are included in their Engineering specifications. Maybe this Civil Engineer purchased the wrong package? |
Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: presbspec
Post Number: 254
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 02:35 pm: | |
I don't believe so Lynn. I've checked the MasterSpec Comprehensive Table of Contents, which should include all of the sections offered. It lists the utility (facility) water and waste work for outside the building in Div 22.
I'd like to get a read on this from you guys affiliated with ARCOM. My Contractor friend seems to feel this situation can be a real boondoggle for many plumbing subcontractors and can cause a lot of issues in the field if not ID'ed or addressed in the CD development phase. |
Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 02:49 pm: | |
Hmmm. on Arcom's website, it lists the following:
"Engineering Specification Library:
Over 500 Premium, Professional or Outline specification sections in the most current version of MasterFormat™.
A complete engineering specification library for building projects, includes sections that cover Structural, Site Civil, Fire Suppression, Plumbing, HVAC, Electrical, Communications, and Electronic Safety and Security work.
MasterSpec is exclusively endorsed by the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), and the National Association of Professional Engineers (NSPE).
- See more at: http://www.masterspec.com/engineering_specification_library.aspx#sthash.WDlxoDgf.dpuf"
And they have a sample section, "Sample Sections - 223200 Domestic Water Filtration Equipment", which is not included in our Architectural package. |
Michael Heinsdorf, P.E.
Senior Member
Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe
Post Number: 16
Registered: 01-2014
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 04:08 pm: | |
As a former consulting engineer and current MasterSpec specwriter, I'm not surprised to hear about Margaret's issue. Many engineers have no idea what MasterFormat is, let alone the theory behind it, and try to cram as much as they can into a single specification section in broad, yet specific language. There are many reasons for this, the main reason being education. Whether it is the engineering firms, MasterSpec, BSD, CSI, NSPE: there is a distinct lack of knowledge being passed on to those who practice traditional consulting engineering and bad habits start. That's when people like Margaret prove their worth.
Lynn pulled the correct statement off our website regarding how the specifications are meant to be used. MasterSpec (owned by the AIA) is focused on buildings. SpecText is owned by ARCOM and is positioned as an infrastructure product. That exhausts my knowledge of SpecText.
MasterSpec sections that are included in the Site Civil libraries are very basic. The MEP packages are focused on building systems. Any work in Division 26 that sounds like it could be used for site civil work, such as "Underground Ducts and Conduits" is meant to be used for connecting services or perhaps a small campus. It would need modification to be used for medium voltage distribution (reinforcement, better concrete encasement, lifts and compaction when covering up the duct, an accompanying manhole specification) that would be seen on a large civil project. And I think that's generally true for MasterSpec. The section could be modified in Word in a couple hours to be acceptable for a site civil project.
The Architectural package would not include Domestic Water Filtration. That section is included in the engineering library. While some sections in Division 22, 23, 26, and 28 are included in the Architectural package, they are very basic.
Feel free to drop any questions my way, either on 4specs or at mheinsdorf at arcomnet dot com, and I'll do my best to answer. |
Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: tony_wolf
Post Number: 64
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 04:25 pm: | |
Arcom's poorly-published plan to have completely different products for buildings and infrastructure seems to not make much sense. |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1230
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 04:32 pm: | |
When MasterFormat uses the term "Facility" in a title, it refers to systems within or under the facility and not site-related systems. If the materials are the same for both site and facility, there is no need to repeat requirements in two separate sections. This will require coordination between the civil and mechanical engineer (if they can talk with each other to determine where the two systems meet, they can talk with each other regarding specifications).
If the facility and site systems use different materials, then Division 22 should be for the facility systems and Division 33 for site systems. If this is the case, then the civil engineer was lazy. It's not that difficult to change a section's title and number and any cross references to other sections. As a civil engineer, he/she knows they will be specifying site utilities, so they only need to do this once for their in-house masters.
Now, with that said, I agree that something could be done by the master guide specifications companies to clarify how to use their masters for situations such as this. MasterSpec does provide, as Margaret points out, a Section 33 05 00 "Common Work Results for Utilities," which provides common work for piped utilities. The installation of piped utilities is pretty much predicated on the type of material being installed and not the type of line being installed (e.g. water, sewer, fire protection, etc.)--if there are differences, the requirements could easily be added to the section text.
If the material (and installation) requirements for site utiliites are not any different than what is required for the facility in Division 22, then the Division 22 sections could suffice. However, if the keynoting was done according to the UDS and used the Division 22 numbers for annotating the site utilities, then this discussion would not be happening.
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: mking
Post Number: 18
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 27, 2014 - 05:53 pm: | |
Many people incorrectly believe that the subject matter formerly in Division 2 of MasterFormat 1995 all moved to Division 33. This misunderstanding has its roots in the continued believe that "location of the Work" is a criterion for the classification numbering scheme of MasterFormat 2004 and beyond. The criterion of "location" was eliminated in the 2004 edition.
In MasterFormat 1995 and earlier, "location of work" was a classification criterion. So, mechanical and electrical services LOCATED inside the building were specified in Divisions 15 and 16. Services LOCATED outside the building were specified in Division 2. Some used the magically, imaginary line "5 feet outside the building." MasterSpec always used the building line, where materials and installation requirements truly changed. This avoided specifying differing materials and installation requirements from the building to the "5-foot line," and those within the building all in the Division 15 section. if those requirements extended to the "5-foot line.". MasterSpec simply specified systems (i.e. domestic water piping) inside the building and systems outside the building in two separate sections---the demising point being the basement wall or floor or foundation wherever the entry occurred. In the MF95 scheme, these two sections were one in Divisions 2 and one in Division 15. When MasterFormat was updated and expanded in 2004, the "Location" criterion was deleted. MasterFormat was expanded to include a subgroup of divisions in the 30s for "Site and Infrastructure." Within this subgroup was Division 33 - Utilities.
There are several schools of thought related to what goes in Division 33 and Division 22. Some believe that all services outside the building should go in Division 33, thereby retaining the old criterion. In the "Explanation" column of MasterFormat for Section 33 10 00 – Water Utilities says "Includes: water distribution for domestic consumption, firefighting, and irrigation for a facility site and for multiple facilities." For Section 33 11 00 – Water Utility Distribution Piping, the Explanation says "Includes: water distribution piping for a facility site and for multiple facilities". The "Explanation" for Section 22 11 00 – Facility Water Distribution says: "Includes: piping, equipment, valves, and specialties associated with domestic water distribution within and under the building. May Include: water service from the structure to the utility water service line." These explanations support both schools of thought for application of the numbers.
Another school of thought to determine what to specify in Division 22 rather than 33 is that "ownership" (public utilities versus private services) should be the guiding principle. This approach says that the work results that are part of the building project, whether inside or outside of the building are governed by building (in this case, plumbing) codes; while public utilities are not governed by plumbing codes. Public utilities usually have more robust material and installation requirements and so the work results (materials and installation requirements) are considerably different and require different permits and licenses. So, following this school of thought public utility services (piping and wired services) are specified in Division 33; and private services are specified in Division 22. The handoff point becoming the meter (if one exists) or the connection to the public utility, wherever that occurs. The handoff can occur in the street, on the site, or inside the building (wherever the meter is located). Usually everything on the house side of the meter is governed by building codes and is specified in Division 22 and everything on the street side of the meter is in Division 33 (or at the connection-tapping-of the public service). The major exception is storm water piping, which can often not be connected to public or private services.
The CSI MasterFormat allows both implementations.
ARCOM, in producing MasterSpec© and implementing the principles of CSI MasterFormat, chose the latter implementation approach. However, we recognize that design professions often prefer to have inside and outside services in separate sections. So, MasterSpec has two sections for water distribution: Section 221113 – Facility Water Distribution Piping (outside); and 221116 – Domestic Water Piping (inside). Materials and installation requirements in this section are written to comply with the International Plumbing Code. The handoff between these two sections is the building exterior wall.
ARCOM advocates that services serving multiple sites and buildings, such as on a college campus or a hospital campus or a military installation would be specified in Division 33. From the connection to those services or at a meter, the content would be covered in Division 22. Public utilities, of course, would be specified in Division 33.
If you are obligated by your client to specify outside services in Division 33, use Section 221113 and change the number and title. However, one word of caution: you will also need to search the sections in your project specification to change cross references in several other sections that refer to Section 221113 and change the numbers and titles wherever they occur as well.
When ARCOM acquired Spectext we began to expand on infrastructure and have pretty much left the existing organization structure as it was. It was create by those who had a slightly different opinion on how to organize, but still complies with the principles of MasterFormat.
Tell the civil engineer I owe him a beer for sticking with MasterSpec ;0) |
Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: tony_wolf
Post Number: 65
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 09:01 am: | |
Where are these explanations in the documentation or on the website? Am I the only one who has found this to be new information? This should be highlighted in the descriptions of the Site/Civil and Comprehensive Libraries. I don't believe this is good service or clear communication. |
Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: mking
Post Number: 19
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 02:37 pm: | |
Tony, is your question "where are these explanations . . " referring to MasterFormat or MasterSpec?
In MasterFormat they are in the printed and PDF versions of the publication, explanation column and in the Numbers and Titles tab on MasterFormat.com.
In MasterSpec, they are in the TOC "Description" column and in the Summary page.
However, in none of these publications and or documents is there sufficient room to include the detail I presented above. |
Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: mking
Post Number: 20
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 02:49 pm: | |
Tony, if your question is about my discussion "location" no longer being a criterion for assigning section numbers, that can only be found in the correspondence and minutes of the deliberations, symposia, and workshops of the MasterFormat Expansion Task Team leading up to the publication of the 2004 Edition. It was not put into the Application Guide of the publication. To have done so along with all they other nuances and decisions (i.e. why was Division 15 split into three divisions and Division 16 split into three divisions) would take a separate, LARGER, publication. |
Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: tony_wolf
Post Number: 66
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 03:32 pm: | |
When I look at MF04, I see separate numbers for 333100 Sanitary Utility Sewerage Piping, and 221316 Sanitary Waste and Vent Piping.
In the Comprehensive TOC, I see only 221316 Sanitary Waste and Vent Piping. In the Summary for that section: “Section specifies soil and waste sanitary drainage piping and vent piping inside the building.” I don’t know what the Summary for 333100 says, since it doesn’t exist.
Your response requires users to study the documents to find out what’s missing. Considering the rather radical change in MF04, I am disappointed.
I, and I believe others, expect Arcom to provide a service that includes explanations and suggestions for using the libraries to obtain the best results [and Arcom usually does this]. I don’t believe that was done in this case, and I hope that you don’t believe it. You gave a brief explanation in one page, so I don’t think that the publication size is a good defense. Given your direct knowledge of MF04 development, the discussion we find ourselves in is evidence enough that Arcom could have done more to alert its subscribers to the approach it took, so we could avoid learning the hard way.
I hope that Arcom will provide means to readily meld consultants’ Arcom Spectext sections with Arcom subscribers’ MasterSpec sections. Here is another situation where future problems can be anticipated, and addressed proactively. |
Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: presbspec
Post Number: 255
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 04:34 pm: | |
Thank you Tony!
As my construction colleague who raised this question initially stated, it is an issue that affects the subcontractors who are establishing their scope of work when developing a bid to a contractor. If they are not fully aware of a possible problem with the location of the specification information, they will not price the job correctly, and the issue snowballs from there, affecting the entire project team.
The idea of the change with MasterFormat04 as I understood it, was to provide a comprehensive means of finding the information in the project manual, the estimating table, and other documentation dealing with the project. To lump the Utility water and waste in with the Facility water and waste when there is a difference in method, and some material between the two is a disservice to the contracting portion of the Project Team. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 784
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, June 30, 2014 - 07:37 pm: | |
Michael, I have never encountered a plumbing engineer who was willing to design the services outside of the building line. This is always the purview of the civil or site utility designer and always requires a separate set of Sections. If, in fact, MF Task Team intended for site utilities to be handled by Division 22, I can only offer that it was done with a basic misunderstanding of how design intent is commmunicated. While I do not believe that it is for designers to 'scope' the Work based on location of subject matter, I do believe that is our responsibility to clearly communicate our design intent. That is clearly impossible with the current MasterSpec view of specifying. I hope that is corrected soon because I'm frankly tired of issuing Project Manuals that are not Clear. |
Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: mking
Post Number: 21
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 02:38 pm: | |
Tony, I am sorry for your disappointment. It truly is difficult to please everyone. I work with about 18 mechanical and electrical engineers who are power users of MasterSpec and who are heavily involved with specifications. These are rare guys to be sure, but these guys and the many engineering MasterSpec users have not registered the same complaints that you, Margaret, and Ken have.
After all is said, we are specifying work results, not subcontract scopes of work. Just as CSI principles and AIA documents purport, we are mute on work assignment. It follows that we cannot or should not assign specific sections or divisions to particular design disciplines. There is no rule that says a civil engineer cannot write specifications in Division 22; yet we all seem to impose these restrictions.
In writing the work results, we include like materials and installation requirements in the same section and separate them for unlike materials and installation requirements. This is the nature of classification systems in general and MasterFormat specifications organizational structure in particular. |
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard
Post Number: 276
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 01, 2014 - 03:14 pm: | |
If anything, this discussion highlights the poor job we have done in educating the "build" side of the equation in the use of MasterFormat. A large number of requests for explanations I receive seem to fall along the same line, asking how the sections assign the work. Equally frustrating are the "demands" that I include a spec section for every little thing. It is as though the drawings and specs must mutually call out everything or else it is considered omitted. We express concerns (elsewhere in this forum) that designers should be educated in specifications. I think the real need is for bulders to improve their basic knowledge of contract documents. |
|
4specs.com Home Page