Archive through March 04, 2011

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

Author Message Tom Good, architect, CDT, SCIP, LEED AP Senior Member Username: tom_good Post Number: 16 Registered: 11-2006 Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 05:08 am:    NOTE: There was some archived discussion of this in a “Related Sections?” thread at http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2195/298.html last posting 2004 but it is closed. QUESTION: Do you know of any standard requirements to include Section numbers with the references to other Sections or Work in individual Specification Sections? By “standard requirements” I mean requirements by or in one of the following or similar: • “Project Resource Manual” or other publications by the Construction Specification’s Institute • “Architect's Handbook of Professional Practice” or other publications by the American Institute of Architects • “Construction Checklists: A Guide to Frequently Encountered Construction Issues” or other publications by the American Bar Association • Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee • Design-Build Institute of America • ConsensusDOCS WHY DO I ASK? I am an independent specification consultant and write architectural specifications for AIA document using Architects. Recently an Architect asked me to help on a federal government project which had to following provision for the preparation of specifications: “The Contractor [Architect in this case] shall be responsible for coordinating references, along with the technical requirements, to specific specification sections (number and title) within the project specifications. Section references (title and number) shall be revised to reflect the titles and numbers of specification sections used.” THIS WAS MY RESPONSE: In each Specification Section, the spec consultant [that’s me] normally makes reference to requirements related to other portions of the Contract Documents by listing related requirements in the RELATED REQUIREMENTS Article (per current CSI SectionFormat) and referring to this requirement in the body of the Specification. For example “Glass Glazing” [the name of another Section] may be listed in the RELATED REQUIREMENTS Article and a sentence referring to this requirement in the same Section may read: “Door: Extruded aluminum sash with glass as required for glazing indicated elsewhere.” Since the reference is coordinated but is not made to specific Specification Sections by number, this should comply with the government’s requirement. Of course, the spec consultant cannot be responsible for references made by other consultants and authors of other Sections who may make erroneous or uncoordinated reference to specific Specification Sections by number.” REASONS: To back up this procedure not to use Section numbers, I pointed out the following points I felt were good reasons NOT to list referenced Sections by number: 1. NOT ONLY REQUIREMENT: To include the specific Section Name and Title in the Specification (such as 088100 – Glass Glazing) in the RELATED REQUIREMENTS Article and body of Specification would imply that only that Section (08 81 00) includes the requirements (for glazing), when in fact there may be additional requirements in the General Requirements (such as to storage, VOC content, cleanup, etc. regarding gazing) and other portions of the Contract Documents (such a note on the Drawings as to which doors to glaze or what glass type to use). 2. POTENTIAL ERRORS: To include the specific Section Name and Title in the Specification may lead to errors if the section names or numbers are changed by due to 1) authors using non-standard numbers or MasterFormat level 4 numbers, 2) authors of other sections make unannounced changes, 3) updates to Specification numbering systems unfamiliar to authors, 4) design changes due to scope of work (for instance moving paint from a general painting spec to a exterior painting spec or separating an overhead door spec into coiling overhead doors and sectional overhead doors during design). Example of these errors are exemplified in the Government supplied Specifications which are required to be included verbatim. For two instances instance, Section 00 89 00 – OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS refers to 01 35 29 SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH REQUIREMENTS, a Section not included in the RFP and which may have been changed to 01 35 26 GOVERNMENT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. And Section 01 31 20 QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM (QCS) refers to 01 45 01 QUALITY CONTROL, also a Section not included in the RFP and which may have been changed to 01 45 04 CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL. 3. NOT REQUIRED: Neither the AIA handbook nor the CSI manual require that Section Titles or Numbers be used when referring to other requirements of the Contract Documents. One of the reasons I think that the CSI SectionFormat standard changed the Article name RELATED SECTIONS to RELATED REQUIREMENTS was to address the fact that the Specifications do not contain all the requirements of the Contract Documents. 4. NOT CONSISTENT: Other portions of the Contract Documents do not regularly cite specific Section Titles and Numbers. For instance, a note on a Drawing for a “STRUCTURAL BEAM” or “BEAM – SEE STRUCTURAL” is not written as “BEAM – SEE SECTION 05 12 00 STRUCTURAL STEEL FRAMING”. Also, a note on a drawing to “SEE FINISH SCHEDULE” will not read “SEE FINISH SCHEDULE ON DRAWING SHEET A6.5”. 5. AID TO READERS: CSI SectionFormat also states that the use of this RELATED REQUIREMENTS Article is optional and “inclusion or omission of other Sections does not change the scope of a given Section or of the Contract Documents.” The intent of the RELATED REQUIREMENTS Article is to serve as an aid to the reader and as a reminder of important coordination issues or to identify requirements that a reader might expect to find in the subject Section but are actually elsewhere. Every effort should be made to indicate these important related issues. However, the RELATED REQUIREMENTS Article is not intended as an exhaustive listing of the other portions of the Contract Documents which may have requirements. If this were the case, then virtually the entire Contract Document would have to be enumerated in each Section. 6. APPROPRIATE USE: There may be particular instances where referring to a Specific Section is appropriate. This may be because of ambiguity. For instance, an Interiors Material Product Schedule on a Drawing which lists different types of wood or cabinets may have an indication to a specific Section Title and Number such as 06 22 00 MILLWORK vs 06 26 00 BOARD PANELING (for wood) or 06 41 00 ARCHITECTURAL WOOD CASEWORK vs 12 32 00 MANUFACTURED WOOD CASEWORK (for cabinets) in order to identify what submittal, quality assurance, warranty, or other provisions apply to the product. In these circumstances, the reference is highly coordinated by the design professional. However, such coordination is not normally required for every reference made in the Contract Documents to blanket provisions of other portions of the Contract Documents. That is, specific reference should be made where it is crucial but not as a matter of course. 7. GUIDE SPECS WORK IN A VACUUM: I believe that the reason many design professionals include Section numbers in their Specifications is because they receive them with the numbers from guide spec publishers such as Arcom or BSD. While these publishers are adding value to the editor, their specs are developed in a vacuum where they have complete control of ALL the other Sections and do not have to apply them to real world Projects. As such they do not have to deal with multiple consultants, some of whom may have never have heard of MasterFormat, much less its naming and numbering rules. They also do not have to deal with the differing numbering system from project to project that different consultant firms may use. 8. CDs ARE INTEGRATED: The Contract Documents are an “integrated” (AIA A201.1.1.2) and “complementary” (AIA A 201.1.2.1). It is expected that the reader can reasonably infer where requirements are indicated. To expect cross reference of each requirement of the Contract Document with every other requirement to which it may relate is not “consistent with professional skill and care” of a design professional. Since the CDs are integrated and enumerated, the referencing of other specific other portions of the CDs is provided by the spec author as an aid, not an obligation. 9. WHY?: Finally one has to ask, why use numbering in references to the requirements of other Work? A reader can reasonably be expected to use Document 00 01 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS to determine where to find appropriate requirements of the Contract Documents. This author has not experienced problems with just describing the related requirements in the RELATED REQUIREMENT Article and not using specific Section numbers. Why would a design professional want to take on the added liability of having erroneous numbers in their specs? Hence I asked my first question. Do you know of any standard requirements to include Section numbers with the references to other Sections or Work in individual Specification Sections? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1120 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2011 - 07:34 pm:    I don't think arguing this point is worth the trouble. I personally dont' like to use many references at all, because I like to work on the theory that the entire project manual is addressed to the general contractor and they are responsible for the whole manual. I also think its a pain to include the references and make sure they are all current. BUT -- more than addressing the project manual to the contractor, I see my primary client as the architect who is doing constrution administration and that its my job to make their lives easier. With that in mind, it makes it easier for MY CLIENT to do their job if the references are in place, and therefore its more important to me that I help them than worry about if I'm doing the contractor's job. If I'm going to have arguments with someone, I want to have them over the interpretation of the specs, rather than some admnistrative function. in your case, your client is the ultimately the federal government, and I don't think arguing with them is very useful. Just make sure you have enough in your fee to do the thing they want you to do properly. Ultimately, I think the key to doing niggly things you don't want to do, is to make sure you're getting paid for them, and then hire some admin person to check all your references. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 08:56 am:    Cross referencing by numbers is an inane practice I only do because someone who calls the shots "ask" for it. Have not done it for 20 years, unless I was told to, without a single construction problem, or complaint. Tom Good, architect, CDT, SCIP, LEED AP Senior Member Username: tom_good Post Number: 18 Registered: 11-2006 Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 12:19 pm:    Thanks to above who have responded, but please remember, my question is more "Do you know of AIA, CSI, ABA, AGC, DBIA, EJCDC, etc... requirments or recommendation to use numbers in references to Sections?" Also Anne, I agree it is not worth the trouble to as the goverment. Right now this is just a discussion I am having with my client, the Architect, to make sure they are okay with not numbering references. J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 02:37 pm:    I could be mistaken, but I believe that the PRM discourages cross referencing unless the section containing the cross reference could usually be expected to contain the information specified in another section. I don't cross reference from the door section to the door hardware section, but I may cross reference from the painting section to the high performance coating section. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 134 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 03:50 pm:    SectionFormat under Related Requirements: "Briefly list other documents or sections in the Project Manual that are related to, and/or dependent on, the work results or information specified elsewhere. The list should be limited to documents or sections with specific information that the reader might expect to find in this Section, but is specified elsewhere. For example, if hardware for aluminum entrances is specified in the aluminum entrance section, a cross-reference would be appropriate in the finish hardware section. The purpose of this crossreferencing is for information only, to aid in finding those other requirements—not to define the scope of the section, not to define the scope of contracts or subcontracts, and not to separate work by trade jurisdictions. Cross-referencing here may also be used to coordinate assemblies or systems whose components may span multiple sections and which must meet certain performance requirements as an assembly or system. Examples of some assemblies whose components are commonly specified in two or more sections: Intumescent edge seals on doors or door frames that are required for the door assembly to meet positive pressure requirements of UL 10-C; Fire-rated glazing that must be tested with its frame to provide a listed assembly of a given fire resistance. Coordination of the Work is the duty of the Contractor." I believe the PRM leaves it up to the SectionFormat to discuss how the SectionFormat titles are used. I don't believe either the SectionFormat or the PRM say anything about the form of referencing (Section numbers or not). Have ordered but have not seen the new Practice Gudes yet, but assume that there are not changes on the subject there. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 248 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 05:16 pm:    The paragraph below is from the guide to preparing specifications for Defense Department construction projects. US DoD Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) UFC 1-300-02 UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS (UFGS) FORMAT STANDARD September 2004 Change 4 December 2006 Page 5 2-2.6 CROSS REFERENCES Avoid cross-referencing other specification sections and paragraphs in other sections or paragraphs in the same section. When a section cross-reference is necessary, the format is \2\ Section <SRF>\4\01 23 40/4/</SRF> MISCELLANEOUS. /2/ When necessary to reference paragraphs within the same section, reference by paragraph title, not by paragraph number, e.g., paragraph EQUIPMENT. Note the < > and \ / characters are tags for the SISGML coding that SpecsIntact uses to verify the enclosed reference matches what is in the project database. They don't want you to reference every section that may have a tenuous connection to the work of the section you are preparing, but if you refer to another section it must be according to the tagging protocol so that the reference is validated when the project is processed. So, even the Federal Government advises against unnecessary cross referencing. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 389 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 - 06:53 pm:    We have a project in the Middle East, and agreed with the architect and owner's peer reviewer to preface each cross-reference paragraph with the wording "Related Sections include, but are not limited to, the following. This paragraph cross-references requirements a reader might expect to find in this Section but are specified in another section. It is not intended to be, and shall not be interpreted as, a listing of every other section that has a relationship to this Section." Yes, this goes against every principle I've ever learned about specifying, and all that is good and holy in CSI doctrine. But ya have to pick your battles. Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 79 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 - 03:55 pm:    The latest updaes of Arcom Masterspec have reverted to referencing by specific spec no. - in lieu of referencing to the "Division". Reference to "Divison 8 Glazing" has been revised to cross-reference to Section 088000 Glazing which takes a lttle more time to check and coordianate when you are editing and adding related documents of your own. I assume that the hidden reason for this is either BIM linking or making it easier for electronic specs to pick-up and link sections. It does increase the chance of errror and it does take a lttle more time to make sure everything is coordinated. Just sent Arcom a complaint for reverting to the way this was handled some years ago. Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 278 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2011 - 08:24 am:    I deal with this problem constantly when working with structural, MEP, and most other consultants who seem to think it’s necessary to refer to various Division 01 sections by name and number. It never fails that I get specs they refer to section 013000, 013100, as well as 013323 when talking about submittals. I use 013300 Submittal Procedures so all of the other references are incorrect. I encourage all of our consultants to simply refer to “Division 01” for all such references since that will never be wrong. Here’s a thought: How about deleting all the other common references under the Related Work article and include Only: 00 01 10 Table Of Contents Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 25 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 11:02 am:    I avoid referring to exact section number or name. "See Division 08 for glass and glazing requirements" is just as helpful as "See Division 08 Glass and Glazing section" and avoids potential error. MasterSpec's title is now "Glazing," but the chances are good that will change sometime in the future, based on MS history. A statement in Division 01 states the purpose of references as user convenience, not intended to be exhaustive, and that incorrect references are not material to the contract. I once saw a Division 01 section that contained and coordinated the related sections statements, to eliminate them from the sections. I like that idea, but never acted on it. Gerard Sanchis Senior Member Username: gerard_sanchis Post Number: 15 Registered: 10-2009 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2011 - 09:19 am:    I love discord, as in the opinions above. I follow the KISS principle and either do not use the references, or I keep them to a minimum. Personally I wish we'd do away with "Related Requirements" altogether. I find the practice of referencing not only the Section number but also its title fraught with possibilities for errors which those reviewers who need to justify their salaries will pounce upon. J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2011 - 10:10 am:    I am about to start on a project where the owner does its own general contracting. Am not sure how much of Division 01 to include (not sure what the responsibilities of the architect of record are), but since they clearly intend to physically break up the specs for their subcontracts, I am thinking that whatever Division 01 I develop needs to to be clearly incorporated by reference into each section. This is the first project I have done in a long time where I am developing strong feelings on this matter. I probably will do more cross referencing than usual, but I intend to use the "Division XX Section '<insert section title>'" convention rather than specific section numbers. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1212 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2011 - 10:28 am:    Consider publishing Division 01 as a separate entity. That might make it more convenient for distribution if the project manual is physically broken up. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 26 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2011 - 03:17 pm:    I think a limited list of related sections makes the specs more user friendly, and that is a good thing for spec use and successful projects. Why should a user have to guess where to look for something s/he expects to find in the section at hand? Even though one can argue that 'everything in the project is related to every other thing,' it's clear that some are more related than others. The problem is that "Related Requirements" sounds definitive, or someone can claim that was her/his interpretation. Change it to "Some Related Sections" or add words stating that the list is not exhaustive. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 04, 2011 - 08:35 am:    If you have to play General Contractor, telling the trades what the section "does not cover" in a manner specific to the project can be very important. e.g. If base plate grout is in the steel framing section, referencing "Grout for equipment base plates" as not specified in that section is important; you do not want a trade to use non metallic for a pump when they need metallic. On the other hand if framing base plate grout is specified in concrete, it is nice, but not necessary, to say so. The subcontractor's estimator will find it, if he wants to. Referencing Section 09 31 00 - Tile Grout in Structural Steel is just insulting to anyone in the trades.