I am always fighting with the architects in my office who want to assign work to specific spec sections. For example “make sure that the snow guards and fall protection are in the roofing spec rather than stand alone because we want the roofer to do that work”.
I know that nothing is cut and dry but, this run contrary to everything I have learned from CSI where we do not assign work. I am curious what everyone else is doing with regard to this issue.
I avoid attempts to assign work to specific trades or spec sections, since this is clearly a responsibility of the constructor entity, not the design professional. When coordination or integration of elements of a system are important, I’ll offer to address this in the spec & include cross references to applicable spec sections. I find that my architect clients generally understand this concept when it is explained to them.
Your architect’s logic means that sheet metal flashing should also be in the roofing section..along with sealants for flashings.
I am usually able to convince architects that we explicitly include such in scope/summary of work paragraph of roofing section and also cross-reference other sections for technical requirements for compliance.
You also may want to question your architect that does s/he really want to direct the GC (i.e., assume the responsibility for) division of work/subcontracts?
The AIA General Conditions state that the organization of the specifications do not control the Contractor in dividing the Work among Subcontractors.
That does not mean that the Architect cannot ENCOURAGE the Contractor in how the Work is divided. Including various items of the Work in a spec section is not controlling the division of the Work, it is just making it easier to include all those items in a subcontract rather writing contracts referring to sections with exclusions. That is not assigning the Work.
In my experience, the Contractor will usually agree with how you have included these type of accessory items within basic system sections because he has the same interests in mind. He is looking to have have one party responsible for all the work related to a system - it decreases the number of disputes he has to deal with if there is a problem among the components. He usually likes to have one party responsible for the total system.
Considering I would always have a note in the roof spec something along the line of “…Snow Guards: As specified in Section XX XX XX…”, I can usually convince them it is in that section.
Using a roof accessory as an example here is dicey because the snow guards would need to be installed by the roofer to obtain many roofing warranties.
Plus, what your architects are asking may not even work. I’ve seen contractors create “scope” documents for subcontractors where they selected particular items out of one section to assign to one sub, and other items in the same section to a different sub. If you want to have particular items all by one sub, you have to require it explicitly. I won’t go into why that’s not advised, because I think you all know. It also assumes that the contractor is an idiot and is going to assign work in a way that is going to cause her problems. The odds are pretty high that the snow guards will go to the roofer regardless of how you spec them.
I have to agree with Mr. Johnson in this area. I will often pull out individual accessories and place them directly in the spec section that they are related to. My section 07 6200 includes several different types of sheet metal flashing that could potentially be provided by several different subs. If I have a tiny amount of one material to use I will often break it out and put it in the section that it relates to.
As an example I had a project with column covers, metal siding flashing and a very small amount (about 15’ lineal feet) of prefinished sheet metal counter-flashing on a canopy roof. The rest of the roof was not visible so we simply used a term bar and sealant but at the canopy you would be able to see the term bar so we covered it with a color matched flashing.
By placing this flashing in the roofing section I knew it would get covered by someone. Could the GC have assigned this to the sheet metal contractor, yes. Have I assumed any responsibility for division of work, not at all. If left it in the sheet metal section could it get missed and become an issue,in my experience yes it could and often does.
CSI provides a great service and system for the industry but I still like to apply the “Pirate Code” when writing specs. “They’re more like Guidelines”
You could always include a special warranty condition like a 2-year roofer’s warranty in addition to the manufacturer’s warranty in which you include snow guards and fall protection. The roof manufacturer may not be willing to include it their warranty, but you can include just about anything in a separate Installer warranty. You may not get it, but at least the intent of having single source responsibility is made. At that point, it doesn’t matter where you put the information.
We have upon client request or direction included language across various individual sections requiring the installation and workmanship warranty for roofing related items be provided by a single entity. I suspect we’ll see similar requests if current trends of dividing various elements into multiple narrow scope sections continues as specification library vendors attempt to integrate specifications into BIM.
Scott, it’s almost like you want to use your own thinking and experience to get something done in the best way, rather than comply with a set of one-size-fits-all rules. That’s not the way to win awards. ;-}
Tony: I don’t want to come down to hard on the CSI format. After all I remember years ago attempting to find anything in an old MasterSpec project manual (no outline format, failure to edit out information not related to the project, no rhyme or reason for some items,etc.)
CSI has done great things for the construction industry as a whole. However the problems can (and I emphasize can) start when we view the CSI standards as RULES. They are not rules they are tools. I think we as architects and spec writers can have a tendency to forget this at times.
I do not believe CSI has any recommendations (or rules) concerning the assignment of work to Sections. There is a big difference between assigning work to a section versus assigning work to a subcontractor. The important consideration is what the General Conditions say about assignment of the Work. The AIA General Conditions state that the organization of the specifications do not control the Contractor in dividing the Work among Subcontractors. In other words the Contractor is still has the right to subcontract the work however he wants no matter how the Work is assigned to sections. I am sure that many CSI education programs often point this out, but it is not a CSI recommendation, it comes from the General Conditions.
Maybe we need to define terms, but it seems like MasterFormat is about assigning work [or something very much like it–products and installation] to specific sections. I thought Scott was describing how he varied from MF when he thought it was better to do so.
Scott: I think we’re on the same page, as far as CSI and its standards.
Maybe it would be helpful to remember when we are writing specifications that we are describing “work results.”
OK, how should I know which subcontractor or trade “results” the work according to CSI standards?
Moving from the general back to the specific: In the case of incorporating snow control devices in a roofing section and in particular in wrapping them into a manufacturer’s warranty: these little items come with a fairly hefty product insurance price tag due to the occasional burying of pedestrians suffering from bad timing. Roofing manufacturers may want snow guards out of their warranty, out of the section, and perhaps installed sometime after they’ve left town.
In my limited experience with snow guards, the snow guard manufacturer will lay out the pattern for the guards, based on location, roof slope, expected snow load, and things like that. So if that manufacturer holds the responsibility for the distribution, shouldn’t they also be responsible for the installation?
I’ve dealt with this problem lately, but strangely the issue had it’s origins in direction provided by an architect (who I would hope would know better):
“Electric Hand Dryers should be specified in the electrical specs, and shown on the electrical drawings because they are ‘electrical’.” As an aside to this, when I finally convinced a coworker that Electric Hand Dryers should be in Division 10, and not Division 16, his attitude became “oh, so the architect should be specifying it because it is not in Division 16”, which was not the intent I was trying to make.
Someone also suggested electric heat tracing cable should be spec’d as electrical (and cough by the electrical contractor), even though they are spec’d as part of Divs 21 to 23.
My evolving opinion on this is that the Electrical Engineer is at the bottom of the totem pole, because the electrical design is always at the mercy of all the other members of the design team. Generally speaking, I don’t specify receptacles or electrical direct connections to equipment unless someone else has asked for that piece of equipment (and more times than not they can’t provide the correct equipment data when asked so I can do my proper design).
Now that I’ve finished my rant, my question is this:
What are some strategies to employ, or that you’ve employed for where the information should be presented on the drawings?
I think the electrical scope ends where the final connection is made to the equipment. If it’s an electric heater, the heater is spec’d on the mech drawing, and electrical should just show the connection to the equipment. The argument I’ll use with my mech engineer is that a gas fired heater requires power, but I don’t address the heater spec on my drawings. Thermostats are HVAC control devices, so I don’t see the need to include them on electrical drawings. Of course, none of this “by electrical contractor, by mechanical contractor” stuff. How do you present it to avoid duplication/redundancy/errors of information?
Whether I like it or not, the attitude of some General Contractors is to just divide the drawings, and leave it to the Architect and the Engineer to fix squabbles between the trades on this type of coordination stuff, and inevitably the architect to throw it downhill at the Engineer to deal with.