Division 01 & Technical Specs: Hierarchy

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #6
1

I understand the concept that Special Conditions modify the General Conditions and therefore have a higher order of precedence.

Does a similar relationship generally hold true for Technical Specifications and General Requirements? i.e. how does one write in modifications to a general requirement for only a single technical section?

e.g. Submittals for a scope of work that must be submitted and approved with more advance notice than X number of days before start of an activity that is stated in the general requirements.

Should one:

  1. Put the exception in the general requirement?
  2. Put the exception language in the technical specification?
  3. Eliminate the general requirement and put it in appropriate language for each technical section?

What if one wanted to relax and allow more time than the general requirement? Does that change the issue?

2

Put it in the specific technical section in PART 1.

3

Put what, exactly? Just the requirement? Would you need language to explicitly state this is an exception? If not, couldn’t it be seen as a conflict?

And are you then implying the technical spec has a higher order of precedence than the general requirement?

4

Presuming the only real difference is that this is a long lead item but no real difference in terms of reviewing time, I would only identify this as a long lead item requiring that submittals be approved no later than x number of days prior to placing order.

5

The principles of contract interpretation support the position that the more specific provision will prevail over the general provision.

Thus, where a general provision is provided in Division 01 but is modified by another provision in a specific section, the provision in the specific section will apply. You can add language in the section’s PART 1 to remove any ambiguity by stating that this is a specific provision that modifies the Division 01 general requirement.

You can even add in the applicable Division 01 section that the specific requirements within an individual specification may modify the general requirements of Division 01.

6

Ron

Does this mean that even though the Owner and the Architect wants to do something a certain way, a consultant can require it be done differently in a particular section even if the Owner disagrees?

7

Does that consultant want to continue to do work for the architect and owner in the future?

8

Mark:

I’m not sure what you’re try to get at with your question, but the design team (architect and its consultants) must address the client’s needs in their design. In essence, if the architect does not coordinate and review the work products of its consultants, the consultant can, without doing anything that I mentioned above, specify something contrary to the owner’s and architect’s desires–thus, where there is conflict, the more specific will prevail. What I am proposing just minimizes the potential RFIs and maybe disputes resulting from such conflicts in the documents, but does not relieve the A/E from providing a coordinated set of documents.

Like the general conditions, not every provision works for every situation; thus, if a general provision in Division 01 does not suit a particular specification section, then there are means of accommodating that specific requirement.

For example, lets say in Division 01 it is specified that where samples are requested in the technical sections three samples are required to be submitted. One sample will be retained by the architect and two returned to the contractor. However, the owner has requested that it would like a copy of one particular sample, too. So, in that specific section the architect states four samples of that item are required and two will be retained by the architect.

It’s that simple. There is no need for the architect to obtain from its consultants what all the exceptions are for a project to incorporate them into Division 01–that would be a coordination nightmare.

To alleviate what might be conceived as a conflict in the documents, the minor adjustments to Division 01 by individual sections can be addressed in Division 01. Using MasterSpec as an example, in Section 01 10 00 “Summary” there is a paragraph that states the following:

“Division 01 General Requirements: Requirements of Sections in Division 01 apply to the Work of all Sections in the Specifications.”

This can be modified with a subparagraph as follows:

“Where a more specific requirement is provided within an individual section, that specific requirement takes precedence over the Division 01 general requirement for that individual section only.”

Obviously, this would apply to all provisions in the specifications. But if you wanted to narrow it down to just alternate requirements for submittal requirements, then the Division 01 submittals section can state that specific submittal requirements in individual sections take precedence over the general requirements in the Division 01 submittals section.

9

Regarding document hierarchy, warranty (not “special warranty”) specifications, when they call for a duration longer than a year, could be said to conflict with the general conditions (which typically calls for 1-year). What makes a “conflicting” requirement an “expansion” of higher level requirements? i.e., what differentiates this and other such conflicting language from being called a “conflict”?

10

There is no conflict.
The General Conditions have no “warranty”; it is typically a one-year correction period.
Warranty lengths are often in the “technical sections,” and are usually cited when more than a year, because the correction period.

11

In AIA A201, there is a warranty period, and it runs for the length of the statute of limitations in the applicable jurisdiction, unless a different warranty period is defined in the specifications. That is why a one-year warranty period should not be specified, because that one-year period would take precedence over the longer period defined in A201.

As Justatim noted, the 12-month correction period is not a warranty. Within the correction period, the contractor is contractually obligated to correct problems of materials or workmanship or performance at no cost to the owner. After the expiration of the correction period but within the statute of limitations, the contractor still has to fix the problem, and if he does not, the owner can have a third party fix the problem and then sue the contractor for the costs.

Of course, a longer special warranty period, such as a 15 or 20 year roofing warranty, obligates the specified party (contractor or manufacturer) for the specified warranty period.

12

Well explained David.

13

Very good summary Dave.

Reading and comparing AIA A201, 3.5 (warranty) and 12.2.2 (correction period) will prove very useful for understanding this.