At a recent local CSI-chapter CE-seminar, the pitfalls of contractor’s coordination over who-does-what related to electro-mechanical hardware and an Access Control System was discussed.
The goal was to see what could be done through specifications to clarify their issues.
I’m all in favor of making things easier to bid for GC’s and thereby not causing work scope to be either missed or doubled-up on - potentially causing more cost to an Owner, but isn’t responsibility for “coordination” of the Work solely the GC’s, and saying much about it makes the designer then doing the GC’s work (re Herman Hoyers Short-Form Specs # 10 article though I realize that is about specifying means, methods and construction procedures).
So, Is it appropriate and good practice to say in specs something like installation of power supplies and low-voltage connections to electro-mechanical hardware is Work of the Division-28 ACS Section, with final connection of line-voltage electrical power by Work of Division-26 Sections, for instance? There is more: like making sure that the hardware installers install the electro-mechanical hardware to the doors and frames - especially when furnished by the ACS provider, but I digress . . .
The required electro-mechanical hardware and accessories (like the power supply) are scheduled in the Door Hardware Sets schedule, there is an ACS system specified in Division-28 saying to make it all work, isnt enough said already? This sort of reminds me of manufacturer-prepared elevator guide-specs that include about 2 pages on things they are not doing!