When you receive hardware sets from a consultant (eg; Assa Abbloy, Allegian) Do you typically issue them on Drawings? Or include in the Specs? Do you consider them part of the contract documents, or for design intent only?
I put them in the specs at the end of the hardware section and make them part of the contract. I treat the sets as “Basis-of-Design” products, and list acceptable manufacturers in Part 2 for each hardware type.
I just include them behind the hardware spec with the hardware designations on the door schedule.
To be honest, didnt even know there was another way.
I use 08-0671 - Door Hardware Schedule for hardware sets/groups. The specs are in 08-7100, and the opening schedule on the drawings shows the hardware set for each opening. All are contract documents.
And I hate it when the hardware reps call the specs the “preamble.”
“And I hate it when the hardware reps call the specs the ‘preamble.’”
Me, too! I always try to correct them, but I don’t know how well it sinks in. When they mention the “preamble,” I usually respond that the U.S. Constitution is not in the contract documents.
The location of the hardware sets may depend on the authorities having jurisdiction. The City of Houston wants to see the door hardware, but does not review specifications so the sets get put on the Drawings.
I have always thought that the hardware sets were part of the construction documents. I have had one or two clients who wanted the hardware sets developed after the project was bid.
The profession is divided here in Ohio. Many architects are content to have a local hardware distributor or a representative of one of the big three groups provide a detailed hardware schedule and publish it with the contract documents. Others want at least a schedule of the major components prepared by the design team. I have long held that one must at least know the basic components and functions of each opening to demonstrate a clear understanding of the client’s needs. It is even better if the specifier can specify the grade of closers and locks with acuity so there is no question about the quality required.
One peculiarity I have come up against recently is the substitution problem in the door hardware business. There is a small but growing subset of hardware distributors who believe it is fair to make unapproved substitutions if the specifier does not have “NO SUBSTITUTIONS” prominently written in the specification text. This can be governed handily if the Architect can withhold payment until things are made right, but we find ourselves in ever more CM at Risk and design-build scenarios in which this vital control is in another party’s hands.
This problem notwithstanding, we have very capable product representatives and ethical door hardware distributors right here in northeast Ohio who may well be the best in the US.
I publish the Door Hardware Sets as a separate Document 087101 immediately after the Door Hardware Section 087100. Yes I know that doesn’t follow MasterFormat. So call the police. But why should they be in 080671 where no one expects them? I like them in a separate document because the hardware sets keep changing during bidding and construction as the architects finally finish their drawings, and I don’t have to reissue the (unchanged) section along with the revised sets. I sometimes issue the section, and sometimes just issue the AHC’s section. I don’t get too involved with the door hardware content, as it eats a lot of my time and I don’t get paid for it. I encourage the architect to use a competent AHC and recommend one or two when I can. Occasionally the architect actually carefully coordinates the door hardware content.
Before MF04, I also published them in a separate section, 08711, because it just made sense.
According to MasterFormat, the logic behind putting them in 08-0671 is that they are “schedules of items common to multiple sections in Division 08.” (No news to you, Phil!) I don’t think that’s bad logic but on the other hand, I’m sure you could put the hardware schedule anywhere in Division 08 and it would be found.
Furthermore, a good hardware sub could skip the hardware section and do it right from just the hardware schedule. I wonder how often they look at the “preamble” anyway.