In Accordance With/Under Provisions Of

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Specifications Discussions #3
1

1.3 SUBMITTALS
A. General: Submit in accordance with Section 01 33 00.

1.6 DELIVERY, STORAGE AND HANDLING
A. General: Handle materials under provisions of Section 01 60 00.

Question: Are these statements redundant? I have seen many Project Manuals (or whatever AIA calls them now) with statements like these. Masterspec does not use them. There are some Figures (5.13A and 5.15D, among others) in the PRM that show similar statements in the examples. However, I can find no text in the PRM directing one way or the other.

Are these statements personal preference? Do they serve a purpose other than directing readers to the obvious? Is it to make sure that the subs, who get only their specific sections from the GC/CM, understand that there is a Division 01? I’d like to hear opinions on both sides. Personally, I don’t like them and don’t use them. Is there a reason out there to make me change my mind?

Yours truly,

Curious in Specland

2

MasterSpec addresses this in the following way:

1.1 RELATED DOCUMENTS

A. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 01 Specification Sections, apply to this Section.

This is in EVERY technical section of the Full Length versions. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, and I never use it in my specs.

This Article does not appear in Short Form versions.

I used to work with a firm where the old codger spec writers insisted on including reference to a couple of select Division 01 sections, with no reasonable argument as to why those and none other. Crazytown.

3

Don-
I’m mostly in the school of “they have the table of contents, why do I need to provide internal references?” but I have heard that having the internal references makes it easier for the person doing CA who may not be as familiar with the structure of the documents as I am. When I started at my new job I asked the managing partner about such internal references and he said that it provided some “additional ammunition” on the job site and he preferred to keep them in. They didn’t always make a difference, but apparently helped enough that it was useful to keep them.
I think there is some redundancy, as you have pointed out, but my focus in the past few years was towards doing whatever made the CA person’s life easier, and a minimal amount of redundancy seemed like a small price to pay.

4

Don:

Yes, they are redundant. If you follow the recommendations of the PRM, 5.6.2.5, and use the supplementary conditions to establish the authority of Division 01, there is no need for repetitive references to sections of Division 01. Not following this logic would require for consistency a similar statement in nearly every article of a specification section, negating the benefits of the “say it once” principle.

5

Obviously the use of the above paragraph, or something similar, reflection ones philosophy or approach to preparing a project manual. The trend has been to discard it. I disagree with this trend and choose to keep it in place. Not because Im an old codger; but, because it is has an impact on how one handles other sections and how it redirects others reading your project manual.

As a general philosophy, I prefer and try to write only short sections of about no more than 6 pages. Hey, its only a goal. I try to avoid large broadscope sections especially those of about 10 to 20 and sometimes 30 pages***. By breaking them up into smaller narrowscope sections I can usually achieve my goal which, hopefully, keeps the eyes from glazing over. For example, I more often than not breakup concrete (concrete work and ready mixed concrete) and masonry (masonry work, masonry mortar, and masonry units) into two or three sections. On large projects with lots of aluminum products, I have provided, upon request, a section governing quality. One of my elevator consultants specifies elevators in three narrowscope sections. Several decades ago, when I was in the power industry, I was writing specs for a single $3 million pump. I used narrowscope sections to keep from writing a 150 to 200 page section.

But when I use multiple narrowscope sections, I always have one of the sections as the dominate or governing section. By modifying the use of the paragraph in question, I make subservient sections a part of the governing section by adding a paragraph similar to:

A. General: The requirements set forth in Section 04010 - MASONRY WORK in its entirety are made a part of this Section as if herein written out in full.

While this type of paragraph is in fact repetitive, it is only two lines. And, believe it or not, it brings ones spec closer to Sheldons “say it once” principle.

I agree with Annes comment about writing to her CA person. The CA person is most often the one on the front line and sometimes is the least experienced. As an independent, I cannot control, or even know, who is providing CA services for any given project. I have to assume they are the weakness link. But one has to keep in mind there are many others who have an interest in the project manual - - lenders, code officials, owners, inexperienced architects and subcontractors, and, shutter the thought, attorneys.

Going back to Dons original post, I dont think it is necessary to repeat, or even mention, all the requirements of Division 1. It is important to specify specifics pertaining to the section or trade. For example, one should specify what submittals you are asking for. Not every material needs a submittal. If you dont specifically ask for a submittal, the CA personnel has no ammunition in demanding one. The Division 1 sections are usually administrative not material specific. Cross-referencing should not considered directing readers to the obvious because, depending on the reader, it may not be obvious.

*** Has anyone ever counted up the number of sections with 10 or more pages in MasterSpec? …obviously in their final form.

6

as a comment to Ron: I’m finding that its the contractor who is the “weakest link” in the process. CA in most offices I’ve worked in is done by fairly experienced people who know the office details and know the office specs reasonably well. the contractor (and especially at the office I’m in now) has never worked on one of our jobs before, will probably never work on one again; and wants to bid the way they always bid, rather than actually reviewing the documents. what they are not looking for is how we modify the systems or how we enforce the requirements of the documents.
and since the contractor has a profit incentive to protect their interpretation of the documents, we have to be as clear as possible, which often (I think) means repeating some information.

7

comment on Ron Beard’s post above —

Including the statement about General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions and Division 1, I assume, “completes” the Section by tying it to the overarching documents and Sections cited.

That implies that there are no other documents or Sections needed in order to bid (procure) and construct (perform) the Work under the Contract. That’s not true. There is information in other documents, such as the Instructions to Bidders, Supplementary Instructions to Bidders, the Bid Form, Information Available to Contractor (geotechnical report, site survey, and record drawings of previous construction) and various affidavits which must be submitted with the bid or proposal. Omitting reference to these makes them not applicable? Sections where the statement is not included means the General Conditions, etc. don’t apply? (Think specifications prepared by other than the architect/spec writer.)

After all, the (General) Contractor already knows about the General Conditions, Supplementary Conditions and Division 1. It is redundant (and needlessly repetitious) to include the statement in each Section.

So to whom it this statement directed? It’s to subcontractors. The statement, I believe, is meant to be an alert to subcontractors that there may be important information in these references that the subcontractor should know and consider in preparing a bid or performing the work. It’s an attempt to mitigate claims for extra costs and time because “we didn’t know about that and we didn’t include it in our bid” (a claim that should not be considered in the first place).

8

Since I’m the oldest [older than dirt–OK?] I think some traces of the past are not all that bad, and since I have seen some indication of them elsewhere on this thread, let’s consider these;

  1. It is true that to enforce the specs [why else write them?} CA needs a full load of ammunition, i.e., proper provisions which can be directly and easily accessed;

  2. We need to stop “assuming” and creating what we “think” should be-- i.e, many subs do see nothing but their Section and without “Related Documents” they can easily feel there is no recourse for them in some instances-- surely they cannot risk being certain that Div 01, etc. exists as they need them [hence protective, higher costs];

3.“Say it once” is an artifical posture-- I vote for “selected but judicious redundancy”, i.e. say it when you need to!

  1. Our documents could well show a new path for clarity in codes, and other related documents, even with repeated text IF that serves to make things easier overall. Being convoluted, assumptive or hiding intent/text isn’t too wise or professional. Our documents need to properly serve and assist others!!!, so we need to pay due attention to our end-users.
9

Does that mean I should start writing my specs with spanish subtitles? (slightly tongue in cheek, slightly serious) If i start writing my specs for the lowest common denominator who might use them…where do I draw the line?

10

Well… if you work in the restaurant business nowdays and you don’t you are only hurting yourself.
With the continual (and increasing) shortage of construction workers not to mention stuipd/non existant legal guest workers policy, spanish is not a bad idea.
I believe the documents should stay in english. I believe that the GC needs to communicate the design intent (our documents) and their means and methods to their workers - however they can.
Communicating is the point after all.

Marc

11

Sorry, Ms. Snyder if my comments lead you to your last conclusion. I am NOT advocating specifications “to be all things to all people”.

In that, I agree with Marc, but add that in the GC conveying the design intent, that comunication needs to be most clear and complete–
often, unfortunately not everything required is said.

12

We’re in South Florida here…the land of beans and rice. In the past I’ve received shop drawing submittals in Spanish…I guess…well lets just say it wasn’t Englaze. For similar reasons our Division-1 docs. actually specify that submittals must be in English. Welcome to the future!

13

John:
General Conditions and Supplementary Conditions as defined are conditions of the Contract and therefore are overarching and apply to all technical and administrative sections. Unless otherwise designated to be overarching (ie, my use of a dominate or governing section), all other sections are equal and complimentary.

Bidders, Supplementary Instructions to Bidders, the Bid Form, Information Available to Contractor (geotechnical report, site survey, and record drawings of previous construction) and various affidavits legally no longer have a contractual basis because they are not contract documents unless specifically written into the agreement. Many governmental agencies do this but most private work does not.

Readers Digest writes to the 5th grade reader. Obviously readers of specifications have a higher education level, but the average spec reader does not have the attention level of a specification writer. I would guess that less than 20% of my clients actually read my specs; and, less than 5% actually read them page by page. We shouldnt write down to the reader but there is no reason we cant make reading easier by using skillful writing techniques and keeping our text clear, concise, complete, and with “selected but judicious redundancy.”

You are absolutely correct about mitigating claims. A problem-free project delivered on time and under budget is where everyone ends up making money. It even makes Uncle Sam happy because there is more to tax.

14

Question to CA People Pertaining to Cross-Referencing:

What happens if a section cross-references something to another section and it is not included that section?

What happens if a section does not cross-reference anything?

15

obvioulsy the cross references have to be correct – if not, we’re causing our own problems. it is more coordination to cross reference specs and I find that when I make a change in one section, it often tracks to 5 more sections. but.. we’re the ones in position to monitor those changes and references.

the comment above regarding the references being for the subcontractors is right on the money; and I’ve often included cross references because the General Contractor requested them – I’ve been told that some of those repetitive comments help them enforce their subcontract requirements and the references serve as reminders to the subs to include those requirements in their bids.

16

No problem is your spec is a relational database like SpecLink :wink:

17

I dont use the Summary article or the Related Work article in any of my spec sections, Unless Ive specd something in a location that might be thought of as unusual; fabric awnings in a curtainwall section for example. I dont include cross references to other sections because I dont think its my responsibility to determine whether sealant is a work result related to toilet accessories. The Drawings show the Contractor, and his subcontractors, what materials go where, and how they Relate to one another.

Further, by including a listing of related sections, an unscrupulous contractor could deny responsibility for truly related work if I didnt include that section in my listing. But you didnt tell me that I needed wood blocking behind the crash rail.

Further still, if I add or delete an entire section by addendum, Id have to revise and reissue every section that might be related to it to either add or delete that section from the listing of related work in those other sections. (now dont tell me that you wouldnt do that for an addendum. If its important enough to do in the first place, then its important enough to included in an addendum isnt it?)

And finally, it just takes too much time (fee). Ive got plenty to do in my normal work week without having to spend a bunch of hours doing stuff that isnt necessary. The very last thing I want to concern myself with right before the project goes out the door is spending a bunch of hours checking every section to ensure that I have all the references correct.

Heres a fun story: Recently we did a project for a client who Demanded that I include a Related Work article. Further the client Demanded that I include specific section numbers, rather than Division number, where referring to related work within the body of a section. I had to change every occurrence of phrases like Sealant as specified in Division 07 to Sealant as specified in Section 079200. That simple little exercise took a ton of unscheduled and unbudgeted hours to complete.

18

Doug - I agree with your strategies…especially the time and coordination factors. I view the “project manual” as a single/whole entity…one doesn’t cross-reference within a paragraph, so why do it within the “project manual”.

Regarding your fun story, don’t you have it written in your agreement that “extensive” deviation from your master spec layout, format, nature, etc., is add’l/extra services?

19

I’m afraid that I am not smart enough to be a general contractor or construction manager. I don’t know how to divide the work (results) into Sections that coincide with the subcontracts and materials procurement arrangements that all bidding general contractors will want or how the construction manager will eventually dictate. I guess I actually believe that statement in the prototypical AIA A201 General Conditions that the specifications are arranged in Sections which do not establish subcontract scopes or trade jurisdictions and that the Contractor is responsible for the means, methods, techniques and sequences of construction. I think the PRM states that too.

I long ago gave up on the idea of producing fool-proof specs. Fools do not think in logical terms like specifiers. They are much more inventive and illogical and will beat us every time. That’s why I focus on information management rather than construction management when organizing specs. Besides, we’re not paid to do the jobs of the general contractor and construction manager.

20

John, we dropped “fool-proof” from our spec vocabulary some time ago, in favor of the more realistic term “fool-resistant”…