I’m reopening this discussion because of a situation on a project. OK I admit it. I did something stupid. Not the first time and probably won’t be the last. In 054000 Cold Formed Metal Framing (CFMF) I used a Summary Article that stated “Exterior non-load-bearing wall framing.” There was also a requirement for delegated design. Problem is that the Architect put some CFMF in the interior of the building, because of height and loading conditions. I missed it, but it is clearly noted as CFMF. Contractor says they don’t owe us the CFMF or the delegated design because the Summary Article only calls out for exterior framing. We will get out of this mess because the drawings were noted properly. However, this incident is beginning to lead me to a decision to never use a Summary Article again. I have a suspicion that many bidders look at the Summary and never read the rest of the Section. Maybe if there wasn’t a Summary they would maybe glance at the rest of the Section. Any thoughts other than to be more careful with the Summary Article?
Rather than eliminate good information, would it be more practicle to loosen up the summary to more inclusive by eliminating the word “exterior”? If it’s non-load bearing, all you really need to establish for criteria are deflection ratios, spans, and windload “where applicable”. This would allow reference to interior and exterior metal studs.
But…aren’t your interior metal studs listed elsewhere, perhaps in Division 9?
Not the ones that are 0.053 inch thick.
Nathan:
I agree with the deletion of “exterior.”
But, Division 09 should only specify non-structural (i.e. nonloadbearing) metal studs. If they are structural, whether interior or exterior, then the Division 05 CFMF section should be used.
We would stick with the “exterior” description for 05 40 00, simply because 90% of our projects (big, medical) break out into entirely seperate “Core and Shell” and “T/I” permit and bid packages, often prepared sequentially.
I would just hope to be lucky and notice a single use of structural grade studs and include it in our office standard “09 22 10 - Interior Metal Framing”.
Without the summary articles, people will basically have an even more difficult time finding information. I dont think it serves the project team well. Without summary articles, contractors might be forced to glance at the rest of the section; but a glance is still all they would give it (if that is all they are inclined to do) and theyd then be all the more annoyed that it took longer to find it. It is more likely that they would just not bother looking at all rather than take extra time trying to figure out where the information is. Id expect an extra handful of RFIs asking where this and that was specified or claiming that things were not specified. Architects, also unwilling to spend time searching specs, just might take the contractors word for it that those things were not specified. (Its bad enough as it is. An architect recently asked me why water repellants were not specified. The contractor was already salivating over the sizable pending change order. It turns out they were looking for it in the concrete section and didnt think to look at the section misleadingly labeled Water Repellants.)
Regarding Exterior Non-Load-Bearing Wall Framing, Ive always accepted Masterspecs standard industry terminology, but I admit that Ive always thought this particular terminology was foolish and misleading - for the exact reason indicated by Don above. It isnt always exterior, and technically, if it is sufficiently protected inside the wall, it really isnt even 100 percent exterior. Also, not every piece of a load-bearing wall is necessary load-bearing and most non-load bearing walls still bear some loads (wind, earthquake, attached finishes and furnishings, etc.)
There is nothing particularly important about such framing being titled as exterior or even non-load-bearing. It is just heavy-duty steel framing. We dont call wood framing exterior load-bearing wood framing". Id prefer that they just called the metal framing “heavy-duty steel framing” and let the spec indicate the requirements of structural designing and the need for certain treatment when used in exterior walls. Id even be okay with including the interior light-gage framing in the same section. Im not saying Im going to bother changing it in my specs. That would be more work for me than it’s worth. Ill go with the flow and assume there are valid reasons, as yet unknown to me, for the terminology.
Summary is just that. A summary that is not all inclusive. It provides the reader a reasonable idea of the contents of the section. Not to be confused with system description.
In the early days “scope” was used but was ultimatley replaced with “summary” for the obvious reasons.
The contract documents are complimentary documents. The GC must carefully study and compare various drawings and other contract documents relative to that portion of the work. These obligations are for the purpose of facilitating construction. If something is on the drawings but not in the spec or vice versa, it is in the contract documents.
Peggy,
I had a call from Tamae S yesterday. She is doing fine but out of work.
Wayne
Against what used to be my “better” judgement, I do include a summary paragraph in each section, and it does more or less scope the section. I’ve been told over and over that it makes the job of the field guys (our field guys) easier, and gives them a way to answer contractor questions.
As for the cold formed metal framing, I was caught by that as well some time ago, and now in the “summary paragraph” I put words along the lines of “exterior metal framing, and additional interior framing where needed for stiffness, long spans and other structural reasons. See Structural drawings for full extent of work”.
its pretty common on the west coast to use the 05-series steel on the interior in order to meet seismic issues, and/or for stiffness necessary for some tile or stone facings. the language above is clumsy, but it gets the job done. of course, we get a chance to check their work by asking for calcs, drawings, and structural analysis and treat the 05 section as a delegated design section.
RELATED DOCUMENTS Article: I have stopped using this because it is exceedingly redundant, but have been told by more than one person that this article saved their ass(ets) in dealing with an obstinate contractor or subcontactor.
I always include “Section includes” because it is a good check as to what is in the section; I always tell my clients that if they look at nothing else in the section, look at that section. It is not supposed to be all inclusive; it is a summary.
Related Sections: I have begun to do less of this type of cross-referencing. I have one client who pretty much insists on taking it out altogether. I like to say to the contractor, “Don’t look here in the appliance section for electrical and water service; look there.” Most would say that should be obvious, but. Someone told me that this is for stuff you might be expecting here, but you have specified it elsewhere. If you have a glazing section, but decided to specify acid-etched decorative glass in another section, it seems like a good idea to insert the crossreference. I do agree that it can get out of hand. Why should I put a “Related Secton” crossreference to door hardware in every door section.
I have always included s “Summary” section in Division 01 (unless others have developed it). It is a convenient catchall place for several items (see David Combs’ posting above) that usually don’t deserve a separate section, but should be mentioned. I especially like to put something in here about specification formats and conventions. You may consider it a “standard of care” issue, but I would suggest that it needs to be explicit. If any of the topics mentioned in David’s posting wind up being more than a page long, they probably deserve a separate section.
As for the cold-formed metal framing issues, this has been tricky for me and our clients. Interior cold-formed metal framing that is not “structural”; i.e., not required to support some sort of live load, is still supposed to support certain dead loads. I believe that interior partitions are required to withstand a certain uniform lateral load, but I can’t find it in the 2006 IBC. I have inserted performance requirements before for load and deflection, but have allowed submission of tables indicating compliance rather than a delegated design submittal.
Division 01 Summary: Yes. I try to keep it concise, but complete. I locate phase descriptions here when there will be multiple substantial completions. Rest is largely informational.
PART 1 Article “Summary”: Yes. Very brief naming of the major product(s) or system(s)only. Not intended to scope the work.
I do use the Related Documents statement on most publicly bid projects for same reason at J. Peter and also out of respect for Roscoe Reeves, its staunchest advocate.
Peter and Phil,
I remember a debate about related documents or related sections or related requirements. For and against. Do either of you have a record of each side of this debate or a source to go to for each side of the arguement?
Thanks
here is something I prepared years ago when the question arose in my office:
An Argument for Removing Related Sections:
Some Contractors use the sections listed in Related Sections articles to determine which specification sections require coordination with each other. These Contractors assume that the Architect has made a special effort to compile these lists. Thus, they expect the list of related sections to be accurate and thorough. This assumption places unintended burdens on the Architect.
First, the architect is forced to assume a greater responsibility for the Contractors coordination of the specifications sections. If the Architect neglects to include a related section anywhere in the specifications, the Contractor might fail to coordinate that unlisted section and can assign blame to the Architect. In effect, the Contractor is being excused from fully coordinating any sections that were not listed. The Contractors mistakes in coordination are then made to appear as the Architects failure to protect the Owners interests.
Second, a perfect and thorough list of related sections is being required for every specification section. This leaves the specification writer without a safety net. A system is flawed when it leaves no tolerance for unavoidable human error. As designs are altered and new materials selected (sometimes late in the construction documents phase of a project) the burden of listing every section that might possibly be related to another section becomes a daunting task that is not worth the trouble.
Finally, the Related Sections article is being interpreted differently than how the Architect intends it to be interpreted. The understanding of the Architect is that the Related Sections article is merely a list of products, construction, and equipment that the reader might expect to find in the section but that are specified elsewhere. Thus the Related Sections article exists to make it easier for Contractors, Owners, Architects and others to find products, construction, and equipment specified elsewhere and perhaps to heighten the Contractors awareness of some of the more important related sections.
The Related Sections article was never intended to relieve the Contractor of the contractual obligation to perform to all the contract documents or to coordinate who does what amongst its team of subcontractors. This view is shared by ARCOM (the A.I.A. sponsored creators of MASTERSPEC) and CSI (The Construction Specifications Institute). If such incorrect interpretations are being made, it may be best simply to eliminate the article and all the potential trouble that is coming with it.
An Argument for Keeping Related Sections:
The responsibility to coordinate the specifications is, to an extent, the Architects obligation. At one level, the Contractor is of course obligated both to perform to all the contract documents and to coordinate who does what amongst its team of subcontractors. At another level, however, the Architect is expected to protect the interests of the Owner in whatever reasonable way possible. If the Contractor fails to coordinate spec sections, the Owner could be overcharged and likely will not get the same amount of money credited back - especially if the error goes undiscovered. While Contractors will have a harder time placing blame for such coordination failures on the Architect, the fact remains that the coordination failure might have been avoided if a Related Sections article had been included in the specifications to alert the Contractor to the need to coordinate the sections. Placing blame squarely on the Contractor does not eliminate the fact that the Owner was not well served by the Architects decision not to include the Related Sections article.
The burden on the Architect is increased when the Related Sections article is kept in the specifications, but someone has to take on the burden and there is no reason why the Architect should not share it. The Sections have to be coordinated regardless of whether the Architect chooses to help. The burden on the Architect can be lifted a great deal simply by stating that the related sections include but are not limited to the listed sections. This allows the specifier to do the best job possible without being required to be perfect.
If the Architect is worried that the Related Sections article is being misunderstood by the Contractor, the specifier can easily include a statement in the general requirements, clarifying the intent of the Related Sections articles. The article might say:
Related Sections articles are included herein as a courtesy to assist in the locating of items in the specifications that the reader might expect to find in the Section but that are specified elsewhere. The list of sections may or may not be complete. Related Sections articles do not relieve the Contractor of the contractual obligation to perform to all the contract documents or to coordinate who does what amongst the team of subcontractors.
The addition of this article to the general requirements and minor modification to each related sections article will do the same job as removing the article altogether, without releasing the Architect from the obligation to protect the Owners interests.
Ditto Lynn and Ralph
Thanks for this discussion. Since I am now doing a few projects in seismic areas, I will pay more attention to the specification of steel studs and the coordination between Div. 09 and Div. 05 stud specs!
Here’s what I consider the wrong way to do it:
1.1 SUMMARY
A. Section Includes: Furnishing all materials, labor, equipment, and transportation to provide [product deleted to protect the guilty] complete as indicated and as specified herein.
- Work specified in this Section includes coordinating work of this Section with work of other Sections to properly execute the work and maintain satisfactory progress of work of other Sections.
B. Drawings and general provisions of the Contract, including General and Supplementary Conditions and Division 1 Specification Sections, apply to this Section.
C. Related Section
- Section 01 73 29 - Cutting and Patching: For requirements and limitations for cutting and patching of Work.
In so many ways…
“Section includes but is not necessarily limited to…” would make it perfect.
include: to have something as a constituent element, to add as part of something else, to take in as part of a group
Note that the definition does not suggest that a list of items following “includes” is complete or exclusive.
I would prefer to rely on existing definitions, and I refuse to keep repeating “but not limited to”, but to avoid dragging out the dictionary I address it once in Division 01 definitions:
include, includes, including: These terms are not restrictive; they do not define the total extent of items or exclude items not listed
The word comprise could be used to indicate a comprehensive list, but it has been abused so much that it has lost its meaning.
Lynn: That is some of the ugliest BS specification text I have seen. Did you assemble it from a number of sources, or did it come from a single manufacturer? Unfortunately, it is too close to reality.
I think I can match it. This is for real. If you can’t see the problem, you should consider a different occupation.
The words “Furnish”, “Provide”, “Include”, “Supply”, “Erect”, “Deliver”, “Install”, “Apply”, “Lay” or “Place”: These words are intended to be synonymous and to indicate that the material or work specifically mentioned is to be furnished and installed completely by this Contractor and incorporated into the Project. Whenever a material is to be furnished by this Contractor and installed by another Contractor, or installed by this Contractor and furnished by another Contractor, it will be specifically specified.