I prefer to call items in Div-00 it ‘documents’ instead of ‘sections’ to help clarify that Div-00 does not contain specifications that are issued under professional seals. I did a project in a northern state that required the TOC to have professional seals over individual lists of sections prepared under the supervision of each registrant. Other than the TOC for specifications and Addenda, what Div-00 contract documents are legally required to be issued under a professional seal?
How about “ceiling units,” or “flat glass?” We should manipulate language beneficially, not make pit-falls.
“It drives me crazy to think that such distinctions are trivial matters when we spend so much time on trying to be correct in an industry that sometimes makes a lot of money on ambiguity.”
It drives me crazy too, to spend time on issues that don’t matter. The drawings show 2 x 4 ceiling grid; if the ceiling section calls them tiles but specs the correct products: where’s the problem? Does anyone get confused?
There are times to use clear and accurate terms, but not for all items at all times. Explain the tile/panel difference to a senior interior designer, who has practiced for years, ignoring the distinction, or ever having an issue. His/her reaction: “So what’s the point?”
It occurs to me that I’ve spun off tangentially, so I’m going to remove myself from the discussion and take a nap.
Louis, that northern state’s requirement for specific identification of “who did what” appears to be similar in intent to requirements here in Texas. The last time I checked our architectural and engineering regulations, they (one or both) require that in close proximity to the seal(s) on a bound set of specifications, there be some clear designation as to which designer-of-record is responsible for each portion.
As far as I know, there is no industry-wide standard or consistent way of explicitly indicating that. I suspect that in most cases, it is assumed that anyone familiar with industry practice can sort out which sections were prepared by the various disciplines, but that doesn’t really meet the requirement. With some sections, there may be ambiguity.
For several years, this office has addressed that need by use of a page immediately following the inside cover listing the designers-of-record along with the numbers of their respective divisions and/or sections, and bearing their seals and signatures.
The other important element on that page is an explicit disclaimer that the designers-of-record are not responsible for documents that were prepared or furnished by the Owner or others, including but not necessarily limited to the Owner’s standard Division 00 Bidding and Contracting Requirements and Division 01 General Requirements Documents [portions prescribed by the Owner, with no editing allowed by the designer], and the Geotechnical Report.
Since Texas engineering regulations specifically require that engineers seal and sign the “Title Sheet,” that’s exactly what we call it (at the top of that page and, when listed, in the table of contents).
On some projects, I provide both a table of contents and seals pages (Document 00 01 07; the MF title for this is “Seals Page,” but since I provide a sheet for each consultant, I change the title to “Seals Pages”). Each page includes the consultant’s contact information (name, company, address, phone, fax, and email), a box for the consultant’s seal, and a list of sections they are directly responsible for preparing.
Using this method means I can leave off Division 00 documents for the architect.
I’ve had no issues with our state board (Arizona) regarding the format and the consultants seem to like it.
Hey guys- This is from the Masterspec supporting documents regarding the difference between tiles and panels: " According to ASTM E 1264, the differences between a panel and a tile are the method of support and the type of suspension system. Acoustical panels are used with exposed suspension systems. Acoustical tiles are used with concealed or semiexposed suspension systems, stapling, or adhesive bonding. Although most tiles are smaller than most panels, the size of the acoustical unit does not determine the type." CSI did not make this up, the industry made it up and CSI reflected the industry practice.
And, I remember when “float glass” wasn’t very common and there was a cost upcharge to get it as opposed to plate glass. Then of course, everyone started floating glass and you can barely get polished plate anymore, nor would you want to.
I explain the distinctions to the younger staff in our offices, because I think knowing where we came from helps explain some misconceptions in the industry now. Before I got here, the younger designers decided that the difference between ceiling "tiles " and “panels” was how smooth the surface was.
One of the things I most enjoy about 4specs is the way a thread discussion will morph seamlessly from one topic to another. This to me is an indication of the wide-ranging knowledge, and integrative mindset, that specifiers have.
If specifiers aren’t the smartest folks on the project team, I’d be hard-pressed to know who is (and to those non-specifiers who may read this and don’t understand specifiers’ humor, that’s a joke).
I’m looking forward to seeing you folks in Nashville in a few weeks.
Anne, I remember seeing that differentiation many years ago; until that time, based on experience, I thought tiles were 12 inches square and panels were larger. I think I remember also seeing the terms used incorrectly by at least one tile/panel manufacturer.
I agree, Dave. It’s fun to follow the discussion, and see how far it strays from the original question. In this group, it’s always worth reading. In this case, I believe the question was answered immediately, so we had to talk about something.
I once worked for a group that decided on its own, not because of State requirements, that the certifications would state which sections each engineer was responsible for. There were occasions when a single section was certified by two engineers; as I recall, the certification stated which parts of the section were certified by each engineer. Fortunately, it didn’t get down to the paragraph level.
Straying further from the question, why are multiple certifications necessary? Doesn’t every firm have a principal who is in responsible charge of an entire project, with others working under that principal’s supervision? The buck has to stop somewhere.
Taking it one step further, why is it necessary for anyone other than the single licensed professional in charge to certify the documents? If an architect is in charge, for example, the consultant engineers work for that architect, who is responsible for their work, just as the engineers are responsible for those they supervise.
I know, I know, that’s the way it is, but it doesn’t make sense.
Actually, since no licensed design professional can legally or ethically seal documents not prepared under his or her direct supervision and responsible charge, documents for each discipline generally require sealing by a different person, though there are exceptions.
I believe disciplinary boundaries in engineering are not so strict that they prohibit licensed PEs from sealing any engineering work for which they consider themselves competent. Hence, mechanical engineers will sometimes seal related electrical documents. And “architectural engineering” includes structural, MEP, and perhaps other building-related disciplines, and there may be some overlap between MEP, or civil and structural, allowing engineers licensed in one discipline to seal documents of another.
Texas rules used to require that Architects also seal documents prepared and sealed by their engineering sub-consultants. That was changed many years ago, when it was realized what a blatant violation it was of the principle stated above…
Just because an incorrect use of a term may not really create confusion in the field - such as calling a ceiling panel a ceiling tile - that should not suggest that we not be as precise with our use of language as possible. As to whether we need to constantly correct our coworkers, that is another matter. I would endeavor to make sure they knew the correct language for use on drawings and models, but certainly not worry about it in a meeting or conversation.
I think I have this right…
MF95 → MF2004
Division 1 General Requirements → Division 01 General Requirements
Division 2 Site Construction → Division 02 Existing Conditions
Division 3 Concrete → Division 04 Concrete
Division 4 Masonry → Division 04 Masonry
Division 5 Metals → Division 05 Metals
Division 6 Wood and Plastics → Division 06 Wood, Plastics, and Composites
Division 7 Thermal and Moisture Protection → Division 07 Thermal and Moisture Protection
Division 8 Doors and Windows → Division 08 Openings
Division 9 Finishes → Division 09 Finishes
Division 10 Specialties → No Change
Division 11 Equipment → No Change
Division 12 Furnishings → No Change
Division 13 Special Construction → No Change
Division 14 Conveying Systems → Division 14 Conveying Equipment
Division 03 Concrete
Go to http://csinet.org/numbersandtitles for more info.
Also, except for existing conditions, this big change:
Division 2 (95)-> Divisions 31, 32, 33 (04)
Who is responsible for the following Sections, which are used for “work results” specified by several design professionals on a typical project?
03 10 00 - Concrete Forming and Accessories
03 20 00 - Concrete Reinforcing
03 30 00 - Cast-in-Place Concrete
Consider the following “work results” included in the three Sections above:
- Building footings and foundations
- Concrete slabs on grade (building interior)
- Concrete slabs on grade (exterior, not paving … trash enclosures “floors” and dumpster landing pads)
- Concrete slabs on grade with decorative finish (i.e., polished concrete)
- Concrete fill on steel decking
- Concrete fill on steel pan stairs and landings
- Cast-in-place “housekeeping” pads for fire protection (pumps), plumbing, HVAC and electrical (switchgear, generators) equipment
Are separate sections to be produced by each responsible design professional for “their” cast-in-place concrete?
I don’t see how Masterformat accommodates an indication of which design profession is responsible. Should the responsible design professionals come up distinct but similar Sections with Level 4 numbers, adding a period and two suffix numbers to the 6-digit Section number plus a distinct title that indicates responsibility by the “sructural engineer”, “civil engineer”, “landscape architect”, “fire protection engineer”, “plumbing engineer”, “HVAC engineer”, “electrical engineer”, “food service equipment designer” and “signage designer”?
And remember not to confuse the three Sections above with the cast-in-place concrete work specified in:
Section 13 31 23 - Tensioned Fabric Structures (foundation for steel pipe supports)
Section 13 34 23 - Fabricated Structures (i.e, concrete foundation and slab on grade part of pre-engineered/prefabricated guard booths?)
Section 26 05 46 - Utility Poles for Electrical Systems
Section 26 32 13 - Engine Generators
Section 26 56 13 - Lighting Poles and Standards
Section 31 63 00 - Bored Piles
Section 31 74 00 - Tunnel Construction
Section 32 11 36 - Concrete Base Courses
Section 32 31 13 - Chain Link Fences and Gates (fence post foundations)
Section 32 31 16 - Welded Wire Fences and Gates (fence post foundations
Section 32 31 19 - Decorative Metal Fences and Gates (fence post foundations
Section 33 13 13 - Concrete Paving
Section 32 16 00 - Curbs and Gutters
are exterior concrete stairs and ramps part of concrete retaining walls or concrete paving)?
Section 32 32 00 - Retaining Walls
Section 32 84 23 - Underground Sprinklers (controller bases and thrust blocks on piping)Section 33 42 16 - Concrete Culverts
Section 33 81 16 - Antenna Towers
And remember, the specs are supposed to:
“Be clear, correct, complete and concise”
and
“Say it once, in the most appropriate location”
and
Don’t take responsiblity for anyone eles’s portion of the design (i.e., what’s covered by the architect and each consulting design professional’s {license} stamp.)
John, I think many of these have always required close collaboration and agreement between the architect, engineer, and in some cases, landscape architect. Nothing about MasterFormat '04 changed any of that. Architects have always had to discuss with the structural engineer what finishes to put on a slab, for example. Scopes of work with subconsultants need to be carefully delineeated. I used to prepare some earthwork sections that the civil engineer reviewed and commented on, and I commented on certain sections prepared by the structural engineer - which I expected him (usually him) to change. I don’t think there has traditionally been such an absolute strict separation between the professions, in particular in the specifications, such that one would not touch or be involved in the other. (This is the kind of thing designers criticize contractors for, with regard to their subcontractors, all the time!) If it is desired, then separate narrow-scope sections could certainly be created. In the end, I don’t think that there is one universal way that work between practicing professionals needs or has to be split up. That depends on the contractual agreement and local practices.
MasterFormat isn’t suppose to indicate which design profession is responsible–that is up to the design professionals themselves.
For example, the cast-in-place concrete in my experience has been the responsibility of the structural engineer; however, the architect has input on finish and color if left exposed.
Likewise, the architect has typically taken responsibility for expansion control, but the structural engineer provides input of type of movement and joint width.
There are multiple examples of this “cross pollination” in the specifications. Would an architect allow an electrical engineer to select the types of lighting fixtures?
Many sections are prepared by one design professional, but cannot be completed without the input/review of another design professional.
The Structural Engineer needs to be responsible for the sections when the concrete is used for the building he designs.
03 10 00 - Concrete Forming and Accessories
03 20 00 - Concrete Reinforcing
03 30 00 - Cast-in-Place Concrete
Since the structural engineer also should have responsibility for the metal deck sections, since he is designing the metal deck, the coordination with concrete should be no problem.
Foundations for tensile fabric structures are part of the building. They should not be specified in a section of tensile fabric structures.
There is a need for coordination with the architect regarding concrete finishes. In my experience a major impediment to making this happen has been the failure of the architect to respond when I have tried to understand what types of finishes will be used on the project. I then made educated guesses and I do not recall having problems in the field.
Where there are significant finish concerns the architect has used a concrete finishes specification section. This seems to work but almost universally the architect has not shared what they are proposing, so it could be coordinated with the concrete sections, before the bid documents were submitted.
Housekeeping pads that are located in a building are typically covered under the concrete for the building.
Where there is significant exterior concrete there is often separate concrete sections authored by the civil engineer or the landscape architect. These sections in most cases could be combined with the building concrete work but typically they prefer a specification they are used to and are unwilling or unable to coordinate the differences. On one project the Civil engineer was specifying standards that were 20 years out of date.
When there are different versions of concrete specification sections for different work the section title and scope provide clarity. For example a section would be titled Site Work Concrete Formwork. No reference would be made to specific design professionals for the same reasons we do not refer to specific sub contractors.
Concrete retaining walls can be covered in the building concrete section if shown on the structural drawings. If they are shown on civil engineers drawings the work and there are separate site-work concrete sections it would be covered in those sections. Most significant retaining walls are shown on the structural drawings because of licensing limitations, for landscape architects, or because of liability concerns in the case of Civil Engineers.
Concrete paving and base courses are a different animal and need to be covered in a different location. This work often makes uses of different standards than are used for building work. Similar with concrete tunnels.
For fences, utility poles, or lighting poles it is typically appropriate to refer to one of the concrete specification sections on the project. Unless it has been specifically engineered this is not critical concrete.
A lot of the confusion goes away if you specify details of concrete in a few specific locations and if you then point to these locations from other locations where concrete in mentioned. It is assumed that before pointing to a given concrete specification section the author of that section will be notified. I think the word is coordination.
This is not rocket science. If based on these guidelines somebody still has problems I will be available for consulting.
I was responding to the issue of including signed professional license seals in the Project Manual to identify design professionals responsible for various sections, for code compliance and building permit purposes.
Sure, MF04 et al, didn’t change the fact that multiple design professionals have input into various specification sections, if not responsibility. But what I heard is that code authorities are demanding identification of the party responsible for producing the spec Section. I think one of the places where the problem with this becomes acutely apparent is cast-in-place concrete, particularly the difference between “structural” and “non-structural” requirements for concrete.
I suppose separate “structural” and “non-structural” concrete Sections can be produced, with liberal cross-referencing for integral color, concrete floor finishes, forming surface qualities, curing/hardening/sealing and location in the Work.
For example, exterior concrete slabs on grade, such as the dumpster landing pad at a trash enclosure, could be specified in a distinct “site” concrete Section (distinct from concrete paving). What’s a couple more spec Sections in the Project Manual?
“A lot of confusion goes away if you specify details of concrete in a few locations and if you then point to these locations from other locations where concrete is mentioned.” Now I get it: The BIM will solve the problem! Go for it, Reviteers!
Or, the structural engineer could merely be responsible for those bits of non-structural concrete and save everyone a bit of headache.
I am not sure a 4 or 5 acres of concrete parking lot (frequently more concrete than required by the building itself) along with required underground detention structures and assorted other civil construction qualifies as “bits of non-structural concrete.” This issue really hasn’t come up before, but I have been a bit concerned. I will sometimes get separate cast-in-place concrete sections from the structural, civil, and landscape consultant. It seems to get sorted out during CA, but I am sure that the structural engineer is not interested in reviewing submittals for concrete paving.
First we need to be clear among the design team who is the design professional that authors a specification section, then keep track of the requests to change the technical specification. This does not have to be reflected in the specification manual. This way we can be clear who is responsible for what design decision.
Let us consider a situation where the architect requests a particular admixture to reduce permeability or to create a particular color of the concrete. The engineers liability would be related to his contractual obligations. Thus the engineer would have liability if the concrete did not have the required strength, but if the permeability or color were not as desired the architect would have liability. This may not be much different from when the engineer shows some features on their drawings to satisfy a request from the architect.
With respect to the Building Departments request we have two questions, who is liable for what work and whether the documents are properly sealed and stamped. The building official is responsible for determining whether the completed project complies with the code. It is not the building officials job to determine who has contractual liability. That is a contractual issue between the owner and his consultants not a concern of the building official.
With respect to the need to clarify the scope of the professional seal, I suggest that question is better left to the state agencies that regulate the practice of architecture and engineering. I suggest the current practice of all design professionals stamping and signing the cover sheet satisfies the concerns of the building department. How is this different from the situation where, although not common, two design professionals signing the same drawing because it includes work that multiple design professionals are responsible for.
The building department does not have the authority to regulate the practice of engineering or architecture and thus it is not within their responsibility to determine that the current practice is not acceptable.
When you talk about the engineer being responsible for the bits of non-structural concrete we should be careful what we mean. If the concrete is not shown on the structural drawings then I would suggest that another design professional decided that the concrete mix design in the concrete specification was adequate and is responsible for his decision. If this other design professional requested a special mix design that the structural engineer accommodated then the structural engineers responsibility does not extend to the adequacy of the special mix properties requested by the other design professional.
If another design professional shows some non-structural concrete that was never coordinated with the structural engineer I would suggest that the structural engineer is not responsible for the amount and configuration of the reinforcement in this concrete.
Most structural engineers are willing to assist with non-structural concrete if they are paid for the added work, and are involved in the coordination and the decisions how to document this concrete. A particular irritant is when an architect notes on the drawings see structural drawings without talking with the SE and as a result the structural drawings do not provide the necessary information..
If there are multiple concrete specification sections the concrete mix designs should indicate what specification section they are associated with. Thus the engineer would not see the site concrete mixes. If the contractor desires to use the same mix for both parts of the building and for site uses both consultants would review each mix design submittal and where necessary they would have to coordinate their responses.
BIM does not solve the problem. It may create bigger questions.