How do you handle Related Sections?
What sections do you list and why?
Thanks.
Think of it as merely a guidepost. I list sections where some confusion may exist as to whether something is in the current section, or where the current section heavily relies on a another section to be complete, or where the sequencing/coordination between two sections is critical. Examples: If wood door frames are in the finish carpentry section, I might refer to that in the wood door section. If my window spec does not contain the glazing requirements I’d refer to the glazing section in the window section.
The corollary to this is that the summary article should be just that - not a “scope of work.” I will just list the products or procedures in the spec in simple phrases. That may be only one thing in some cases.
Agree with John Bunzick, on the “less is more” principal. I even change “Related Sections” to “Specified in Other Sections”. This eliminates the tendency to list relationships that are of no practical importance to defining the limits of the scope of the section.
“Related Sections” with section references is a poor index for finding information in other parts of the specification. I find narrow scope specifying gives you a Table of Contents that is much more useful in locating information.
There are a number of issues in the Section format, one of which is “Related Sections.” I simply use “Related Sections” rather than “Related Work Specified in Other Sections.” I definitely don’t use “Related Work of Other Sections” nor do I use “Work of this Section.” The Section doesn’t “own” Work and to identify Work “of” a Section gets too close to establishing trade and subcontract jurisdictions.
(It’s for another discussion to deal with how the Work should be broken into specific Sections and whether the breakdown should follow trade or subcontract practices. And whether to specify “related” Work in what might seem to be an “unrelated” fashion. For example, should waterproofing under ceramic tile flooring be in a separate Section or should it be included in the ceramic tile Section?)
Regarding use of a “Related Sections” article, various schools of thought that I’ve encountered say, “don’t do ‘Related Sections’ at all; it’s the Contractor’s responsibility to figure out what’s in the documents,” or “don’t do ‘Related Sections’ because it causes confusion about who is supposed to do the various Work items,” or “everything is related to everything else in the specs and it’s impossible to figure out and describe how everything is supposed to relate,” or “list what the writer thinks is helpful for the reader to understand about work specified in other Sections so that the intent of the specifications is clear.”
I believe the last one is most appropriate and it is what I do. At the beginning of each Section, I use two articles: “Section Includes” and “Related Sections.” “Section Includes” is an introduction and summary … a very concise summary … of the topics specified in the Section. “Related Sections” identifies other Sections in which products or “work results” are specified that DIRECTLY relate to the Work specified in the Section.
Under the “Related Sections” article, I list Section numbers and titles and, very importantly, add a brief statement of what is related. For example, I commonly identify “Section 05090 - Anchors and Fasteners” and add a brief statement “General requirements for anchors and fasteners to building substrates.”
To me, this is consistent with the spec writing concept of “say it once and only once and in the most appropriate location.” Don’t repeat the requirements for anchors and fasteners in many Sections. Reference a single Section where the requirements are specified.
Shouldn’t the Contractor (General Contractor) already know that the requirements for anchors and fasteners are in Section 05090? Yes, but realistically speaking, the complexity of specifications is so great that it helps to call this out to the reader (subcontractor, supplier, GC’s superintendent, project inspector, Architect’s field representative and even the planchecker). Although specs should be addressed only to the (General) Contracor and not to subcontractors, et. al., it helps to direct attention to significant matters that are specified in other Sections that the reader might otherwise miss.
Two tests I use on Sections listed under the “Related Sections” article are (1) is the Section cross-referenced later in the text of the subject Section and (2) can a concise statement be written about what it is that is related? If these two tests can’t be passed, then the Section should not be listed under “Related Sections.”
And, there are many differing opinions about cross-referencing between Sections … but that’s another discussion.
Regarding John’s “it helps to direct attention”.
This is to me similar to making certain things bold, using the “Note: _" format, "The Contractors attention is directed to” and any other adjective and adverb intended emphasize or direct attention to a specific subject or point. When defending a specification containing such points of emphasis, the writer is subject to the criticism that he emphasized certain things as important, but not others which per Murphy’s law are the point of confrontation. It is not illogical to assume that what was not emphasized was not as important, nor, the true development thereof, not important at all. Been there before and do not want to be there again.
This is the fundamental problem in deciding what should and should not be in Related Sections. If you do not intend to bing value to the bidding process, I beleive you should not use “Related Sections” or any other cross referencing to direct attention. It does not serve any purpose, and can only bring you trouble.
On the other hand if you feel that defining scopes of sections is within your ability, and is a legitimate role, do it with that in mind. “Related Sections” brings value to the Owner in obtaining better bids. Also expect to get paid for it, it is of value.
My use of “Related Sections” and organizing the content of spec Sections to include related products, such as the example I used of waterproofing and ceramic tile, is not for the intention of establishing trade or subcontract scopes.
It is (hopefully) a more subtle way of establishing responsibility by grouping information in one place. It means taking a “system” or “assembly” approach to to products. That is, the waterproofing under floor tile is part of the tile finish assembly. There is no restriction on the (General) Contractor to have only one party install both the waterproofing and the ceramic tile. It is convenient, if the Contractor chooses to do so, to have the Work specified in the ceramic tile Section be the responsibility of a single installer (subcontractor). And in so doing, the likelihood of a coordinated installation is increased.
Another example is access doors. Often, these are specified in a Section such as 08305 - Access Doors and Panels. Yet, there are access doors specified by the mechanical engineer under plumbing specifications and HVAC specifications. In my opinion, it is preferable to have plumbing and HVAC specifications reference the Division 8 “related section” for access doors.
The same is true for firestopping and smoke seals. These are used on plumbing piping, HVAC piping and ductwork, fire sprinkler piping, power conduits, signal system conduits, pneumatic tube systems and structural framing penetrations of fire-rated construction. My understanding is that Code authorities want only one specification for penetration seals (i.e., one ICBO Evaluation Service report to govern sealing of penetrations). There should not be different firestopping and smoke seal materials specified, as often occurs when various design disciplines include these materials in specifications for piping, ductwork and conduit.
I think there are compelling reasons to cross-reference between Sections and this cross-referencing should be noted in a “Related Sections” article at the beginning of the spec Section.
I think that John Regener has nailed it spot-on!
I use “Related Work Specified Elsewhere” and don’t usually say where. The rationale:
If you have a paragraph entitled “section Includes”, you are including things, not sections.
To remain parallel in the paragraph construction, then you want things, i.e. work, in the “not included” part.
Secondly, not saying where the “not included” items are specified avoids the problem of CSI changing the numbers frequently. It avoids the problem of handling the items that may not be in the contract at all, although sometimes I will add (NIC) after items which are separately provided.
Also, by listing work, not sections, I can target exactly what needs to be said: For example, if I want to say that supports for countertops are specified elsewhere, I can say that directly, not say mysteriously, that Metal Fabrications are related work to the Finish Carpentry.
I do things the old-fashioned way, but that has worked for years, and it still does for me. I rarely get calls asking where something is specified.
Believe Jo and I are on the same page. I just did not know it was old fashioned.
The important thing to me is that we all decide what works for us. I never would never refute John Regener’s right to his position on Related Sections, even though it is exactly the opposite of mine.
It is only important that we be consistent within the specification that is published, and to a degree the practice for the construction community in your area. The fact that national commercial masters use an approach should never be construed as “standard practice”. I believe we have the “Related Sections” disagreement primarily because commercial masters try to be everything to everybody, and that just makes a long specification, not a good one.
Good specifications require individual editing by professionals that know what they want to do, which may differ from what some one else wants to do. CSI practices need to reflect a degree of latitude to accomplish diverse aims that recognize project conditions and local practices.
I may out on left field on this one, but after thirty years of writing specs, I’ve come to the conclusion that we don’t need a paragraph titled “related work,” “work specified elsewhere,” or paragraphs with similar titles in each section.
We are writing narrow scope sections and the section title is or should be work-specific. “Related sections” serves no benefit to my knowledge.
As an example, in specifying overhead coiling doors, if the subcontractor bidding the doors doesn’t know that provisions on electrical power are specified in Division 16, then he has no business being a subcontractor. The same applies to other references to “related work.”
I’d like to see a discussion along the same lines on “coordination” paragraphs in certain sections of the specs, keeping in mind that the contractor is responsble for all coordination on a project.
I use the WI, WNI selectively. I wouldn’t say that electrical is in Division 16 either, but if I have certain acoustical firestopping in one place, and it isn’t instantly clear where that is, I might, underscore might, note that it is specified somewhere else.
My general position is that if the contractor isn’t smart enough to read the specs., he isn’t smart enough to build the project, so we shouldn’t hold his hand. However, some things can be more than one place, and sometimes I find it useful to advise that it is somewhere else (I usually don’t say where). Then if my client calls me to ask where something is, at least by looking, I can tell where it isn’t, and maybe narrow down where it is.
A case in point, is installation of metal door frames in wood construction. You can put it with the doors in division 8, or just as well, put it with rough carpentry in Division 6 - if they are welded frames. If they are KD, the installation could even go in Division 9. Any of those trades could install them. In any event the frame material and fabrication are in 8.
On coordination, I’ve seen specs. that do that. But coordination is means and methods as I see it, and as you allude to, Gerard. Without more discussion from others, I don’t think it is a good idea, I don’t do it.
Jo, my custom is the same as yours.
See my new thread on coordination.
I see Jo’s point on RW and RWSE, etc., but why would door installation not be specified in the same section as the door in Division 8?
Does anyone still specify wood door installation in division 6?
GS.
The specifier that I work with does specify wood door installation in Section 06200 - Finish Carpentry. I believe that Section 08212 - Flush Wood Door section should stand alone.
I ran into a situation recently where was no finish carpentry on the job, so I deleted the section…and thus the wood door installation, along with hardware prep for wood doors.
I try to write sections that stand alone rather than get into products furnished by this section but installed in another section.
Me too. I specify wood door installation in the wood door spec. I know that the finish carpenters do it, but I think it’s better to be together as David points out. Besides, I have found that the door installation is not always done by the same finish carpentry crew anyway. (Yes, I know, I know, specs aren’t trade jurisdictions! I just find it an interesting aspect to the discussion.)
I only use related sections on very rare occassions, and I don’t use references article anymore. Mainly from conversations with other SCIP members.
My justification for NOT using related sections stems from a Construction Manager project at the firm I last worked before going it alone.
I deleted these articles from the specs, and the CM, who did the last two projects for the same owner and same architect. He called me to complain that since the related sections articles were missing, he couldn’t quickly put his work scopes together. I told him that is not what that article is for. He didn’t care. It worked before for him and he wanted it back.
Too bad, man. Do what you’re paid to do, and read through the specs and drawings, and coordinate the project properly.
I hope this helps.
Although I have long held a similar attitude towards CM’s, I have to disagree with the premis that “It is not my job”.
What is your job? Give the Owner value for your services, or just limit your responsibilites and thereby become more irrelevant to the construction process?
If it was that difficult I would agree. It is not, however. Why not just provide the added value? Maybe Specifications will become appreciated by the industry.
oooh, I have to jump in here. I’m of the opinion that “related work specified elsewhere” should contain only those items that might logically be expected to be in that section – not cover basic coordination. An example that might reflect that would be the distinction between say ornamental metal railings and just “regular” pipe railings.
I have found consistently in this construction market, that using that paragraph is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” proposition. I have never found any value added to the project by providing a listing of related items, and have found consistently that if I list things, it will be used as an exclusion list by the bidders, and if I don’t list things, it will be seen as not being helpful enough. The AIA contract specifically says that the dividing up of the work is exclusively the contractor’s job, and that we (as designers/architect/spec writers) have no control over that and are not to be perceived as suggesting subcontracts. I think that we have an obligation as specifiers to determine that the project can be built… in some fashion. We do not have the responsibility to chart out every possible permutation of subcontacts that can be used on a project.
My experience has been that specifications ARE appreciated by the industry… if they are backed up and enforced by Owners and specifiers.
“List other sections dealing with work directly related to this section. Listing should be limited to other sections with specific information that the reader might expect to find in this section and to those actually referenced in the section.” SectionFormat, SF.7
According to SectionFormat, Anne is correct in her use of this article or paragraph.
Here’s an idea - “say it once”
The last few words of the quotation from SectionFormat are inconsistent with the “say it once” principle, in the same way as the “References” article. If a section refers to another section or to a reference standard in the text, there is no reason to repeat it simply as a list at the beginning of the section.
Is it really worth the time to construct such a list - especially when it does not require compliance? And if those lists are necessary, should we not also list all of the products and accessories that appear in a section at the beginning of that section?
Another unnecessary redundancy is a list of drawings in the project manual. If that makes sense, then the drawings should include a list of what is in the project manual.
The table of contents is also supposed to show the number of pages in each section - yet another place for conflicts. Although today’s word processors can automatically generate a table of contents complete with the number of pages, what is the purpose? A section has an obvious beginning and an obvious end, so it is easy to see if any pages are missing. Word processors can also generate word counts, so perhaps we should add that, too, so the reader can count the words to see if any are missing.
Having been a reviewer of specification competition entries for many years, I have seen problems caused by each of these needless redundancies: references lists that don’t agree with those used in the text; lists of drawings that don’t agree with those issued; page counts that don’t agree with the sections - especially after a section is reissued by addendum (few people seem to think it necessary to correct the table of contents). And, getting back to the beginning of this discussion, related sections lists that sometimes seem to include nearly every other section in the project manual.
Do you really believe in “say it once”?
C.R.Mudgeon:
Listing drawings in the specs., and listing spec. sections on table of contents has nothing to do with spec. competitions. They are to facilitate listing what the construction contract consists of, and those lists should be accurate to what the drawings and spec. sections are, down to each & or “and”, abbreviation, etc. Failure to do so accurately can end in dispute with unhappy results for all concerned.
But I agree with you about references. I put them in my masters so I can refer to them, but I scrub them out in project specs. The federal government started this, even before my beginning, which was just after Adam, and no one has had the courage to tell them that all it does is waste paper. A personal aside: my learning curve was doing basic editing of federal specs. One of my jobs was to go through all the sections and delete inapplicable references from the list, and be sure that the lists were current. It helped me to learn, but for any other reason, it is a waste of time, as well as paper.