The last line of Ann Whitacers response is my point. Both Owners and specifiers have to back the specification. “It is not my job” has never impressed any Owner I have dealt with.
You do not need to list every related section, just those that might cost money. You just have to keep in mind that some poor subcontractor, who has to do the work, not the CM or the GC, has to define the scope of his bid, usually without the help of the CM or a GC. If he uses the specification section there is nothing any spec writer or professional institution can do to stop that. Refusing to deal with it just costs the Owner money when he receives his bid, and if done correctly reduces field conflicts.
If not done correctly it causes field problems. If the spec writer does not want to deal with it, which I agree is his choice, just do as they do with Corps of Engineers Guide specifications; do not use either Section Includesor Related Sections at all. This makes it practically impossible to define subcontract agreements
I use a “Related Work Specified In Other Sections” Paragraph. Many people think this Paragraph has more to do with some tradition of spec writing than getting the spec Section filled with the pertinent information. In 20 years of practice I have always found it very helpful, however, to take great care with the items under this paragraph because as I think about the items, I think about how the work in the Section coordinates with the work in other Sections. This helps me comprehend the scope of the Section as well as the details of the requirements to be included as they may apply to that specific project. Getting this paragraph right has greatly helped me to keep the various aspects of a project’s work well organized. For instance, there are often materials or processes identified by the same name that are covered in more than one Section. This Paragraph is the place to sort out which items are specified in which Sections.
As for concerns about taking over the contractor’s responsibility to coordinate, this Paragraph helps him coordinate without restricting how he coordinates. It is miswriting within the contents of a Section where I have noticed the problems that interfere with the GC’s coordination.
Further, here in N. IL (as in many other places in the USA), the GCs are only brokers. If our office does not put a design together that readily coordinates with established trade divisions, the GC will not sort it out during bidding and may receive multiple subbids for the same work and not know it, costing the owner money. Or the GC may end up with coordination problems that create conflicts where unhappy subs draw us or the owner into the fray with allegations of unfair bid practices, which costs us money. In the end, we find it better to hold the GC’s hand a little bit.
The proposal was made recently in my office to delete the Related Sections article from the office standard specifications. We havent decided what to do yet. This proposal was in response to a contractor that failed to coordinate a section that was not listed in the Related Sections article. I prepared pro and con arguments for the office as follows:
An Argument for Removing Related Sections:
Contractors, contrary to the architects intentions, may assume that the architect has made a special effort to compile these Related Sections lists. To the contractor, these articles may imply that the architect accepts the responsibility for the contractors coordination of the work. If the architect neglects to include a related section anywhere in the specifications, the contractor might fail to coordinate that unlisted section and can then assign blame to the architect. As designs are altered and new materials selected, the burden of accurately and thoroughly listing every section that might possibly be related to another section becomes a daunting task that is hardly worth the trouble.
An Argument for Keeping Related Sections:
At one level, the contractor is contractually 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 related work, the owner could be overcharged during bidding and will not likely be fully reimbursed. 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. Placing blame squarely on the contractor does not eliminate the fact that the owner was not well served by the Architects decision to eliminate the Related Sections article. Specs can state that the related sections include but are not limited to the listed sections. This allows the specifier to list related sections as accurately as possible without having to be absolutely flawless. The Architect can eliminate misunderstanding of the Related Sections article by including a general requirements statement such as the following:
Related Sections articles are included herein to make it easier for Contractors, Owners, Architects and others to find products, construction, and equipment 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 its team of subcontractors.
I don’t use related sections to assist in coordination. I only list related sections for portions work that could be reasonably expected to be in the section, but in fact are elsewhere. In other words, I use it as a supplement to the concept of the “work includes” paragraph as a place to give a very short list of what’s in the section–related work is “what you might expect here, but isn’t”. Since most sections include work that must be coordinated with many, many other sections, I wouldn’t use it that way.
Sometimes I get pressure from project managers (or clients) on issues similar to the one you describe. There “needs to be some language” to prevent whatever-it-is-that-the-contractor-screwed-up from ever happening again. We trip over ourselves in this effort, I think. You can’t prevent contractors from making sometimes-spurious arguments to cover themselves for poor performance.
In some of our firmwide masters, we have eliminated the related sections list that Arcom includes in the Master Spec long-form sections. We did this because it was often not edited for specific projects, and thus contained sections that didn’t occur on the project at all. Most of the time, we don’t miss it.
However, I find myself occasionally adding it back in. For instance, when there are very specific coordination needs, such as veneer matching across doors and flush wood paneling, I list the related section and the relationship. (“See Division 6 Section ‘Interior Architectural Woodwork’ for veneer for blueprint-matched doors and panels.”) I also list a related section when it’s an unusual section: in my interior painting section, I might say “See Division 9 Section ‘Multicolored Interior Coatings’ for field-applied multicolored coating systems.” If I have to write the list of related sections myself, I’m very specific and don’t create the impression that the contractor can depend on those lists for all his coordination needs.
Perhaps you could delete the default lists from your masters, and supply only the occasional gentle nudge to the specifier to include a related sections list for things you often see used together.
I’m not sure how I feel about the disclaimer; it seems to repeat information that should be in the Coordination section or the contract. I can see including it once, with a competetively bid job or an “unfriendly” contractor, but not in every technical section.
One my early bosses forbade me from using the Related Sections paragraph stating let the contractor do his own coordination! which, of course, I did. So I was trained not to use the Related Sections paragraph. Over the years, however, I have been on the fence on this issue and as a result I have been doing it both ways [not good] depending on the project.
To force the contractor into a more diligent pursuit of coordination, I have beefed up the use of pre-installation conferences specifically listing related product and interface issues.
A couple of years ago, we had a project which called for a product not typically used in the Mid-Atlantic states [a vented roof insulation panel] because of the hostile environmental conditions within the building. There were many issues to be coordinated with the design so I wrote a very detailed list of coordination points to be addressed both in submittals and in the pre-installation conference. Sad to say, there were significant problems during installation. Turns out that nearly very point of concern listed was ignored by the contractor - in fact, it turns out, he never even held the pre-installation conference. I guess this falls under the heading about leading a horse to water.
Overall, I think there is merit to doing everything we can to make the contract documents simple, clear, and communicative. I generally dont like the idea that design professionals should have to do things just to CYA or not do things that might expose them to a liability issue. OTOH, the real world makes it a necessary. It is a shame that sometimes these two thoughts combat each other.
I guess the easiest way to approach the Related Sections paragraph is to rephrase it to read: Partial List of Related Sections or Partial List of Related Work Specified Elsewhere.
Since everyone else has put in their two cents, we have used:
“Related Sections include, but are not limited to:”
and provide an explanation and disclaimer in Section 01110 - Summary of Work to cover our butts. Seems to work, no complaints and no finger pointing, but than again all our work is in the private sector.
Having once had a timid client who honored a bid protest related to a Related Sections note, I use them with great caution - rather like Vivian describes. I include them in about 10 percent of sections, most likely in the roofing area, where work is spread across a number of sections.