I have a project where the architect (my client) is the consultant to an engineering firm that is providing the civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical services (drawings and specifications).
They are also providing Division 01 sections (well, not really, they’re Division 1 sections because they’re still using MF95).
I’m half tempted to submit an “Architectural General Requirements” section just to see how they would react. 
Fun. What number would you give it?
Ron,
Why stop there. Put them on the drawing sheets.
Actually, a better title would be “General Architectural Provisions.”
Liz: Probably 01000, since it didn’t exist in MF95, much like the sections I get from other consultants, such as 220000 “General Plumbing Provisions.”
Michael: I don’t have access to the drawing files (other than the PDFs I get); plus, I doubt I could get the architect to play along.
On a more serious note, I hope that you and the Architect have a chance to review and comment on the division 1 content, to make sure the Architect has not been signed up to review submittals in 3 days or less, confirm that the language about record documents is consistent with their O/A contract, etc. Inserting your own Section 01000 - General Requirements may in fact be necessary.
Greta:
I asked for a copy of their Division 1 sections–they sent me four sections. The TOC has over 40 sections listed in Division 1; Section 01330 “Submittal Procedures” is listed, but that is not one of the four I received.
OMG, You are the same people who emphatically admonish engineering consultants not to create their own “additional” general requirements. The path to confusion is paved with each contributor doing their own thing while not attempting to create a single, coordinated set of documents that address the needs for all professional involved in Contract Administrative services however comprehensive or minor in nature.
If the engineer is the prime professional, they should be the primary author of the General Requirements, but that is not to say they are the only author. This division must be in this case and in all cases the result collaboration by all professionals involved.
Yes, collaboration is critical, but the consultant (in this case, the Architect & Specifier) should be able to review all the Division 1 sections. How else can they know if something needs coordination?
This could be a great opportunity to educate and help get them into the 21st century.
Michael:
I was only suggesting the idea to be facetious. As I mentioned in my last post, I had asked for a copy of the Division 1 sections and they sent me less than 10% of the sections listed on the TOC. It’s kind of hard to coordinate and collaborate when you don’t share (or, they’ve left editing Division 1 to the very end and have only completed four sections).
Ron,
When I have faced this issue in the past, I create a responsibility matrix of rows and columns near the right margin of the TOC. Yes, I create a table. Reading left to right I have a column for the Owner, Contractor when known, my firm, S, P, HVAC, E, building enclosure consultant, landscape, civil, LEED, and sometimes the Owner’s interior designer.
Not all column names are required. MEP if one entity can be in one column.
I highlight the names of the sections by others in bold face RED color. NEAT eh.
Content of Division 01 is dependent on my firms A/O agreement for CA responsibilities such as submittal procedures, substitution procedures. I might also include quality requirements, product requirements, final cleaning, etc.
A continuing coordination/QA issue of saying it once in the most logical location is the MEP consultants that repeat, contradict, do not coordinate with the general requirements of DIVISION 01. They want to be master and commander of all things MEP. MEP has a hard time just using the same project name in the section headers, and correct issued for date in the footer. I usually get a mess in page formats. Widows, orphans, options in left in place, metric units for imperial projects, etc.
Samples available upon request to wayne.yancey@crtkl.com
That is all I have to say about that.
NEAT = No excuses after this
Wayne
Ron - I recognized your facetiousness. My comment was in the same spirit.
I cannot speak to the particulars of Ron’s situation, but we were involved in a similar fashion where the lead consultant was the structural engineer of record. This was for a University Dormitory seismic strengthening and renovation project. The building formed one side of a quad and was denoted as “XXX Dorms, Building A”.
Let’s just say that a couple years later, when it came time to do the same work for “XXX Dorms, Building B”, that the Architect was the prime consultant. Same team entirely, just a trading of places.
Facetious or whatever, I’d put engineer on notice that, pending your receipt of complete Div 1, you (and your architect client) are NOT responsible (to engineer) for any Div 1 related criteria/requirements, coordination (or lack thereof) with architectural specs sections, etc.
Maybe that will “wake-up” and get the engineer’s “heads out of the sand..or somewhere else”!
Of course, this all begins with the negotiation of the consulting agreement between the engineer and architect. Scope of services are essential.
Michael, I don’t think the architect even knew to ask (and I doubt the engineering firm offered to inform them).
When the architect asked me for a proposal, not once was it mentioned to me that the architect was a consultant and not the prime (it’s on my “to ask” list now).
My agreement states that I will prepare the specifications following the MasterFormat 2014 update (I forgot to update it to read MF16). I’m just waiting for the engineering firm to come back and tell the architect to have me to convert my sections to the “five digit format.”
Ron, instead of stating “MF16” in your agreement, consider saying, “Masterformat, edition in effect on date of Agreement.” That way, you won’t have to update the agreement as often.
Good idea, Michael C.
Ron - I too have encountered initial negotiations without knowing architect is consultant to someone else (e.g., GC on D-B project, or PM/CM prime); only when any RFP-type documents are received, do I suspect that being the case.
Anyways, my agreement (or proposal) specifically includes (or excludes) coordination with “other’s” GCs, supple cond’ns, and Div (0)1 sections, contingent on being provided in searchable, electronic format. Obviously (and implicitly), if “front-end” docs are not provided as a complete set, then you cannot fully/completely assure coordinated specs sections…can you?