Archive through September 18, 2014

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1174 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 05:08 pm:    A client wants to use this format for a HUD project, HUD says as long as CSI recognizes it? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1257 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 05:14 pm:    CSI no longer supports MF95. I've worked on HUD projects using MF04 (with later revisions) and had no problem. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1175 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 05:20 pm:    Thanks Ron, I completed the project in Masterformat 2014, but the GC and Developer want to revise the specs to 16 divisions...no reason given, I have told them it would have to be a completedly new spec, I believe they are thinking they can reduce quality in less sections...its good for me, but going thru Dominion review again is no fun and I expect this Owner thinks I can just pull the specs out of my....well you get the picture. Michael Heinsdorf, P.E. Senior Member Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe Post Number: 17 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:21 pm:    I've never done it, but if you used MasterSpec, there is a multi-file tool in MasterWorks that allows conversion from 2004 to 1995 (but not vice versa). Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1176 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:40 pm:    Thanks Michael, I don't use Masterformat as a base for my specifications, only as a database, most of my recent work is in South Florida & the Caribbean and I've found the Masterspec specifications do not mesh with the reality of South Florida construction. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1177 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 06:44 pm:    Of course this means when I drop dead in front of my computer or stroke out, that's the end of Lazarcitec. C'est la vie. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C, MAI Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 278 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 07:30 pm:    CSI support of MF95 ended on 12/31/2009. Five years of overlap between the two versions began in 2004. Now it has been 10 years since the new version came out, seems like that would be enough, right? http://www.csinet.org/Home-Page-Category/Formats/MasterFormat/RIP95.html I keep a PDF of this in my format folder ready to send when someone ignores the project format and issues 5-digit documents. It would be interesting if they could articulate any advantage to the owner for going backward 10 years in the document standards. Every now and then someone even still has specs that go 3A, 3B, 3C.....lol. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1178 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 07:56 pm:    Chris in the private sector it does not matter what format you use, I am preparing specs for a 54 story condominium project developed by one of the top developers in the US. The VP of Construction for that firm prefers 16 Division and that is what is being prepared. This developer has been developing projects for the past 20 years and has never received any flak regarding spec format, including from attorneys during litigation, its only an issue in the Public Sector. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 564 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 08:31 pm:    Personally, I don't think there is any reason to provide specs in the old format. I consider it part of my responsibility to the profession to educate my clients and explain that the old format is seriously outdated and no longer industry standard. I have no problem picking that battle - I think Masterformat is one of the fundamental tools of our trade and we should make every effort to support it in its current version and discourage use of the outdated system. I have not had one single client push back when I educate them and have not lost a single penny in income from refusing to use the old system.(getting off soapbox now). Also, I am currently working with some other attorneys to help educate attorneys about CSI and Masterformat and specification preparation so attorneys may (hopefully) be more aware in the future that the old system is obsolete. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 565 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 08:36 pm:    "I believe they are thinking they can reduce quality in less sections" Jerome - are they aware there will be the same number of sections, give or take a few? Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 105 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 09:05 pm:    Perhaps they want it in MasterFormat 95 because they think will be more compatible with their Windows 95 computers... Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1179 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 10:53 pm:    Robin, perhaps I look at it differently, to me Masterformat is a way to format the spec sections, a hierarchy if you will, it does not determine the contents of the specification section, I seldom follow my peers, nor the establishment. I can tell you the content of specs I prepare in the 1995 format is equal or better than the content in the 'newer' versions. For my practice I tailor the specifications for the client, I could care less about the establishment. On the rare occasion that a government agency determines the hierarchy I of course will comply. If a client is more comfortable with 16 divisions so be it, its up to them, as long as they pay their invoices on time, I could care less. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1180 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 11:04 pm:    Bob, I have one station left that is a Dell Windows 95 computer, my most reliable computer station ever, I have to retire it this year even though it has never failed me, its been upgraded as far as I can take it, it won't be dismantled, I'll find someone to donate it to, its big and slow, but it was the one computer I could always count on. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 566 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 11:18 pm:    Yes, we will definitely have to agree to disagree on this topic! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1181 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 - 11:25 pm:    Thanks to Chris's link, the client has backed off his request, now I have only one insane deadline for tomorrow. Thanks Chris. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 252 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 08:52 am:    Robin and Jerome, I agree with both of you, and I suspect I'm not the only one. Unfortunately we have several public agency clients who still insist on the 5-digit format. That's really not their biggest problem either. We start with our most up-to-date master and change the numbers back to 6 digits. Ridiculous, yes. Cost effective, no. Shockingly, there are still several MEP/FP engineers who claim "it's not in their fee" to change to 6 digit format. I can't imagine they'll have much fee left to complain about if they are 15 years out of step with their profession. - J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 766 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 06:41 pm:    OK; I am trying to restrain from being catty, but I recently received these Owner's instructions for preparing specifications, and can't resist sharing: INSTRUCTIONS FOR TYPING SPECIFICATIONS • Do not use erasable bond or any bond that has an oily surface. • Do not use onionskin. • Use carbon film (polyethylene) ribbon. • Do not use various weights of paper for originals. Be consistent throughout the specifications. I am waiting for the direction to use MF88 to organize the specifications. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 533 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 06:47 pm:    No onionskin? So you can't make carbon copies? Meow. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 766 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, September 16, 2014 - 06:59 pm:    That owner knows that the IBM Selectric typewriter is the ultimate advance in specification preparation. If you are still using an obsolete Underwood, you need to update today to keep pace with your competition. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 657 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2014 - 12:16 am:    Do they even sell carbon paper any more? As others have indicated in this thread, CSI no longer supports MF95 16 Divisions, so I would take that to mean that they no longer recognize it. It's about time Clients moved into the 21st Century and accepted the new technology. Peter - What did your client say when you told him you used a computer? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 767 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2014 - 07:50 am:    Following up on it. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1258 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2014 - 11:12 am:    I've been trying to make the technological transition, but I keep running into problems. Just yesterday I was trying to make multiple copies and the darned carbon paper became jammed in the laser printer. Also, I have this tendency to knock my keyboard off the tray every time I reach the end of a line of text. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 791 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 18, 2014 - 12:26 pm:    I missed a lot of great pictures at the convention - ran out of film.