MF2004 vs. MF95 rant

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

Author Message Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1955 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 02:57 pm:    So, I received the specifications from our civil consultant today. In a PDF binder. With Division 01 sections. With no blank pages after sections with an odd number of pages. With the civil specs in 5 digit Division 02 sections. AAAARRRRGH. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 200 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 03:00 pm:    And when are you sending docs to the printer/publishing? Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1956 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 03:06 pm:    Tuesday. The good thing is it's a 60% set. And I will publish the manual as a separate document. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 260 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 03:44 pm:    Lynn, Tell your civil that there's a Y2K virus in the printer and it won't accept 1995 documents anymore. - ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 869 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 03:45 pm:    Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't be better off including Civil as an Allowance and issue it as Delegated Design. My bet is that it will come out just as bad, create fewer problems for the rest of the team, and cost the owner less money to fix in the field. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 870 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 03:46 pm:    Lisa, I'm going to try that next time. That is precious. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 206 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 03:47 pm:    You can do that with all consultants these days. Oh wait, that is called IPD. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 871 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 04:02 pm:    Hey Alan, I thought I was the cynic on this forum. Robert E. Woodburn, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 131 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 04:24 pm:    Not everyone is as up-to-date as MF95. Not too long ago we had a consultant send us civil specs that were just the county's standard bridge and highway specs (organized as "Items," and full of "measurement and payment" provisions--patterned, I guess, after the state DOT standard specs). I believe it was the whole set--and they weren't edited for the job. After a little grousing, I think I included them in the Project Manual as an appendix. We also have in-house civil engineers. Their master spec filenames still have the old 5-digit Division 2 numbers (in parentheses, following the three-pair MF2004 numbering). When I questioned why (thinking it might be nostalgia, or a passive-aggressive act of protest against the change) they said they occasionally do work for the city, and for that, the city requires they use MF95. I couldn't really argue. As a spec consultant, for a $1.2 billion citywide sewer system upgrade project, I had helped the city's public works department engineers make the more difficult transition from their old "Item" style sewer specs to MF95. IIRC, that was around 2000 or 2001. Timing... Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1957 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 04:35 pm:    And we can do one of three things: (1) weep; (2) rant; or (3) help facilitate change. I vote for #3, just not as the deadline approaches like Damocles' sword! Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 207 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 04:38 pm:    Ken, you have rubbed off some of that cynicism to me... ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 872 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 05:17 pm:    Thanks Alan. That's high praise. For the Civil folks, one of my favorites has been the municipality that uses their Division 00 "Sections" to include the State DOT Specifications by reference as part of their "Special Provisions" including front end and technical requirements. Very impressive...and confusing. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 827 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, February 06, 2015 - 10:48 pm:    Remember, folks, Ms. J will be facilitating change for only a short time. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 586 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2015 - 12:54 pm:    at least you received specs from your civil. List them under Division 2, remove the division 01 sections that are redundant, bind it up and issue it. At least, that is what I would do (and do when I get MPE in Div 15/16). I have NEVER received blank pages on odd page sections in my career. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 287 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2015 - 03:23 pm:    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Scott Piper Senior Member Username: spiper Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Monday, February 09, 2015 - 10:38 am:    I am confused, I am not familiar with this situation. You lost me at: "I received specifications from our civil consultant today" Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1958 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 - 12:44 pm:    It's a 60% set; it's going as is. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1240 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - 04:33 am:    Ahh, the advantage of not working in the public sector, in Florida's private sector Civil Engineers don't know how to write specs or list their 'specs' on the drawings, seldom do I receive Civil Specs in book form and when I do they are in pre-1995 MF, this is esp the case in high rise work. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 48 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2015 - 11:25 am:    Do the Civil general notes on the drawings conflict with their project manual specs, Div-01 sections, and the owner's conditions of the contract? Won't get sued for 'wrong' 5-digit numbers, but uncoordinated general notes not edited to be project-specific can get us into hot water. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1964 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2015 - 12:51 pm:    We have communicated with the engineer regarding the submittal and advised him to let us know of special requirements for Division 01 regarding his specifications. I didn't have time when they came in to see if there were conflicts. (Naturally, they came in at the 11:59th hour). He was told we expect MF12, 6 digits, and current industry standards. However, should he ignore our "request" and the next submittal is the same, we will get very serious about it. There really is no excuse to produce specifications so out-of-date and non-standard. It makes the information contained in the spec extremely suspect! What else is not up to par? What else is out-of-date? What other changes in the industry have been ignored? And Scott, thanks for that grin... Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 832 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2015 - 01:59 pm:    I often see comments about getting sued for various conflicts, lack of coordination, incorrect references, and other issues. I know there can be problems during construction, but how often do they end up in court? Give examples. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEEDŽ AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 250 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2015 - 02:13 pm:    Whenever a contractor claims there is additional cost due to a conflict, omission, or "error," then the possibility of a claim arises. The existence of claims increases the risk of a suit. Examples are innumerable: waterproofing, flashing, finishes, basis of design equipment, etc. Years ago I was involved in a suit where the contractor built a penthouse enclosure/screen (metal paneling) that blew off during a storm. It was not build per the CDs, and the Owner (a government entity) required the contractor to replace it. The contractor sued to get reimbursed Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 205 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2015 - 02:48 pm:    Isn't the trend to require arbitration in the agreements? There are still legal consequences, but things usually have to get pretty bad to get to that level. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 628 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2015 - 02:49 pm:    Binding arbitration is generally disfavored for architects. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 833 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2015 - 06:02 pm:    I'll expand my question; how many end up in arbitration, mediation, or other legal-ation? I know faulty documents increase the probability, but what are the statistics? Ellis offers one case, from year ago, but what he said suggests it wasn't because of a problem with the documents. We hear about the big cases, like Gehry's leaking building, but how common are problems for us commoners? Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEEDŽ AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 251 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, February 13, 2015 - 07:25 am:    If you want statistics, a professional insurance carrier would probably have them. Isn't that part of how they set rates? Even if a firm (or person) is never actually sued or brought to arbitration, the threat of a claim often leads to long hours (and expense) in discussions with the opposing entity trying to avoid a claim. I think Contractors are more willing to file claims than AE’s. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1395 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - 02:13 pm:    1) it has been a long time since I worked for an architect who would accept binding arbitration as the solution to a problem. 2) Sheldon: its not usually the documents, including Gehry's project -- and that was settled in a back room deal. 3)when we get specs from a consultant that are mis-formatted, mis-numbered and the like, we send them back for correction. sometimes we send them back twice. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 846 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 17, 2015 - 11:53 pm:    Anne, I agree with you. I think design decisions and material selection are the source of most problems, certainly the big ones. If that's the case, though, forum members, why the occasional gnashing of teeth about the exact location of a specific item, or the difference between a mockup and a field sample? It doesn't happen all that often, but I'm always curious when someone suggests you might end up in court for some minor infraction. If it does happen, I'd like to know the specific legal case. I'm not excusing sloppy work or conflicting requirements, but it sometimes seems we get bent out of shape about minor differences of opinion. Not that I don't like the philosophical aspects of our work; I'm always ready for discussion of why we do the things we do!