What does AIA say: MF04 vs MF95?

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1327 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 10:50 am:    A potential client is not accepting CSI's stance that MF95 is no longer supported and that MF04(14)is the Industry Standard, they want to see this statement from AIA. Since I am not an AIA member can a fellow specifier (or architect) provide a link to an AIA website that would put this complaint to bed once and for all? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 181 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 10:59 am:    MasterSpec, which is an AIA product, quit using MasterFormat 1995 in 2013. http://www.arcomnet.com/blog/masterspec-masterformat-1995-be-discontinued Of course, the post referenced also mentions converting to 1995 when necessary, so it may not be helpful. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1328 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 11:07 am:    Thanks Liz, unfortunately ARCOMM is not AIA, other spec writers know ARCOMM, but most architects do not. In order to use this I would have to explain how ARCOMM is related to AIA, too much explanation required, architects don't have the attention span for that (personal experience w/fellow architects) I need an AIA reference or statement. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 830 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 11:12 am:    MasterFormat is a CSI product. It is developed and distributed by CSI. They announced that MasterFormat 1995 was not going to be supported (by development or distribution) starting about 1-1/2 years ago. Whether or not AIA has a position on the current version of MasterFormat being and "industry standard" has no bearing on CSI's position. I doubt very much that there is an "official" AIA position although you may find some reference in the current Handbook of Professional Practice. The lack of continuity/consistency between CSI and AIA on this and other issues is unfortunate, but it is a byproduct of "stuff" that happened in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The fact is that CSI fills in many holes that AIA will not or cannot properly address and AIA tacitly relies on CSI to do this. CSI's MasterFormat is widely accepted as "industry standard" by many public and private entities. There are still some significant holdouts. Some of these are organizations that have vested interest in older formats while others are simply functions of organizational inertia. The fact is that the current version of MasterFormat will become the "industry standard" when it becomes more difficult to obtain information in older 5-digit formats than it is to obtain information in the current format. User (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 12:13 pm:    If the client wants specifications in MF95 format, by all means provide the client with what he/she has requested. David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 169 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 03:08 pm:    Jerome, As long as you agree to use MasterFormat 95, your clients will never stop requesting it. It is probably costing you extra money to keep two masters anyway. It's time to tell them you are a CSI member, a SCIP member, and you recommend they accept new industry standards when they become accepted by most of the construction industry. Personally, I would tell, and have told, anyone requesting MF95 to go find another specifier. I would not want a client who was out of touch with the recommendations of a professionals society. And BTW, it's my understanding that AIA owns Arcom MasterSpec, so there is your link. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 582 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 03:26 pm:    AIA owns Masterspec. ARCOM is an independent company that (according to the ARCOM website), was selected by the AIA "to operate all aspects of MasterSpec, including the maintenance and expansion of the master guide specifications, marketing and sales, production, fulfillment, software development, and client support." Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 669 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 04:32 pm:    I have to concur with Peter and David L. I do not agree with "User" Where I just started working, I just finished the last spec under MF95 (It was already started that way). All specs going forward will be in 6 digit, MF14. Client's that want MF95 will be informed that we are no longer using it and will tactfully & respective explain why we are no longer using MF95. While working on the 5 didgit project, I received specs from a consultant in 6 digit format and had to request them to renumber the sections. It wasn't pretty. Creates too much confusion and lots of room for error. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1329 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 06:29 pm:    I appreciate my colleagues responses, but seriously gentlemen you couldn't be more wrong. I prepare specs in both 16 div and 48 div formats, by offering this option my earnings increase, no loss of revenue here, loss of revenue is coming from a different problem or epidemic which I will address in another thread this weekend as it is happening on another project this week. Those who believe offering two formats is difficult does not have an organized office, its never been a problem for my business as long as you maintain decorum. But than again, I am a one man operation, I have no pions to manage. By decorum, here's an example: all disciplines must submit specs following the job format, when push comes to shove a Consultant will find a way to meet the job format, if they want the job. I've had jobs where the architect will change from one format to another to appease a Consultant, but those are rare. If there is no requirement on format from a governing body or funding source, the Architect chooses the format, I usually suggest a format, but most of my clients know what they want. I always recommend 48 division for new clients. I have a lot of repeat clients who are comfortable using 16 division format and are not willing to change, actually I have one client who I have prepared specs for almost 20 years, 40 projects, only two being in 48 division format. David L I wish that my credentials were enough to sway a client from the dark side, they are not. What's that saying about how money talks? Its always about the fee, yes I have the reputation that is important, however its no longer a game changer, the fee is what sways most architects, especially the ones who have not been involved in litigation. But even the seasoned architect who knows the value of specifications is no longer insisting on their incorporation in the contract documents. And that my friends is the epidemic that specwriters are facing in Florida. Developers are refusing to pay for specifications. Architects do not have the budgets to pay for specifications, and even if they did, contractors are convincing developers to delete specifications from the documents to meet construction budgets. Sad indeed. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1330 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 30, 2015 - 07:23 pm:    BTW, I lied in my opening post, its not a potential client its my 20 year client. My apologies for the fib. I wrote specs for this client 5 years ago for a rental apartment project part of a 20 year build out PUD containing both residential and commercial projects. The developer is using my client for the condo and rental residential projects and a different architect for the commercial and office projects. The architect on the commercial buildings has not included specs in their documents. Going back to the project in question, the specs were prepared in the 48 division format because the project was being funded by HUD. I recall many objections from the developer and the architect, but HUD's requirements were in stone, and the parties agreed. Construction was completed late last year. Now the same developer wants to repeat the project, except w/o HUD financing. The architect claims that the same footprint is being used and the list of differences between projects is minimal. Seems easy enough, we can just 'reuse' the format from the previous job changing the building code criteria and bring the specs up to date for current industry standards and product changes. However the developer prefers 16 division and does not believe that 16 division is considered archaic. The Developer wants proof that 48 division is the industry standard, and that is the reason for this thread. I've sent an email to my client paraphrasing all the input I've received here, hopefully that will be enough. I've added the caveat that the fee will increase dramatically if we are to convert to 16 division format, not because its a hardship to issue 16 divisions, rather on this particular project, the specs were revised dramatically during negotiations between the Developer, Contractor and Architect, to the point where I've told the architect these specs are specific to this project only. Revising to 16 division would be difficult. BTW, the Developer hopes to negotiate a contract with the previous contractor. I am told construction took a while to start due to all the HUD paperwork, but once underway there were minimal problems, none with the specs. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 831 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, May 31, 2015 - 12:15 pm:    I recently refused to take on a 16-Division format job. It is just too difficult for me. On this particular project, the client had a master that dated from the 1980s that was in serious need of being discarded. MasterSpec does have a utility to "back convert" documents from the current version of MasterFormat to MF95; however, because it only addresses the section title and number and not cross references, a lot of work tedious mind numbing work remains. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 2021 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Sunday, May 31, 2015 - 05:25 pm:    If it helps any, Flad officially refuses to use the 16 Division Format. SpecLink also has the ability to "back convert" like MasterSpec. Because it's a database, it might deal with the references. I don't know because we've never done it - grin. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 743 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 12:41 am:    BTW, MF 04 etc. has 50 Divisions. Note Div 00 + Div 00 thru 49 = 50 Divisions, except (to get very nit-picky) there are Divisions that are listed in Masterformat as "not used" and "reserved". Why not simply reference the edition of Masterformat which will be used to organize the Project Manual? To add to the fun, refer to the Project Manual" and not the "book specs" or "spec book". Which takes precedence: slang and misnomers or published titles? Perhaps the agreement for specification writing services should simply state that the documents will be prepared in accordance with the recommended principles, practices and formats of the Construction Specifications Institute. Will drawings be prepared in accordance with some mythical standards and formats of the American Institute of Architects? Which will govern: the Section numbers and titles of Revit or the specifications writers' interpretation and adaptation of Masterformat? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1334 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 05:32 am:    John, I like this: "the documents will be prepared in accordance with the recommended principles, practices and formats of the Construction Specifications Institute." But I could only add it to agreements with new clients, the existing clients would question why I've added it to the agreement and perhaps question if previous specs were or were not in compliance with CSI. In reality CSI means nada to most of my clients, several think I'm referring to building forensics, go figure. In my current practice 80% of my work is with existing clients. With the newbies I recommend the latest and greatest, MF14, but my reputation precedes me and many architects come to me because they are fed up with pompous by the book specwriters who don't live in the real world. I expect the epidemic to continue , at least in Florida, there is one light shining dimly, rumors that litigation against architects who do not follow industry standards by not including specifications in their contract documents. I fear that by the time that threat sinks in, I will have followed Lynn's magical mystery tour to retirement or death, which ever comes first. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 111 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 10:21 am:    Jerome, I follow your logic. Your MO is content rather than format. Since you and your clients are satisfied, I'm only left wondering why you posed the question to begin with. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1335 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 11:06 am:    David, the original question was a request for proof that MF95 was no longer the industry standard. However I needed an AIA version of this proof, not CSI, because my architectural clients care little about CSI, actually I've had a few ask me if my CSI Certification is for building forensics, too much TV I guess? Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 659 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 11:09 am:    just tell them that AIA is not the appropropriate authority to reference on this issue. It would be akin to asking FIFA's stance on Olympic venues :-) Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 11:29 am:    Google is your friend, learn to harness its power. See "Goodbye 16 Divisions!": http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/ek_members/documents/pdf/aiab096888.pdf Also in website format rather than PDF here: http://www.aia.org/practicing/groups/kc/AIAB081787 Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1336 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 11:33 am:    Except that I never heard of FIFA until this past week, sort of like CSI, Architects think CSI is about criminal forensics... Nathan, I see you are not an Architect, I am, I can tell you that the egos are massive and telling an Architect (especially one who belongs to AIA) that AIA is not the appropriate authority on a contract document is just not done. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 660 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 11:46 am:    Oh sorry, I thought you wanted a factual answer, not a political one. Interestingly, the link posted by Annon describes an "AIA’s MasterFormat Transition Advisory Team" but I couldn't find anything else about it on AIA's website. I do note that this AIA article talks about CSI's position on this, not AIA's, giving credence to the fact that CSI is the governing body for Specifications, not the AIA Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1337 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 11:49 am:    David, I've engaged in several threads where my colleagues have advised their dissatisfaction with my MO. They consider me a traitor to the CSI cause, that I am performing a disservice to the spec writing profession by not turning my back on MF95 and fully supporting MF04. TOUGH! As you said my clients are very appreciative that I offer alternatives. I have many repeat clients, one firm who has used my services for 20 years, in fact today I will be starting my 39th multifamily project with them. If I were not to offer them specs in MF95 they have advised they will find someone else who can or they will go spec-less...they refuse to use MF04. All of my clients prefer shorter specifications, I’ve prepared both MF95 and MF04 for the same type and size projects, I can tell you that the size of an MF04 Project Manual is always larger than MF95. Developers measure the thickness of Project Manuals these days, its pathetic. Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 11:49 am:    I think there is one better than the "Goodbye 16 Divisions!" article. Use AIA Document A521 which references the 50 MasterFormat divisions (not 16) as location for subject matter. http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab091842.pdf Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 661 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 11:59 am:    Good find Annon! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1338 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 12:08 pm:    Anon, much thanks for your contributions, I have downloaded what I can and will review them when time permits. My client who's query generated this thread has responded, they don't care that AIA or CSI has stopped supporting 16 divisions, for this company they are comfortable with specifications in 16 divisions, they see no reason to change any time in the future as long as no funding source or government agency requires them to use MF04. End of discussion. I can't argue with this client, they have continued to support my efforts as an independent spec writer and although we've had some rough patches, 20 years of loyalty is worth my respect. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1339 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 12:11 pm:    Anon, how about sharing your secret for googling and getting these great finds. I don't have this kind of success, and I thought I was pretty good at searching the web. Please keep it up, your efforts are much appreciated by us ordinary folk. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 833 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 12:35 pm:    I had heard that the "Uniform Location of Subject Matter" was being revised, but was not aware that it had been revised and published. Thanks, Anon for the heads up. Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 12:27 pm:    Use this to go beyond basic keyword searches: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/2466433?hl=en Use this to show off your new powers and embarrass those who don't know how to use Google in internet forums ... or your mother/grandmother: http://bfy.tw/1Hy Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1340 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 12:45 pm:    Anon has a sense of humor too! Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 215 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 02:02 pm:    Jerome, I think you have quite a few good take-a-ways from this thread. One is that you do what is best for your clients. Both institutions and their stances may not be best for your business. Another one is that you are correct about the growth of the specs. While I have always issued specs on my projects, I also realize that the "size" has gotten beyond the means to correctly review and coordinate them properly within the time-frame or budget of the architectural fee. The architect is so busy with the drawings and getting them done, he has little time coordinating or reviewing them. I long for the old spec books from the past. Even pre MF95. I remember Sheldon presenting at a now defunct specifier conference about shorter specs. In fact, when asked about the need for part 3, he agreed that with many, if not most, sections really did not need a part 3 since that delves into means and methods. An interesting concept with a lot of truth. It is about thinking differently. I will never forget the AIA seminar put on by ARCOM about short form specs. What I learned was that they were created for the typical use. If there was no special use of gyp board, then the short form is appropriate. What I have found is that specifiers tend to create the long form all the time. There are many sections that can shrink by thinking along those lines. Jerome, an idea for an approach that I would challenge you to do, is actually try to find ways to convey specs in the drawings. In other words, just see if it can be done. Think differently. Most of the time I see everyone digging into their stance and never budging. While I agree that a full spec is the best, there are clients that will not accept what is absolutely the best. The trouble with specs on drawings means that the independent has a harder time coordinating since he is using the drawings as his medium. I know what the AIA and CSI stances are. Everything by their book. That actually might not be right for your clients. You have addressed these issues in past threads, too. Do what is right for your clients and your business. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1341 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 02:33 pm:    Alan, I have teamed up with another Florida based specwriter and we are looking at creating sheet specs for specifically for Florida projects. The problem is that there is not enough potential for profit. Fees are low as it is in private sector work and even though sheet specs could solve some problems, my clients don't seem to be interested in them, especially if the cost is higher than book specs (at least initially). Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 592 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 03:28 pm:    IMO, when there is a lawsuit, and the Plaintiff points out that the Architect couldn't even product documents that are in keeping w/ industry standard, what else aren't they keeping current with, it will immediately present a negative impression to the jury. Even though the organization of the specs isn't likely the cause of any defects, it still reflects on an architect who isn't current with industry standards, and that is what a jury will take away. After all, if they can't create documents in current industry standards, maybe they aren't complying with the necessary professional standard of care in other ways? Why give them any unnecessary negative ammunition. This isn't legal advice. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 593 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 04:34 pm:    BTW, the decision of whether it is "industry standard" (per your original question) depends on what reasonable professional specifiers would say. If most agree that the MF04 is the appropriate system, than that is the industry standard. Because AIA is not a professional entity focused on specifications, they are not the appropriate source for legitimizing specification formats. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1345 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 07:14 pm:    Robin your first post is absolutely correct especially in regards to condo work in Florida. Attorneys are looking for negligence and not issuing correct contract documents according to the law is grounds for negligence. Many architects are jumping on the no specs bandwagon and forgetting about their work history, in the last boom 10 years ago many of these architects included specifications as part of their contract documents but not in current work. Nothing has changed in AIA documents, nor Florida Standards (i.e FL Condo Law), nor the Building Code, I just don't get it, why take the risk? Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 594 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 08:26 pm:    "not issuing correct contract documents according to the law is grounds for negligence"... actually, not quite accurate. There are a number of things that are required to show negligence, and falling below the standard of care is one of the elements. Standard of care is determined by reasonable professional in a similar profession and location (this is a cliff notes version). Architects are not required to provide perfect contract documents. The fact that the documents themselves aren't correct doesn't automatically lead to a negligence claim. An attorney would use the absence of specifications as a way of proving the architect did not meet the standard of care, but several other elements need to be proven to show negligence. I think there are some statutes that required drawings and specs. In those jurisdictions, the absence of specs could automatically show the architect didn't meet their standard of care, but wouldn't necessarily prove negligence if other factors required for this claim aren't present (eg; duty, causation, damages). Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 275 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2015 - 09:37 am:    Robin, Thanks for commenting here. I always appreciate your perspective. - John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 744 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 10:10 pm:    I understand that the low voltage system interests who unilaterally broke the 16 Division format with the unauthorized addition of Division 17 now insists that Div 17 continue to be used and not the alien "20" series Divisions of MF 04 et. al. I don't care. I leave it to those who use non-conforming Division numbers, including cross-referernces to other Divisions, to resolve conflicts if they occur. Only by experiencing the consequences, I believe, will there be interest in conforming to established formats and practices. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 55 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 04:58 pm:    Now if MF would get rid of the goofy gerund titles, which, BTW, are not in the engineering divisions! 'Steel deck' and 'tile' are work results that are improvements to real property, but 'decking' and 'tiling' grammatically are processes--not results of contract work. Why not 'concreting' or 'toilet compartmenting' or 'plumbing fixturing' to be consistent? Please pardon the non-sequitur, but some Friday afternoons I just have to vent. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 44 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 06:41 pm:    Louis - I am right with you. From now on, I will refer to the work result as "ceil" instead of the gerund, "ceiling". Have a good weekend. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 56 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 11:43 am:    To ceil or not to ceil, that is the question! Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 484 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, June 08, 2015 - 12:07 pm:    So, if you use a sealant to seal something, does that mean you use a ceil to ceilant something?