Success or Failure: MF95 transitions ...

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

Author Message Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 01, 2015 - 01:19 pm:    Prompted by another thread (http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/4254/7676.html?1433177148), share your successes and failures of getting clients to transition from MF95 to MF04. More than just stories, try to evaluate what the reason was for success or failure. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1348 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 02, 2015 - 09:28 pm:    Anon, IMHO your efforts to introduce this thread are misguided, MF95 or MF04 are hierarchy systems used to organize specifications, nothing more. I've had at least 70 condo projects issued in MF95, many faced litigation, never was the hierarchy highlighted as fodder for litigation. Its a non issue in the private sector. In the public sector you must follow the rules regarding specification division hierarchy, plain and simple. If you want to start a new thread look at what constitutes the contact documents. The definition of Contract Documents will be challenged during this boom period. I've already had a client ask me for the definition, I chose to cite AIA documents, that would be the one the architect signed with his client (you think my fellow Architects would know not to ask). Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2015 - 12:52 pm:    The purpose of introducing the thread is not to discuss litigation. I'm not sure where you are reading that into my post. Rather, I'm wondering if anyone has tried (successfully or not) to get a client, or consultant, that has been using MF95 to transition to MF04. I'm assuming this would have included discussions on updating the organization of the project manual to align with what CSI currently supports, possibly the owner's own Div 00, and possibly Div 01 documents. Jerome, you've mentioned in other threads that you have developers and architect clients that are using MF95 and will not transition to MF04. Because you've made this statement, I'm assuming you have at a minimum pointed them toward MF04 at some time. Care to share any stories and perhaps their reasoning of why they will not transition? I have not had the opportunity to really try to convince anyone to transition to MF04. Perhaps I'm lucky. Perhaps I haven't been doing this long enough. It has come up with consultants, but usually all I have to mention is that MF95 is no longer supported by CSI and the discussion is done. I'm curious to know if this is unique based on other's experiences. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1353 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 03, 2015 - 03:55 pm:    If it ain't broken, why fix it? When MF04 first came out I polled all my clients, most of them said that they were happy with MF95 and saw no reason to change. Several clients advised that they finally felt comfortable with the 16 divisions and now they are being told to expand to 50? Over the years about half of my clients have transitioned to MF04, not because of industry standards, but rather to have one spec hierarchy in the office, it seems that the first LEED projects in FL were publicly funded and those agencies required MF04. The same goes for architects who went after HUD funded projects after the last crash, HUD requires MF04, and so they transitioned as well. I don't recommend that my clients use two hierarchies for spec organization, I do it, but I'm little crazy. I do have a client that uses both hierarchies, in fact I am starting a new project with them this week, this is the firm who's office standard is a modified short form MF95 format, the project is a rental residential multi family project. The new project specs will be per long form MF04(14, the reason for this format is so bizarre I would have to start another thread, and I want to avoid talking about this job as much as possible. Its one of those jobs I have to take on, even though the Developer and the Contractor are extremely difficult to work with, but its not like I can refuse to prepare specs because the team is a nightmare to work with. Sometimes you don't have a choice. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 596 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 02:38 pm:    Well, the cell phone wasn't "broken" in the 1980's, but I sure am glad Mr. Jobs decided to "fix it". I didn't poll my clients whether they wanted to transition - they hire me for my expertise and knowledge of the specifications industry. I told them about the change, I had box lunches to educate them on why it was changing. This was 10 years ago, and I haven't looked back. Never an issue. Not once. I am currently doing work for SEPTA and they still use 5 digits. It is for one of my big clients, so I am doing it. If it was a new client, I would have turned it down. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1370 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 02:51 pm:    "If it was a new client, I would have turned it down." Robyn, sounds like our spec epidemic is not affecting your area, congrats. I can't afford to turn clients away, especially the ones that are still using specs, I am not going to turn a new or existing client away just because they want to use MF95. No one has convinced me that I should drop MF95 from my database or as a service. in fact I may start promoting MF95 more to bring clients back into the fold, for whatever reason, many of the architects who have stopped using specs also were resistant to using MF04. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 598 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 02:58 pm:    I am not suggesting that anyone turn down work for any reason, I am just stating my opinion. Everyone has to decide for themselves how they want to run their business, what type of work they want, what fees to charge etc. Jerome - you have made it very clear you aren't going to change your opinion or business model. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1372 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 03:05 pm:    Robyn, your opinion is highly regarded on this forum, thanks for sharing. I can not post here something that occurred a few days ago that reinforced that the powers that be in this industry are not happy with my use and promotion of MF95. I will try and send you an email, if I have your email on file, I may be getting paranoid, but weird things are happening behind the scenes. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 585 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 03:11 pm:    Jerome, Ya mean, there really is a MasterFormat police? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1373 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 03:24 pm:    More like Gestapo, Dave. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 112 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 04:52 pm:    This thread was somewhat interesting, even entertaining to a point. But when comparisons to "Gestapo" start getting thrown in, it has stopped being a meaningful conversation. Someone needs a good night's sleep. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 909 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 05:27 pm:    Disappointing that anyone considers themselves in a position to dictate to others, even if that person has the audacity to use MF95 (yes, I'm being cynical). I prefer to use MF (my understanding is that we don't assign dates such as 2004 or 2014 anymore) over MF95 but I too have clients who insist on using MF95. I note also some clients whose spec master is in MF95 but who require the A/E to modify it to MF. Until someone starts paying your bills I'd tell them to go pound sand. I'm happy that you are busy, sorry to hear of all the developers who choose to not use specs at all (or arbitrarily limit the thickness of the Project Manual), and question anyone who feels they are above you because they have the good fortune to have clients who use the current MF. I choose to stand with you brother! Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1375 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 05:46 pm:    David, I never met most of my mother's very large family most died in the concentration camps, my mother survived Bergen Belsen and Aushwitz, I think I have deserved the right to use the word gestapo when ever I damn please. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1376 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 05:48 pm:    Thanks Ken, I appreciate your support. I've not used the term "pound sand", I like it, may borrow it during my next conversation. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 483 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 06:28 pm:    I feel lucky hearing some of these stories. Although some projects wrapping up now that were put on hold during the recession are in the 1995 version, we have not initiated a new project using MF 1995 since our self imposed cut-off date back at the beginning of 2007. With our project types, mostly health care and higher learning, whenever a client waves a MF 1995 master template in our faces we usually quickly find the subscript footer noting "last modified 06/04/1999". Often they aren't even really sure why they insist on using it. Usually a lack of knowledge, budget or initiative to update it and keep it updated. It became a habit and might have been minimally acceptable for small projects with small time contractors, or even in-house staff. Then we come along as the architects of a new building, or wing or a massive remodel and it won't fly. We ask them if they still select circa 1999 medical equipment or use a 1999 cell phone, and then walk them through one of their sections showing all the stuff that is wrong, outdated, no longer available, or no longer to code. One university had patiently burned into their sections carpet types, paint colors and other "Campus Standard" finishes that were from, and stayed, in the 1990's. We then patiently suggest the cost difference between our manually updating of their masters word by word versus our providing up to date Sections that are edited to include their truly necessary preferences and requirements. They usually don't really have that many special preferences and we have never lost that argument. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1377 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2015 - 06:49 pm:    Steve, its really not so bad using MF95, as long as you perform your due diligence to update them. I can see where master specs would be a pain to update, and very costly in time. An hour ago I received a surprise call from a client for a new project, a 20 unit condo, for me this is very small, but it is very high end and its is a condo with a long time client. When I asked about spec hierarchy they immediately said 16 divisions was their preference, I went thru the argument with the PM as to why 16 division may not be the best choice, they again cited comfort and past experience. The kicker for them is that their MEP no longer will issue specs in 16 division format, I know this for sure from a previous project and the job docs are at the Permit stage. It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 839 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, June 05, 2015 - 08:21 am:    I had a client who insisted that MF04 was a passing fad and insisted on staying with MF95. They changed when their MEP consultants started refusing to provide specs in MF95 format. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1399 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 02:26 pm:    But.... the whole point of MF2004 (now 2014) is that 1995 IS broken. The big push for the change came from the electrical and IT professionals in the industry, because they didn't have enough room to specify all of their products and systems. We also have much more complicated mechanical and plumbing systems. (and I actually like the variety of locations for Landscape work). This is really a done deal. Even University of California has finally converted -- they were the last big holdout out here. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1403 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 02:57 pm:    Not in the private sector Anne, in the private sector 16 division is alive an kicking. Compared to no specs on a job, I'd prefer specs in 16 divisions. That's the way it is in Florida, no specs is becoming the norm, very sad indeed. Its sad there are so many reponses supporting the demise of MF95, while the use of any form of spec is getting limited coverage. Scott Piper Senior Member Username: spiper Post Number: 24 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Monday, June 22, 2015 - 03:40 pm:    We have transitioned to the six digit format in our office without much trouble but it has been a learning curve for some bidders. A lot of the contractors were accustomed to thumbing (reading is an overly optimistic goal) thru the PM until they hit the PME sections, at which point they would stop. We got more than a couple of calls with questions like; "why don't you have a paving section since you are calling for a new parking lot". Now that bidders in our area are getting accustomed to the change it has not come up as much recently. Hopefully this is the biggest issue we have to face with the switch. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 326 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Wednesday, October 07, 2015 - 09:51 pm:    When I talked with architects about switching in the mid 2000's, they usually balked that it would never happen, because the engineers couldn't handle it. When they found out it was the engineers who WANTED it in some cases, then they say the contractors surely couldn't handle it. But when contractors saw MF04 based project manuals, they were resourceful enough people that I did not even once hear the slightest complaint. Then there was no one left to resist it except the architects themselves, which is apparently where resistance to change was really coming from all along. Jerome, for projects where they say they want no specs, sometime after they've had it with subs who they can't hold feet to the fire for anything, or if anyone on the owner side already had this experience before, yet the GC is whispering in their ear please sir, no specs, there will sooner or later be an owner rep saying - wrong, we DO need SOME kind of specs. You could preemptively develop some examples of very slim specs along these lines -- though maybe your own specs already are this slim though from the sorts of pressures you've been under -- but you might want to propose for a few projects that you will produce specs using MasterSpec Small Project library and then you will have some examples to show the we-don't-want-no-specs crowd how slim you can do a set of current and condensed yet relatively complete specs. Many people who think they do not want to use MasterSpec have no idea that there are many different libraries with varying levels of detail. I'm in no way suggesting that all spec knowledge is contained in MasterSpec and that you don't need your own masters to contain your custom wording and ongoing research. It just may be good though to at least look over the shoulders of what a large team of researchers & writers are up to who quarterly meet with practicing architects and engineers from around the country to refine best practices and content in specs. No disclaimer needed since no one is paying me to say anything. I am a former writer there so that could affect my bias some. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 871 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 08, 2015 - 11:05 am:    On a few projects, I have had the interesting experience of contractors requesting that the architect provide specifications. These contractors know that the specification protects them from scope creep. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1494 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 08, 2015 - 11:56 am:    Damn, must not be SFL contractors? Ten years ago a South FL Contractor retained our firm to prepare specs on a 50 story condo that did not have specs as part of the contract docs. WE issued the specs, however the Architect of Record protested and the Project Manual was never issued, instead the Contractor attached the spec sections to each subcontractor's agreement. Apparently that worked. Said contractor is no longer in business, due to the past recession. And the Architect remains in business producing contract documents w/o specs. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1495 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 08, 2015 - 12:04 pm:    SFL Update, specifications remain an unnecessary part of contract documents on condominium work especially. Architects won't include them unless the developer will pay for them, and the Developers won't. The Contractors are laughing all the way to the bank. Construction failures are starting, earlier than I expected. Right now the most popular being paint delaminating from aluminum because contractors think aluminum doesn't need pretreatment. Every manufacturer rep I speak to asks me where are the specs, damn if I know is my best response. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 954 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 08, 2015 - 12:52 pm:    Jerry, who knows, maybe it's not freezing over yet but perhaps dropping a few degrees. Good luck my friend! Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: chris_grimm_ccs_scip Post Number: 327 Registered: 02-2014 Posted on Friday, October 23, 2015 - 12:31 am:    Aren't Drawings and Specifications both considered the Architect's "Instruments of Service" to the Owner? They must not be using AIA documents or deleting some things from them, and certainly not bothering with AIA recommended practice. As architects, this seems a risky proposition, not doing what their own professional organization recommends, and then when there are costly failures won't that be a topic of discussion? Or are the owners putting in writing each time that they decline the architect's recommendation to have specifications as part of the instruments of service on this project?