| Author |
Message |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 136
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 02:35 pm: |    |
During the MF2004 Accredited Instructor training at the CSI Show & Convention, it was suggested that a list be maintained with anyone that has converted to MF2004, is planning to convert to MF2004, or is requiring its consultants to use MF2004.
Greg Ceton, CSI Staff, has volunteered(?) to develop this list, but I thought starting this thread may help him generate the list.
The list would include (but is not limited to) federal, state, county, and local agencies and departments; private companies/corporations; utilities companies; A/E firms; etc.
If you're aware that any of the above have taken the "leap of faith," please add to this thread. I'll start:
*Department of Defense (Army, Navy, Air Force)
*National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
*Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) |
Ralph Liebing
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 169
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 02:49 pm: | |
We are in the process of completing our converstion and have a target date of August 1, 2005 for use of the new system. We rolled this out to our staff just before the Convention.
Might add that due to the type of practice we have, and our clients' projects we have adapted a slight variation of the Division format. FYI, we are an A/E firm with all disciplines in-house. |
Robert E. Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn
Post Number: 23
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 03:17 pm: | |
To be really helpful, any such list needs to include more than just the names of the organizations signing on. The target date and perhaps a brief description of the circumstances of the adoption are just as important. For example, The DoD reportedly plans to make the switch in April of 2006 (apparently as an abrupt and across-the-board change, including all projects initiated after that date, in all jurisdictions). But some users may continue to use MF95 for some projects along with 2004 for others. As long as they do, the data needs to reflect the partial or gradual nature of the change. |
Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT
Senior Member
Username: dbrinley
Post Number: 32
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 03:31 pm: | |
King County Washington has allowed use of MF2004 for technical specifications sections 02-49 on a recent project. However, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office Contracts Section has not set a timetable for revision of Division 0 and Division 1.
We attempted to implement MF2004 Division 1, however the agency was unable or unwilling to advance those important elements. We are not aware of any person who was aware MF2004 was 'out there'.
Perhaps it would be beneficial at some point for CSI to engage procurement departments, legal sections and others in an information-dissemination process. (or maybe not) |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 03:41 pm: | |
"Many owners, such as General Motors, Walt Disney Imagineering Labs, the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART), and the Canadian government, are requiring future projects to follow MasterFormat 2004 Edition." from http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?TrackID=&SID=1&DID=10477&CID=249&VID=2&RTID=0&CIDQS=&Taxonomy=False&specialSearch=False |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 03:39 pm: | |
GSA: “Owners are getting together, and we know we are speaking with a loud voice,” said Charles G. Hardy, deputy director of the Office of Property Development for the General Services Administration (GSA) Great Lakes Region. Hardy said the GSA will begin requiring all new projects to use MasterFormat 2004 Edition this fall. “We want continuity of language. We're going to ask for more information up front. We’re looking for the tools that will allow us to do the business we do. MasterFormat makes sense.” from http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec_CSIWeekly.asp?TRACKID=&CID=1227&DID=10695 |
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 191
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 01:52 pm: | |
University of Washington is looking at a Jan 1, 2006 conversion date, with some allowances for smaller firms who have not converted yet.
anyone out there have any information on the University of California system? |
Wayne Yancey (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 12:23 pm: | |
The division in which I work for my employer is Buidling Engineering. This division's specialty is building science. I am with the assessment and rehab studio in my office. We also have a new construction studio. I found the MF2004 to more suitable for rehab strip and reclad projects (thanks Dennis) than the MF95. I made the conversion to MF2004 in the 4th quarter of 2004. Our rehab projects are competitively bid to invited bidders. The extent of MF2004 divisions we use is limited to Divisions 00, 01, 02; very limited 04, 05, & 06; most of Division 07; limited 08; and very limited 09. My conversion was not a big task. At the end of the day, I have more documents and sections in Division 00 and 01 than from Divisions 02-09. The decision to convert was mine alone. Our other North American offices are aware of the MF2004 and may or may not have converted. As an aside, I opted to format the document and section numbers with a space between the 2nd and 3rd numbers. I have also taken liberites with some section names and made minor tweaks to better reflect the rahab project, such as "00 5300 Replacement Plastic Windows" versus "00 5300 Plastic Windows. |
Wayne Yancey (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 02:50 pm: | |
Oops, delete Section number 00 5300 and
Substitute 08 5300. Operator error (OE). |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 09:37 pm: | |
There are some level 4 numbering recommendations that address rehab, replacement, renovation, etc., indicated in the MasterFormat Book. Thus the liberties you have taken, could be brought closer into conformance.
But it is also doubtful that the MasterFormat Police will come after you. |
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 212
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 05:54 pm: | |
any updates to the list of associations/organizations/owners converting to MF2004? |
Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI
Intermediate Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 4
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 02:24 pm: | |
Schmidt Associates, Indianapolis: Jan 1 2006
Office of State Architect, Ohio:
Through June 30, 2005 -- Optional
July 1 - Dec. 31, 2005 -- Recommended & Preferred Jan. 1,
2006 and after-- Required
http://www.agcohio.com/Legislative/03-11-05.pdf
pg 4
Joy Davis [jdavis@csinet.org], CSI Communications Manager is collecting a list of who is converting. |
Tracy Van Niel
Senior Member
Username: tracy_van_niel
Post Number: 127
Registered: 04-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 04:09 pm: | |
In addition to the Department of Administrative Services in Ohio, the OSFC (Ohio School Funding Commission) will also be including MasterFormat 2004 as a requirement when their April 2006 update comes out.
DesignGroup plans to be fully converted by January 1, 2006. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 107
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 08:53 am: | |
When we received our copy of the Houston Community College System's Design and Service Guidelines for a "Public Safety Institute" a few weeks ago, I found out we had gotten ourselves into our first MasterFormat 2004 project. |
Kenneth C. Crocco
Senior Member
Username: kcrocco
Post Number: 30
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 10:34 am: | |
Would there be any value in A/E firms identifying when they are planning to convert?
We are planning to convert Jan 1 2006 (with allowance) We are specification consultants and have advised our clients of the change and in some cases will be making presentations to their offices. We are hoping all our clients are willing to change over, and to request their other sub consultants to change over as well at that time. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 71
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:48 am: | |
As mentioned in Chris's posting above, Joy Davis is in the process of putting together a current list.
Perkins+Will is currently in the process of converting nation-wide, and expects to have at least some of the our in-house regional spec masters MF '04 ready by September. For the Dallas and Houston offices alone, there are currently about 12 - 15 projects that are being prepared under MasterFormat 2004.
Noteworthy is that the conversion is a corporate-wide mandate, for ALL offices and ALL consultants working for those offices. So the ripple effect will certainly lengthen that list. |
Mark Kalin FAIA FCSI LEED (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 09:10 pm: | |
DCAM - Division of Capital Asset Management, Commonwealth of Massachusetts has issued a new master using Masterformat 2004 numbers. They do state funded projects, over $200 million a year in construction volume (I did the conversion for them) |
Kim A. Bowman, CSI, AAIA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: archspecmaster
Post Number: 21
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 09:29 am: | |
Our 10 office firm is changing to MF04 October 1 of this year. We have notified all the consultants we work with (approx. 30) and they all have no problems with the change. They seem to all be on board. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 126
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 09:45 pm: | |
We're at DD with several MF04 projects and are phasing it in over the next several months in all our offices. Last to change will be repeat/prototype projects. We've been talking to consultants about this for 8 months, so they're pretty supportive and taking advantage of the opportunity to upgrade their specifications. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 10:45 am: | |
In anticipation of our converting to MF 2004, I sent out a e-mail message to all of our civil and mep consultants in December of last year asking if they had converted to MF 2004 and if not had they established a deadline for conversion. Almost all of the responses were "Huh, you're the first architect that we work with who asked about the new format." and "If you'll give us two new projects, we'll be happy to convert." One MEP consultant called to say that they had not planned to convert until forced to and that he did not see the benefit of converting; and went on to say that the size of their specifications would increase by about 1/3 due to duplicate sections for mechanical and plumbing. Another MEP consultant's response was "I think I read something about this in an ASHRAE publication."
We have converted all of our in-house master specification sections and would like to convert to MF 2004 during the first quarter of 2006. However, the heaviest burden of conversion falls on our civil and mep consultants. If we are the only architectural firm asking them to convert, what is their incentive? Has anyone else met this type of resistance with their independent consultants? |
Lynn Javoroski
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 285
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 11:27 am: | |
We have almost finished converting; projects begun in 2006 are using MF04, unless there is an overriding reason not to (continuation project, Owner request/standards/specifications, etc.). One of the larger firms we work with for Civil work converted before we did. (Mostly, MEP is in house). I also work with food service, medical, and other smaller consulting firms. None have protested. I've simply stated that the project will be in MF04 and they've complied - so far, anyway. Sounds like an opportunity for CSI Education Person (complete with Pantone 143 (I think that's right) colored cape, of course). Seriously, if you have hired that consulting firm, and it's written into the contract that they will provide specifications in the format you desire, there is no question. Good luck. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 186
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 02:34 pm: | |
Despite my intention of implementing MF04 in January 2005, other things (like paying the bills) got in the way, and we did not begin using it until June. It was a little embarrassing when one of our ME consultants began sending MF04 sections before we were ready! Other consultants are coming along grudgingly, but it's a lot easier to encourage them when we can point to a consultant who finished conversion months ago - and suggest that we won't use consultants who don't convert.
We work with a couple of owners who have their own master guide specifications; I don't expect them to change soon, if at all. Other owners have not objected to the new numbers. Our state college system adopted MF04 a couple of months ago, so I suspect most firms will make the conversion so they can go after that business.
One question that remains is how firms are converting. Are they using the assigned numbers, or are they using fake numbers with whatever title they want? Simply using six digit numbers in the appropriate division is not true conversion. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 518
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 02:46 pm: | |
Our official date of change to MF2004 is this for any project where the review draft is sent out after January 31 2006.
We had a 1 smaller MEP consultant request not to have to change - after not saying anything for several months after being alerted multiple times. They are converting.
We had one owner group that is an 'Owner/Builder' request not to change after we had done the same alert process and after all consultants for the project had agreed. Their original comment was that no one wanted to do it and that no manufacturer's data was available and besides their software that they used for project management did not have those divisions. Then they discovered that the new Sweets was 2004 standard and admitted that they simply had not upgraded their tracking software for about the last 5 years and would now be doing so.
The then requested that we only exempt 2 projects, both with the draft/review being issued in February and after that all would be ok in MF2004. We said ok.
No other problems are anticipated or objections are anticipated.
William |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 167
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 05:27 pm: | |
I told my firm that the default format for projects issued after January 1, 2006, would be MF04. One of the local community college systems converted for their current bond program begun late last summer; we are on our 2nd project for them without serious difficulty. I am working on my 3rd MF04 project for private clients.
MEP feedback is initial resistance and then a positive response. The ones who have gotten into it find it much more userfriendly. I would suggest that it would be good for them to update their spec anyway. |
Dean E. McCarty
Senior Member
Username: dean_e_mccarty
Post Number: 15
Registered: 08-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 12:28 pm: | |
Seems I am late to yet another dance (as I am really starting to play catch-up with this Discussion Board). But I do want to add my comments.
As an independent spec writer with a mostly small firm client base, I was not sure how and when to convert, and more importantly, how and when to implement. Late last year, while updating three sets of masters along with the specs I converted to MF04, I decided in November that as of January 1, 2006, McCarty Group would start using the MF04 masters for any project that came in after that date.
I sent out a blast e-mail to clients and potential clients of my intentions, and the comments I received were supportive or inquisitive (What is MasterFormat 2004?). I am now successfully using the MF04 numbers and titles, and I am surprised at the number of engineers who are happily complying with these numbers and titles. It was a much smoother transition than I expected.
There will be for the foreseeable future, however, a number of projects on which I will be working that will be a hybrid of number (M&E are going to be the biggest laggers as far as I can see). Oh well, at least CSI didn’t completely reassign Divisions 15 and 16. |
Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 29
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 12:46 pm: | |
SpecsIntact, the military & NASA guide spec that is free & available to the public, is now MF04 and XML ready. The new version has improved features for keeping the software and the master documents updated.
http://specsintact.ksc.nasa.gov/software/software.htm |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 02:42 pm: | |
Meeting strong resistance from MEP consultants! Almost ask "Why should I write 2 or more sections to cover what I specify in 1 section now?" |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 231
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 10:51 am: | |
What "2 or more sections" do they mean? If it's because PLUMBING, FIRE SUPPRESSION, INTEGRATED AUTOMATION, and HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR-CONDITIONING are in separate divisions for the "MP" guys, and ELECTRICAL, COMMUNICATIONS, and ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY are in separate divisions for the "E" guys, then they haven't been doing it the "CSI way" for at least the past 10 years. I bet they still specify analog components. :-)
Most of the divisions above had sections within three divisions, at least, under MasterFormat 1995. I'd think that most specialty engineers (fire protection, communications, etc.) would be thrilled to have their own division.
Now's about the best time to make the switch. But, if they wait 10 years this time, it'll be difficult for them to market themselves as "progressive". |
Robin E. Snyder
Senior Member
Username: robin
Post Number: 41
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 11:33 am: | |
I met my first roadblock yesterday. After issuing a job in MF04 (with MPE still in Div 15 & 16) the Owner and the Contractor ganged up on the Architect and told him we need to re-issue it in the old 16 Division format. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 126
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 05:08 pm: | |
What I have been telling the M-E-P engineers is that THEIR organizations, users, and advocates are the ones who have been screaming for this expansion for years: Both the Plumbing society and the telecom industry being the squeakiest wheels, each wanting their own division.
I also point this out to them:
The following organizations participated in the MasterFormat expansion process:
- Mechanical Contractors Association of America
- Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada
- Canadian Contractors Association
- National Systems Contractors Associations
- National Fire Sprinkler Association
- BICSI
- SMACNA
- Independent Electrical Contractors
- Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing Bureau
- Johnson Controls
I also tell them this: No more guessing about what numbers to assign to titles (like in the 1988 and 1995 versions). It's already been done for you; for ALL titles.
I also have the support of upper level management. The switchover to MF '04 was MNADATORY FOR ALL OFFICES NATIONWIDE, AND ALL CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR THOSE OFFICES. Of course, being a larger firm helps. But we weren't being wishy-washy about chnaging; they knew we were serious. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 17, 2006 - 05:05 pm: | |
What 2 or more sections:
21 1100 Facility Fire-suppression Water-service Piping
22 1113 Facility Water Distribution Piping
22 1116 Domestic Water Piping
22 1300 Sanitary Waste and Vent Piping
22 1413 Facility Storm Drainage Piping
23 1123 Facility Natural-gas Piping
23 2113 Hydronic Piping
23 2300 Refrigerant Piping
instead of:
15100 - Piping And Accessories
We are a medium size architectural firm and do not wield "a big stick." |
Jonathan M. Miller, FCSI, CCS (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 - 03:12 pm: | |
So make it a large scope Section 22 1000 - Piping and Accessories
The narrow scope breakdown numbers you quote are generally for very large projects.
Welcome to CSI's MasterFormat 2004 flexibility! |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 155
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 06:17 pm: | |
Okay, what do I do now?
I was recently informed by the VP of my firm that we will not convert our specs to MF 04 unless specifically requested to do so by a Client. |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 240
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 06:19 pm: | |
If you REALLY want to convert, talk to one of your repeat clients into requesting the conversion (obviously without the VP's knowledge). :-) |
Doug Brinley AIA CSI CDT CCS
Senior Member
Username: dbrinley
Post Number: 204
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 06:23 pm: | |
He's the expert. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 130
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 08:48 am: | |
It never ceases to amaze me how "management types," owners, consultants, etc. - who seemingly know little about about specifications, and don't eat, live, and breathe specifications for a living and on a daily basis - undermine the experience, knowledge, and dedication of their own in-house specifications experts by making decisions COUNTER to the overall improvement of the written construction documents, and that ultimately benefit ALL members of the construction team.
How sadly shortsighted . . . |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 510
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 08:49 am: | |
I would try to understand the VP's specific objections, (just listening first). Then work on arguments and discussions that can overcome them. It's great if it's client driven, but what will he or she say if only one client out of ten wants MF '04? that only that client gets converted specs? |
Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 31
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 11:32 am: | |
The experts say "Using MasterFormat's 2004 Edition Could Cut Building Costs 5 to 10 Percent While Reducing Changes and Delays During Construction"
http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?TrackID=3DB5DKYRF7TTLWXHSEKT5F7QLVT7DFKZ&CID=123&DID=10027
$15.8 billion per year is lost due to lack of building industry interoperability according to the August 2004 study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Owners and facility managers are the stakeholders who bear the greatest portion of that burden. (MasterFormat 2004 is a significant step towards standardizing building information.)
http://www.iai-international.org/Resources/Related_PublicationsSources.html
Need more? http://www.geocities.com/tsugaguy/TechnicalResources-MF04.htm |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 02:24 pm: | |
Richard L Matteo -
Other architects in your community should thank your firm for staying below the standard of care so they will look more competent. |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 156
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 06:03 pm: | |
Yeah, tell me about it! No don't - I know.
Basic reasoning I think is that they don't want me spending my time on it unless we can get a client to pay for it.
I think David said it best.
I also agree with John, so.......In the words of John Paul Jones "I have not yet begun to fight"
It may just take some time. |
Chris Grimm, RLA, CDT, MAI, CSI
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 33
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 09:20 pm: | |
At the recent seminar LEED in Project Specifications, when asked who has used MF04 on a project, about 6 or 7 people raised their hands, in a crowd of only maybe 20 |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 11:56 am: | |
We are this close to issuing our first specifications using MF 2004 and I have a couple of questions: 1) What is the consensus for listing "Reserved" divisions on the table of contents; i.e. list DIVISION 15 - RESERVED, DIVISION 16 - RESERVED . . . or ignore them and jump from Division 14 to Division 21? 2)What is the consensus color scheme for the new divisions? Traditionally we have used green color paper for mechanical and pink color paper for electrical. |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 398
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:10 pm: | |
If Divisions are unused, we print "Divisions 15 through 21 - Not Used" in the Table of Contents. I have no opinion on color. |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 291
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:13 pm: | |
If you have a copy of the MasterFormat 2004 book, go to pages 22 and 23. There is a sample table of contents.
Like Lynn, just list the block of divisions and state "Not Used."
There is no standard for using colored paper for divisions. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 426
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:23 pm: | |
Just a thought-- for the sake of continuity, I would suggest that you expand your palette of colored pages, so each of the mechanical Divisions [21 through 26] has its own color. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson
Post Number: 109
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:37 pm: | |
Summary of Table of Contents Recommendations also found at bottom of page 16 of Application Guide. |
Robert E. Woodburn
Senior Member
Username: bwoodburn
Post Number: 121
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:54 pm: | |
That's 6 colors just for mechanical. And typically, color-coded Project Manuals had additional colors for other disciplines, with architectural divisions on white. That's a lot of colors, more than some repro shops may have on hand. On the other hand, since some firms print each addendum on a different color, their Project Manuals may be white-only. Does this proliferation of color serve any purpose, other than the illusion of a more interesting, better-organized Project Manual? Especially with no standard "ColorFormat"?
Perhaps the the time has come to do away with these Project Manual color distinctions... |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 612
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 12:56 pm: | |
I have gone back and forth on the use of 'not used' for divisions that are not used. Ultimately I came down on the side of not listing what isn't there. I don't like the way it looks, sometimes the TOC has more divisions listed not used than it has listed used.
So, I took the approach that the table of contents is just that, a table of the contents - not a table of lack of contents.
William |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 613
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 01:02 pm: | |
Colors.
I use colors for only one thing - readability. I use a standard copy paper gray color, its always in stock. The project manuals are printed 2-sided, and the gray paper prevents visual bleed through which can happen with white paper (shadows of the text on the opposite side reading through).
I have a blue sheet with the division title and number on it in front of each division - again, a standard color, this is there as some like to put tabs on the divisions and these serve as tab separators.
I print all forms, the table of contents, list of drawings and the 'title page' on white paper, these are printed white 1-sided so no bleed through and they are easily found that way.
I have used dfferent colors from time to time over the years for these different parts, but since the early 80s, that's the way all our PMs have looked.
William |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 154
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 02:19 pm: | |
Ditto on the "Not Used"
Another thought on colored paper: Fax yourself a page printed on colored paper to see how it looks BEFORE you commit to that color. We did the excercise here and were surprised to find that the fax copy showed up rather dark.
We print Divisions 02 through 39 on white paper, with the blue "divider tab" pages between, as Mr. Pegues describes in his post above. Divisions 00 and 01 are printed on buff or ivory colored paper, to help them stand out.
We reserved all the other colors for Addenda: #1 = green, #2 = yellow, #3 = blue, #4 = cherry, and #5 = goldenrod (a darker yellow-orange). That way, when flipping through the Posted set of documents, the Addendum items are easily identifiable, as well as the Addendum from which they originated.
I've had a few people ask what color we use for Addendum #6. My response: If you have 6 or more Addenda, you've got bigger problems than an insufficient palette of paper colors. |
Doug Frank FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: doug_frank_ccs
Post Number: 155
Registered: 06-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 02:49 pm: | |
C’mon folks,, Who has the time to concern themselves with what documents get printed on what color? And I agree with most of David’s comments about readability of faxed documents printed on certain colors. And, even if I wanted to, I can’t count on the various and several print shops around the country to get colors right. I feel lucky sometimes when they get all the pages printed and bound in the proper sequence. I print ‘em all on good old standard white paper.
We tried for a while to standardize colors for individual addenda (it’s a good idea) but,,, now I consider myself lucky if I get a copy of each addendum, let alone one printed on “perhaps” the appropriate color.
Maybe CSI should consider a new “CCHW” certification (Certified Copy House Worker)? |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 614
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 03:01 pm: | |
We don't (never have) FAX pages from the project manual. But the color grey we use is very light and even a copier on its standard setting copies the page with no background. If we refer them to the paragraph number, they have a copy already. We have gotten FAXed pages from others, and they come in ok.
Our use of color is only for readability of the project manual itself. I guess it works since not only has no one complained in all these years, but we have gotten a fair number of compliments from both Owner's and Contractors.
We don't print addenda on any special color. The 'Addenda document' itself is white 1-sided. If sections are reissued, they are on their normal grey paper. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 208
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 04:53 pm: | |
William: The "not used" comment has bothered me for a long time, and I came to the same conclusion. Do bidders really wonder if a missing Division was omitted accidentally?
If so, then we should also use "not used" for every section number that appears in MasterFormat but that is not included in the project manual. It is certainly easier to forget a single section than an entire Division.
Going a step further, we should also state "not used" for each article heading in SectionFormat that is not used in a section. How would a contractor know if the absence of "Samples" means I don't want any, or I just forgot to specify them?
I have never used "not used" to indicate missing Divisions, and not once in twenty years has anyone called me to ask if I really meant to leave out a particular Division. On the other hand, I have had a couple of embarrassing moments when a bidder asked where to find a missing section.
Let's think about the four Cs, and present just the information necessary for the project. Not, as William suggests, what was left out. |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 193
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 05:29 pm: | |
William, Sheldon, (and others) - Do you think "not used" is inappropriate when Part 2 isn't there in a section? That would be the logical conclusion going in the opposite direction. Just curious.
I suspect a "not used" Division felt appropriate for consistency when we had "not used" parts within a section, and when we had only 16 divisions, all assigned. "Not used" was probably very appropriate back in the days when we assigned sections letters, because 8A, 8B, 8C (not used), 8D..... implied that maybe you had wood doors originally, but omitted them at some point in the design process, and didn’t want to redesignate everything that followed. I guess I am speculating that "not used" divisions are a vestige of the early days, and maybe I am agreeing that they are less useful, or even obsolescent, now.
Now that we have 50 divisions, many of which are reserved, it makes less sense to label them "not used". You have me close to convinced. We’re probably starting our first MF04 next month, so I’ll see how it feels then. The missing Part 2 (not used) stays, at least until SPUTT rules otherwise. |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, MAI
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 292
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 05:58 pm: | |
Well, this discussion has taken a direction I didn't expect when I started it over a year ago-but, hey, I'll add my 2-cents worth:
At least the MFETT didn't suggest that we put "Not Used" after each Division that isn't used in the project manual as suggested in the MOP (Note: it wasn't in the MF1995 Application Guide to do so). The MOP (and I'm talking about the old one) stated "The table of contents for the project manual may list all Divisions but indicate that some are 'Not Used.'"
Why it worked its way into the MF2004 Application Guide, I can't answer. However, it should be pointed out that the Application Guide does say these are "recommendations" and not requirements. |
Ron Beard CCS
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs
Post Number: 145
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 05:57 am: | |
Faxes!!!! ...who gets faxes anymore??
Sometimes I don't even get a single fax in a day. Even when a ask someone to fax me something, they ended up scanning it and I get it as a <pdf> file.
Ron |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 557
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 08:23 am: | |
I agree with the concept that Divisions that do not appear with Sections in the project manual are simply left out of the contents. As to other uses of "not used": Section Parts are numbered sequentially and there's always three parts. Use of "not used" there makes sense.
As to colored paper; to me that's one of those things that just takes extra effort for little payback. There's also an environmental component. The Environmental Defense Fund notes the following on its web site:
quote:Think twice before using colored papers. Avoid papers dyed using neon and other deep colors (e.g., red, goldenrod); they interfere with recycling because of the difficulty in removing such dyes during the recycling process. Pastel colors are generally acceptable for recycling. However, any colored paper is produced using various dyes or pigments, the production of which creates environmental impacts. Avoid use of such papers whenever you can.
Maybe we should just focus on using paper with recycled content and skip the color. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 427
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 09:47 am: | |
I sincerely apologize to all folks above.
The "idea" of using colored stock was merely a thought in response to a simple question, and was not meant to be anything else. To have stirred up such a malaise of comments is mind boggling to me. Didn't realize this was such an edgy, and controversial factor.
OK, my idea was stupid and seated in D/B/B when we had 4 contracts and used the color to quickly identify the various trades [we were not so concerned with Division then]. That era is gone!
For the record, our office prints on white stock!
Still friends? Hope so! |
Tom Heineman (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 08:37 am: | |
Looking at al the posts above I compiled the following list of owners who require MF04 as of April 2006.
Today, what names can be added to the list?
Any federal agencies like Park Service of NIH?
Any state or county agencies?
Any developers, manufacturers, or other big property owners?
Canadian Federal Master Specifications
GSA (US General Services Administration)
NASA
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
SpecsIntact (specs software to DoD and NASA)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART),
Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM), Massachusetts
Houston Community College System
King County, Washington
Office of State Architect, Ohio
Ohio School Funding Commission (OSFC), University of Washington
General Motors
Walt Disney Imagineering Labs
Tom Heineman |
Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED™ AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski
Post Number: 736
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 09:48 am: | |
Veteran's Administration and the State of Wisconsin. |
Bob Johnson (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 10:32 am: | |
You might try the CSI website listing:
Architect of the Capitol, Washington, D.C.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
Bravé/Architecture, Houston Community College Houston
Canadian Government
Canadian Public Works and government Services Canada
DCAM Division of Capital Asset Management, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Dunwoody College of Technology Converted classes Minneapolis
General Motors
General Services Administration
Jeffco Public Schools, Facility planning and design, Golden, Colo.
Los Alamos National Laboratory,Government Owner & Owner/Builder, Los Alamos, NM
State of Maine Bureau of General Services, Owner, Augusta, Maine
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Saint Paul, Minn.
Mississippi Dept. of Transportation
Montana National Guard, State of Montana Department of Military Affairs, Fort Harrison, MT
NASA
Ohio State Architect's Office
Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services
Ohio School Facilities Commission/Ohio School Funding Commission
Pentagon Technology, Owner, Portland, Oreg.
Unified Facility Guide Specs, Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) are a joint effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE), the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), and the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency(AFCESA). UFGS are for use in specifying construction for the military services.
UC Irvine Design & Construction Services, Irvine, Calif.
University of Texas, Office of Facilities Planning and Construction
University of Washington
Veterans Administration
Walt Disney Imagineering, Themed Entertainment Design and Construction, Glendale, Calif. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 859
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 10:59 am: | |
Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management master specifications, with a big BUT: Their 'masters' use single sections to replace entire mechanical divisions. Thus, HVAC is a single 315 page section and electrical 185 pages. Though this is a hold-over from the approach with MF '95, they could have used the opportunity to upgrade. I've written them, but was ignored. I'm embarrassed for my home state. |
Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA
Senior Member
Username: rarosen
Post Number: 30
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 11:16 am: | |
You can add HUD to your list. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 85
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 01:24 pm: | |
Is anyone keeping a list of organizations that insist on only using MasterFormat95? |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 266
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 01:48 pm: | |
No, but I have one healthcare client who uses the 1988 (along with some 1983 and invented numbers) for their specifications master, for Divisions 00 through 16.
It is a SINGLE 87O-page, 9 MB .pdf file . . .
Uneditable . . .
And 10 years out of date the day it hit the streets in . . . LATE 2005! |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: redseca2
Post Number: 86
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 05:46 pm: | |
David,
I met last year with the new project manager for a major university client to review the University's specification master for our new project. My aim was to convince them to allow us to use our office templates instead, but they were highly resistant.
They softened their position when I took him through the University's spec binder Section by Section pointing out that the most recent revision date was 1999.
Also, what is with these single PDF files for an entire project manual? I get this request all the time. I think the first time it crashed my desktop computer. |
Colin Gilboy
Senior Member
Username: colin
Post Number: 132
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2008 - 06:23 pm: | |
Moved PDF discussions here:
http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/23/3778.html?1205446754 |
|
4specs.com Home Page