Curious - who is still using MF95?

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 606 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 09:32 am:    I for one am, in fact I never changed to MF04 and have remained busy to this day, in fact, not meaning to gloat guys, but even in these uncertain times we have over 1.2 bil constr cost projects now coming on line for specifications, some local, some international and none of those projects does the architect or developer want to use MF04; hell I was even sought out on one project if I promised to not use that 'confusing 6 digit spec section system'; so I am curious who else is a black sheep like me, first I shun word and only use wordperfect and now I dis MF04, and remain successful, busy, and fully employed. Oh yeah and to Ralph, William, Dave, David, Phil, Ronald, Richard, Russell, Tom, Colin, Anne, Nina, Mark, Tommy, Robin, et. al, be nice to me with your comments, today is my b-day and I feel like gloating. Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 155 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 09:42 am:    Good question. I am planning to change the division pages at the end of the year, having the MF04 pages as primary and provide a second set of division pages for MF1995. http://www.4specs.com/95/ Note the links to the section pages are broken and I need to double check that every section is linked both ways. A user can bookmark the page above as their main 4specs page and consistently view the MF1995 sections. The MF04 division pages will change to a format similar to: http://www.4specs.com/s/32.html Comments are appreciated. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 921 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 09:46 am:    If I was as old as you, I'd gloat, too!!! I sense a plea for mercy, but just think, you arrived early and didn't re-define Halloween!!!! Kind enough? Happy Birthday and sincerely many more, my good electornic friend!!! Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 821 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 09:51 am:    We are using both; MF04 is the preferred format, but MF95 is still being used by others with whom we consult. So we need to be bi-format for the foreseeable future. And Jerome - HAPPY BIRTHDAY! You don't look a day older than you did yesterday. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 127 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 11:03 am:    HAPPY BIRTHDAY to a curmudgeon. We use both but mostly MF04. I do wish the Division 32 subject matter, "Fences and Gates" was back in Division 02. I have be ever viligent that my one lonely Section 32 31 00 makes it in the project manual among the civil stuff. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 708 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 12:16 pm:    Happy Birthday, Jerome! Based on your obvious preferences, I bought you a couple of presents... A Sony Betamax VCR and a Sony Walkman cassette player. Enjoy! Did I say "bought"? I meant "found" (along side a road somewhere). Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 842 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 12:43 pm:    embarassingly enough, I am still using MF95. I had pretty much gotten my office in Seattle converted over (and the rest of the northwest was converted over) but the southern California folks didn't follow along and I was not permitted to use the new numbers for any project already under contract at my new firm. and our projects here take ages to move into CDs. I'll probably be more converted over next year. what a pain.... Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 843 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 12:44 pm:    yes, ps. Happy Birthday Jerome... Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 37 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 12:50 pm:    We've "officially" converted to MF04 for all new projects, unless an owner insists that we stick with MF95. We use SpecLink, and as a result, we're able to switch between the two formats "on the fly", so it's been a relatively easy transition for us. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 147 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 01:04 pm:    We have started new projects with MF04 since 2006, but I manage to work in MF95 everyday. The ongoing exceptions are phased projects that started before MF04, and those clients (University of California campuses) who have "their own Division 1", which always is pre MF04, pre CAD, pre MF95 sometimes, so you can almost smell the mimeograph aroma looking at them. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 294 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 01:10 pm:    MF04 since August of 2005. A small handful of '95-legacy projects here and there, but nothing recently. And no problem with consutants following suit; they're not given the choice. Any client who wants/insists on '95 specs will be presented with a proposal for additional services (to reconvert). Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 12:34 pm:    Why did we change from the "OLD" Section 3A, 3B, etc.? Tomas Mejia, CCS, CCCA, LEED Senior Member Username: tmejia Post Number: 46 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 02:10 pm:    Happy Birthday Jerome, One these days (years?) I'll be as old as you. Unless a client request MF04, I'm still using MF95. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 608 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 02:33 pm:    Tommy, long time, how is Grace? What do you mean as old as me!...doesn't look like we will be in CA any time soon, except maybe a stop over at LAX on the way to Hawaii, my wife's first pick for travel after she gets better next year. Unless I get my wife on Ellen's show, 3 different cancers in one year is pretty unique, and now she is positive for BRCA, so after she finishes with all the chemo she will probably have a double masectomy to avoid getting breast cancer - number 4 cancer, really sucks...we agreed that we would celebrate all our birthdays in style next year. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 609 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 02:44 pm:    Ronald, I much prefer my walkman over those damn Ipods and even an 8-track now and than, never got into Betamax though.... Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 05:00 pm:    I use modified versions of MF04; one that works. As for unifromity in location of subject matter, that went out the window with MF04. Poor Colin will still have to list both when he retires Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 06:15 pm:    Is anyine using the new 2008 SectionFormat/PageFormat? Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 38 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 07:57 am:    I'm using the new SectionFormat/PageFormat. For the most part that is. Still trying to figure some of it out. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 02:56 pm:    I'm still using MF 95, and plan to continue doing so. I have had 2 clients say "you're not using those new numbers I hope". They are happy when I say no. I have just added to my proposal/agreement "using 5 digit section numbers". Architects can't remember 5 digits. They call and say "Look at section 9900 and tell me if . . ." Their eyes will glaze over on 6 digits. In full disclosure, my practise is largely made up of a number of small offices, some do 8 or 10 schools or hospital remodels a year, many of them do one or 2 assorted projects a year. They all come to me, I don't have to compete against anyone, and most of them have been clients for years. I suppose if I were working with firms which do cutting edge work (either in terms of design or documentation), I would have to change. But, my clients are happy, I'm happy, why change just for the sake of change? I'd rather spend my time trying to get the spec. right than to juggle numbers around. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 295 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 04:07 pm:    As with most CSI format changes over the last 40 or 50 years, there is a certain degree of inertia because people are comfortable with the system "they have always used." In fact, there is no system anyone has "always used." MasterFormat 2004 can be seen to be the most radical reformatting since "the CSI format" (whatevery that is) was introduced, but it is, in my view somewhat of an incremental shift instead of a paradigm shift. Because there is so much industry buy-in by many "stake holders", I believe that there will come a time when it is more difficult to remain with MF95 (or MF88 or ...) that go with the new system. At that point the inertia of change (motion has inertia) will ovecome the inertia of stasis. I would estimate that we will start to see this in a few years. Maybe it is time to begin working on a new 100-division format! Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 844 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 04:22 pm:    ... and I think the changeover in many parts of the country will be driven by more complicated electrical/security/telecom requirements. They were the guys behind the "Division 17" in the first place, and on large buildings with "smart" systems, it is much easier to use the 04 organization and numbers. this obviously isn't the case for everyone -- we have a 75 story building going up in NYC, and the electrical consultant gave us one section -- 280 pages long. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 149 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 05:25 pm:    Anne, Did the keep true to the 3 part format in those 280 pages? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 845 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 07:08 pm:    I had to go look. Yes, actually they did. Part 1 is about 70 pages, Part 2 has about 140 pages, with each item listed individually and Part 3 is the rest. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 150 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 08:30 pm:    All I can say is - Absolutely Fabulous. To work so hard and diligently to do something wrong like this requires a special dedication. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 07:06 pm:    At that point the inertia of change (motion has inertia) will ovecome the inertia of stasis. I would estimate that we will start to see this in a few years. No doubt, but for what? John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 419 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 04:23 am:    I have noticed "reluctance" by some low-voltage systems engineers to use Masterformat 2004. They insist on keeping their work specified in Division 17. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 822 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 10:32 am:    Recently, I was given specs from an MEP consultant with Sections in Division 20 - all the piping and assorted "general" stuff for MEP was written there...I see an educational opportunity. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 129 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 11:10 am:    I seldom encounter a user of MF95. One client continues to use MF95 for their proprietary database, therefore we fall in line. Consultants I liase with use MF04 as intended. Fire protection, plumbing, HVAC, communication, and civil. Some may let a reference to division 15 or 16 slip thru the cracks now and then. Our consultants and our projects are scatterd all across the USA and Canada and the UK, Europe, middle east, Asia, and Mexico. Except for the USA and Canada, the other regions do not give 2/3 of a FA what format we use as long as the documents comply with the 4 Cs. That said, NYC is another story for another posting. Go figure. We appear to be lucky in the PNW. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 185 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 12:25 pm:    Wayne I would guess that the reason that there there is such a uniform adoption of MF04 in the Pacific Northwest is because of leadership. I recall descriptions by Anne, you, others of the promotion of the change, the setting of a date to change by, etc. that was accomplished by the leaders of the Northwest. I, for one, would be interested in hearing your and Anne's appraisal of that effort from a couple of year's perspective. Anne could of course provide a comparison of that situation with that in the "progressive Southern California" since since she abondoned the Northwest to relocate there. As Peter has commented earlier, change is not easy for most people; we usually strongly resist it; we like to do what we are accustomed to. Most people have to be led to make a change and that is best done by convincing them of the virtues and benefits of the change. That is especially difficult when the change might be very good for the industry as a whole but not necessarily as great a benefit for a particular segment of the industry which is probably true for MasterFormat 2004 as it probably benefits the engineering world more than the architecture world. That is not to say that there are not benefits for architectural subjects too. The question becomes do you believe in the change and do you do your part to lead people to accept the change or do you sit back and do what is convenient and easy for you. Are you a leader in your area of expertise or are you a follower? We all face that choice. Based on what I know from the outside, I would surmise that there was a group of people in the Northwest who decided to be leaders. I have not done a project spec in MF95 for a several years. I gave my clients (almost all architects with developer clients scattered around the country) some warning and education about the coming change and then found no resistance as the change was made. One developer expressed some concern during the spec preparation and was told by my architect client that they follow the standard of the industry and the developer had no further comment. I have also revised one developer’s standard Division 01 from MF95 to MF04, again with no problems. I have had one project of an expansion of a hospital built just a couple years ago where the architect client requested the specs for the expansion be in MF04 even though the construction and many of sections are very similar in content to the original which were in MF95. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 846 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 12:40 pm:    Bob- there was also a lot of promotion and buy-in of MF04 by the electrical engineers (and often those firms do mechanical work as well) which helped with the conversion. The electrical guys directly saw the benefit and were very ready to move into the new format. The northwest offices tend to all use the same batch of consultants for structural, mechanical and electrical, and it was to their advantage that everyone switch over at the same time. In addition, some of the larger institutions were on board (the University of Washington, for example) and that helped. As convoluted as their Division 01 specs were, at least they wanted a rewrite -- and again, it was partly their telecom folks who championed the idea. my understanding is that the transition was relatively painless with the exception of the contractors who had to keep both types of estimates going for a while as things transitioned over. As for southern California...I'm not going to say its hopeless, but its very disorganized. Rebecca Werman ,CCS CSI (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 07:31 pm:    I use whatever format my client needs for the project. Some jobs are continuations of previous jobs so we keep the format the same, i.e., 5 digits. I am presently doing more than half with 5 digits. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 984 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 08:17 am:    We have been using MF 04 in all disciplines for about two years (we are an A/E firm). Occasionally when using an outside consultant, we encounter MF 95. Of course, these are also specs using a single section for each discipline, resulting in an electrical section of about 200 pages. I wouldn't use these knuckle-draggers as an example of best practice--paragraph levels get so deep that the indent is more than half the margin width. We have a few office masters in the new SectionFormat, including Painting. We will convert along with MasterSpec's conversion, or as we create new office masters. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 01:01 pm:    Today I'm wishing that we had not converted to MF2004. With all the new and improved sections for civil, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, fire suppression, and communications our recently printed project manual for a 9th grade building totaled more than 1000 pages (duplexed). Under MF 95 this project manual would have consisted of less than 400 pages (duplexed). Has anyone else noticed a significant increase in the number of pages required under MF 2004? David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 297 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 02:07 pm:    Sounds like there may have been a misunderstanding of the intent or use of MasterFormat. There is nothing in MF '04 that would mandate or imply that one need to increase page count or section numbers; spec sections are spec sections, regardless if they are numbered with 5 digits or 6. Our Project Manuals have not increased in size at all; same number of spec sections, same number of pages. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 140 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 02:08 pm:    No. The driving force for more sections is more materials and products on each project. Each project becomes a samples building. When my project manuals get large I make 2 or 3 volumes. Volume 1 will end at Division 14. I do wish some site work sections prepared by the Architect remained in Div 02. They get lost and forgotten buried near the ene of Volume 2 or 3 with civil stuff. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 767 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 02:09 pm:    No noticeable increase in any division except MEP areas - and those depend on the individual consultant. We have been doing only MF2004 for the past 2 years. We use consultants for MEP and a variety of them. Of some 7 consultants, 2 of them had a page count increase. One of them had a minor page count decrease. The others seem to be about the same. William Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 157 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 02:14 pm:    I think what has happened is that people are taking the individually distinct section numbering in MF2004 as gospel and not using broad scope and medium scope section numbers to combine sections - say 09-6400 rather than 09-6423.13. This may be accentuated by the engineers making more sections to "comply" with MF2004. Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 41 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 02:23 pm:    Quite frankly, I don't recall ever having produced a 400 page project manual. Jeez, when we do university work and we're required to use the Owners front-end docs, they're usually in excess of 150 pages....and that's before even getting to Division 02! Our project manuals typically run between 800 and 1200 pages regardless of which format we're using. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 988 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 05:12 pm:    For a public school project, two volumes of nearly 1000 pages each would not be unusual. But the switch to MF2004 had no effect on that. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 225 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 05:22 pm:    I have been using MF-04 for several years and have not noticed any increase in pages. I am being forced to do a Prison project in the old, outdated format, and, sure enough, I have consultants sending me Division 17 and even a Division 18. Sections numbers overlap and it is a coordination mess. I really like MF-04 and find it MUCH easier to use. As spec writers we should be leading the change, not digging in our heals. On one page people are griping that no one knows who CSI, but here, with MF-04, we have the chance to take charge and educate our clients and the industry and show why CSI should be well-respected. Why should we expect others to respect our organization if we, the spec writers, are not endorsing the system(s) CSI creates? Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 829 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 06:23 pm:    Well written, Robin. The use of MF04 is a golden opportunity to demonstrate the organization so badly needed. (of course, on a recent MF04 project, I had MEP submitting Section 20 documents; I will be having a discussion with them). Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 267 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 09:55 am:    We have been fully converted to MF04 since the beginning of 2006. A project with a consulting engineer who was already converted to MF04 was what got us going to make the change. We have one local engineer who also uses Division 20 for the general MEP 'stuff'. They are the only ones though. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 615 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 10:43 am:    ok, since I started this thread, I have a question, of those of you using MF04 are you also preparing work for the public sector. Our firm prepares specs only for the private sector, and for that sector 99% of our clients remain steadfast opposed to MF04 and prefer MF95...in these touch economic times, I'm not about to argue with them. Jerry Tims Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 42 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 10:52 am:    We do both public and private sector work. Most of the clients in the public sector work have at least some front-end documentation that we are required to use. This will determine which MF version we will use....some are still on 95, others have converted to 04. I can't think of ANY private sector work that we've done where the client has cared one way or the other what format we use. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 769 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 10:55 am:    We have a couple public sector projects. But it would come to about 99 percent of our work over the past 4 years is private sector. We made the switch official January 31, 2006. We never had a complaint or even a question from any of our owners. More than half of them are long time clients that own/manage their facilities over the long term. Of the newer clients, the majority of them also own/manage their facilities over the long term. The only question complaints have come from 2 different MEP consultants. One stated it was a liability issue that they were still investigating and would not make the change. But 3 weeks later their documents arrived in one of the better transitions to MF2004 by MEP consultants to date. The other had made the conversion, but lumps all of the plumbing into the mechanical division. They made some minor fixes. Both of them in turn had complained to the owners on these projects but the owners were unsympathetic. This is in multiple area - Washington, DC Metropolitan Region, Florida with a current project, and the areas of Austin, Houston and Dallas in Texas. William John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 989 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 11:37 am:    Our public sector clients don't care. Occasionally we are not the lead designer on a private project, and that's only time we get any push back on the use of MF04. Since we don't maintain masters in MF95, we advise that there is additional fee for a backwards conversion. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 188 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 12:03 pm:    One public project in 4 years - rest for architects with private developer clients with projects in New Jersey, DC, Maryland, Virginia, Texas, Utah, & New Mexico. Like, William made the switch about 2-1/2 years ago with bascially no major problems. This was done with old-time and new clients. It included some warning and education of old-time clients and agreeing on what project to make the change so everyone on the team was properly prepared. One developer made a complaint and my architect client told them that we follow the standard of the industry - end of conversation. Have even had one client request MF04 for an expansion of a project with the original construction only about 3 years old and done in MF95 because they thought it would be a better spec. Like John, I haven't maintained two masters for several years. Though I haven't had to up to this point, I would charge an additional fee for a backwards conversion. I know of some other consultants who have the same policy. Jerome I would be interested to hear about your conversations with your clients on this issue - what did you do to educate them about the change - the reasons for the change - the benefits of the change - or were they like most people and resistive to any change and you just said OK. PS I assume you have not had bad economic times for the last four years per your gloating in your posting that started this thread so that was not the reason you were not able to lead your clients to accept the change. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 616 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 12:51 pm:    Robert My clients, most of them mid to large arch firms have told me the same thing, their PM's barely understand the 16 divisions let alone 48, their drawings, details, and databases are all based on 16 divisions, two of these firms have multiple offices in other states. I see no reason to 'educate them on why they should accept MF04. I've heard plenty of complaints from architects who are using MF04, basically that MF04 has not simplified their specs at all, and I see no reason economically to use MF04. Robert, my firm is very small in size though we have been fortunate to stay busy even though the current economy, knock on wood, I have enough work right now to carry me into 2010, mostly large projects. At some point in time next year I will start the conversion process if time permits and it is profitable to do so. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 300 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2008 - 04:20 pm:    I have stated (here and elsewhere) that at some point it will become more difficult to maintain a MF95 context than it will be to convert. More and more information is available in MF04, and although there will be laggards (I was still seeing the old AIA file numbers on product info in the '80s and '90s), it will just become too difficult for firms (architects, consultants, contractors, and reps) to either maintain two systems or "backconvert". I would say that we are less than 2 years from that tipping point although I have to admit that I thought this would be the year. Can you see some of these offices taking a manufacturer's guide spec with MF04 numbers and attempting to backconvert that? Like some of you have indicated, I have received the most flak from MEP consultants (the ones most affected by the conversion). It is my experience, however, that after taking a close look at it, them begin to see benefits after less than 15 minutes or so. They begin to see so much that could make their specifications easier to produce and clearer to the trades that they generally become positive very quickly. Civil consultants are the worst in this area. They generally want to make general reference to published public specifications (either in MF88, MF95 or AASHTO format) without modification, and they have a point. The public works people want to see their stuff in their format and generally won't approve anything else. W. Dean Walker, AIA, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: wdwalkerspecs Post Number: 33 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Friday, February 20, 2009 - 04:48 pm:    There haven't been any postings in this for awhile, so I though I would post one. Many public agencies like the City of Chicago Public Building Commission which is responsible for new schools, libraries, and other public buildings do not have a problem with the '95 Format. The CPS master is in '95 and having just written 3 schools and about to start on two libraries I don't have a problem with either. I checked with the engineers on the libraries and they want to use '95. Oh, and by the way Anne I was one of the Specifiers that pushed for the 17 Divisions back in the early '80's. Of course I got booted of the podium at the National Convention in Florida by the Institute Staff as being a heretic. The speech was Better Coordination of Architectural and Engineering Documents and I had back up proof why it worked. On private work I go with the '04 version - but frequently do a blended set especially when it comes to Division 2. Specification Writer Senior Member Username: specification_writer Post Number: 10 Registered: 01-2009 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 11:28 am:    Masterformat 2004 has increased the number of pages in project manuals we have issued this year. For a project (additions and renovations to an existing school) issued Monday 21 Dec 2009 there are 895 pages in the project manual. Under Masterformat 95 there would have been less than 500 pages. For a career and technology center issued a month ago, we needed to split the project manual into two volumes due to the number and size of specification sections submitted from our MEP and civil consultants. Has anyone else noticed an increase in the number of pages due to conversion to Masterformat 2004? Specification Writer Architect Washington, D.C. Jerry Tims AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: jtims Post Number: 94 Registered: 04-2005 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 11:38 am:    Frankly, I'm not sure Masterformat 2004 can be blamed for the number of pages. I would tend to place the blame (if blame is to be placed), on the product/software used to produce the specifications. In the past year I've done projects in both formats, and have honestly seen very little difference in the size of the project manual. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 819 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 11:43 am:    No noticeable increase from the specifications I prepare. But my guess would be that some people specifying aren't using MasterFormat 2004 efficiently. Since MasterFormat 2004 has a number and title for most types of work results (not every type) compared to MasterFormats of the past, I've noticed people writing very small specifications using Level 3 or Level 4 section titles and numbers within similar work result areas--some having similar Part 1 and Part 3 requirements. To be more efficient, these sections should be combined into a Level 2 broadscope or narrowscope number or title (e.g. XX 20 00 or XX 21 00, respectively) or even a Level 1 number or title. Just because there's now a specific number and title for something in MasterFormat doesn't mean it has to have its own specification section. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 47 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 11:54 am:    I may have added a couple of pages by splitting a couple of sections into two separate sections - certainly not any increase to notice. The one location that I know that could cause an increase would be the splitting of common work results for the Facility Services Group (Divs 21-28) in place of couple sets for Divs 15-16. Could you please explain how you think going from MF 95 to MF 04 caused you to go from under 500 pages to 895 pages (55% increase)? The reorganization of material does not increase the specification requirements. It would seem that you have to be repeating many of the same requirements in multiple locations. How are you implementing MF 04 to cause you to do that? It does not seem like Ron's comment on the possibility of using many more narrow scope sections from Levels 3-4 instead of broader scope sections in Levels 2-3 could cause a 55% increase. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 806 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 12:10 pm:    I have neither longer or shorter sections in terms of page numbers for the architectural and structural sections I write. However, I have noticed that some, not all, MEP groups have really increased their number of pages. But as noted above, this also came with a change in their master system moving from one product to another. And not just that some masters don't deal efficiently with duplication, but that when those working in a new master and are unfamiliar with it, they tend to leave more in than they should. I just completed a second project with the same engineering group for a project of similar scope for their work to one they completed 6 months ago. I was really surprised at the significantly smaller page count. The identical section numbers/titles, but about 20% few pages - same scope. William William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 984 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 12:16 pm:    Some MEP spec writers seem confused by the "Common Work Results for..." sections in each Division and instead of referencing back to a common section, simply repeat it for every Division claiming that it's too much work to state it once and reference the section. Shades of Blaise Pascal and Mark Twain... Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 712 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 12:27 pm:    OK, so we are finally preparing specs in MF04, albeit for Foreign work only, and these Project manuals do appear lengthier, my two cents. Once again we polled all our domestic clients (mostly private sector) none of them want to change to MF04, preferring MF95 even if it is considered archaic in the eyes of AIA, CSI, ARCOM, McGraw-Hill, et al....they cite familiarity with MF95, size of Project Manual, reduced staff, and being able to refer to previous Project Manuals for reference, those of course prepared in MF95. Some of our clients remain fairly large firms and thankfully remain loyal to our firm, we are not about to upend the cart just to appease the majority. MF95 remains as the basis for our work. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 985 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 12:34 pm:    Are you sure they are referencing previous work and not simply copying it? Specification Writer Senior Member Username: specification_writer Post Number: 11 Registered: 01-2009 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 12:38 pm:    Masterformat 2004 went from two divisions (15 & 16) to six division (21, 22, 23, 26, 27, and 28) - more divisions to cover the same work and from one division (2) to three divisions (31, 32, and 33) again more divisions to cover the same work. Additionally the work results sections within each division has increased in all of these divisions. These are the two areas we have seen an increase in the number of sections and pages. Architecturally we write approximately the same number of sections under Masterformat 2004 as we did using Masterformate 1995. As pointed out by Ms. Javoroski above, it appears that our MEP and civil consultants are not utilizing Masterformat 2004 as intended. Specification Writer Architect Washington, D.C. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 713 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 12:41 pm:    Lynn, we have been fortunate in that respect, though some clients may be keeping their PM's busy preparing specs in that manner. We recently received a complement from the VP of a client firm, he took it upon himself to modify one of our spec books on a project because he did not want to 'bother' us, apparently he bit off more than he could chew, and advised us that he will never do it again, adding that he has a new found respect for our firm - ahh, respect at last and begging us for help out of the mess he had created. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 986 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 12:52 pm:    HIP, HIP HOORAY! HIP, HIP HOORAY! HIP, HIP HOORAY! David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 93 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 - 01:05 pm:    I'm surprised that no one mentioned the effect of LEED requirements on the length of specifications. We updated to MF04 about the same time as we started to incorporate LEED requirements. We kept our MF95 master intact and created a new folder for our MF04 master. Sections in the two masters are virtually the same length, and we didn't split any sections. The main difference between the two masters at this point is the LEED requirements. We noticed the difference in three projects where we have had to add LEED requirments after the fact. The page numbers increased from 1 to 2 pages per section depending on the section and where the original secton ended on a page. There has always been a tendency to grow the specs based on feedback and new code requirements. Since we only issue PDF files for printing by the client, we don't see the physical effect of more pages. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1154 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, December 28, 2009 - 08:54 am:    Sorry, there's no possible way that the use of MF2004 increases the size of a project manual. Remember, it's just NUMBERS that changed, not the content. If a firm has switched from broadscope sections (such as a single electrical section) to using more narrow scope sections, this may somewhat increase the number of pages. But this would be true in MF95 as well!! If you want to, you can still use the same (horrendous) broadscope method in MF2004. This is a change in approach to specifying not due to use of MF2004. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 11:18 am:    "a global provider of professional technical and management support services" (Program Manager for a large metropolitan school district) has the following in their Deliverables Checklist: "Outline Specifications (in AIA MasterSpec format) . . . from Division 2 through Division 16 in the following format within each division: Part 1: General Part 2: Products Part 3: Submittal Requirements" This is the SD submittal, haven't checked the other Deliverables Checklist yet, but suspect the wording will be the similar. How do we write specifications in the AIA Masterspec format? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1155 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 11:58 am:    First, it would seem you need to take the Program Manager through an intensive, but short course on specifications writing [elementary], the MasterSpec system and use, MF04, the CSI documents, etc. What is listed is a mess! Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 225 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 - 12:50 pm:    A hospital in San Diego, another in Burlingame, California. Some college dormatories in Santa Cruz, a medical office building near San Jose. What do these projects have in common? They were all done in MF95 by our firm, they will all be in substantial completion this year, and then that is that. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 242 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 - 01:47 pm:    When you have "facilities to be unnamed" write RFP's which state that you will use MasterFormat 95, 18(Not a typo)Divisions and they won't budge when you get on your hands and knees... BTW Div 17 is Communications and Division 18 is Security. Nice to know they have a system. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 408 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 03:45 pm:    Of course you could always try the tact that your E&O insurance carrier requires that you use industry standard practices and that your specification document won't be covered if you do it their way. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 03:53 pm:    We have used the officious sounding line: "CSI doesn't support MasterFormat 95 anymore." Try it, it might work. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1014 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 26, 2010 - 04:41 pm:    I've been using "outdated and unsupported by CSI"... (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 12:13 pm:    Using Masterformat 2004, our DD specification submittal equals 2055 pages. This project consists of renovations to three elementary schools and addition and renovation to one middle school. Here is the breakdown: 373 pages were Owner furnished divisions 00 and 01. 259 pages architectural sections - divisions 02 - 14. 1423 pages of MEP and civil - divisions 21 - 33. Obviously our MEP and civil consultants do not have a grasp of the proper use of Masterformat 2004. And, no this project is not "heavy" on MEP nor civil - typical replacement of roof-top HVAC units, electrical upgrades, technology upgrades, replacement of water closets and urinals for accessibility. Only civil occurs at the addition to middle school. Oh how I long for the days of Masterformat 1995; even if division 17 shows up at the last minute! Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1179 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 01:17 pm:    Would you please share a little more detail on how you see MF04 being responsible for so many pages of MEP when their scope is so limited? Is this a function of pure repetition/ duplication, or something else? Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 854 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 01:33 pm:    My take on the evidence presented: DD submittal means unedited or partially edited sections. Consultants will send in their standard sections without editing them for the specific project, especially for preliminary submittals. Even for final CD specifications (whether MF95 or MF04) I've seen MEP sections that include content that has nothing to do with the project (the shotgun specifying method--"Somewhere in there is what we want"). Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 229 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 03:13 pm:    I have not experienced the page count inflation in the MEP area that the unregistered guest notes, but I have noticed an increase in the overall number of MEP Sections that are more focused and shorter. Plus I see a lot of usage of 8 digit numbers to be even more specific. This may simply come from taking advantage of more options. An MEP consultant that used my copy of "Masterformat 1995 - Master List of Numbers and Titles" and stuck strictly with the title suggestions would find about 60 Section Titles listed for all of Division 15. When that same consultant borrowed my "MasterFormat 2004 - Numbers and Titles" to make the switch to the new system, they would find over 50 offered for Division 21, over 200 for Division 22 and an additional 250 offered for Division 23. For Example: Masterformat 1995 gives us 15410 - Plumbing Fixtures; where 2004 gives us 48 subtitles to play with under 22 40 00 - Plumbing Fixtures. Someone thinking inside the box that strictly adheres to the suggested titles could find themselves dissecting their old 1995 format Sections into as many new Sections as they had energy for. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 230 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 03:16 pm:    Another thing I want to add is that this may also be evidence of firms that are doing their first comprehensive rewrites of their office masters since 1995. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 521 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 04:08 pm:    ...or 1975. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO Dennis C. Elrod New member Username: delrodtn Post Number: 1 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 04:21 pm:    George: We are in the process of developing and and updating our Office Masters from MF95 to MF04. the primary reason is because we've migrated to the REVIT platform and out of the box, it uses the MF04 format to tag products on Drawings. Along with the E-specs product, we hope to adopt in the near future, this should make specifying much simpler and more synchronous with the Drawings. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1034 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 05:06 pm:    Still, the best way to coordinate drawing information with specification information is person-to-person communication. I am always surprised - although by now, I shouldn't be - at the ease with which mistakes can be made: someone makes a typo, or something has a different name in another office or part of the country, or someone assumes that what they've written is clear...(refer to the typos thread). NOTHING takes the place of frequent communication, checking and clarification. Not even computers. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 03:15 pm:    We, the project Architect and I, anticipate that the number of pages for MEP will increase as the project proceeds through construction documents and the scope of work becomes more refined. Oops, just discovered that 18 sections listed on the table of contents were not included. Taking a quick scan of MEP sections, it appears that some sections have been edited and other master specification sections were submitted It appears that MEP has made extensive use of Level 3 (narrowscope) and Level 4 vs. Level 2 (broadscope) sections. For example: 22 1113 Facility Water Distribution Piping 22 1116 Domestic Water Piping 22 1119 Domestic Water Piping Specialties 22 1313 Facility Sanitary Sewers 22 1316 Sanitary Waste and Vent Piping 22 1319 Sanitary Waste Piping Specialties 22 1323 Sanitary Waste Interceptors 22 1413 Facility Storm Drainage Piping 22 1423 Storm Drainage Piping Specialties Use of the above 9 sections would normally be covered in one section in MF 1995: 15401 - Piping And Accessories. And, another example: 22 4213.13 Commercial Water Closets 22 4213.16 Commercial Urinals 22 4216.13 Commercial Lavatories 22 4713 Drinking Fountains Use of the above 4 sections would normally be covered in one section in MF 1995: 15400 - Plumbing Fixtures Prior to switching to MF 2004, almost all of our MEP consultants used broadscope sections. It seems like it's time to send out a "nasty" e-mail requesting a return to broadscope sections. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, April 22, 2010 - 06:09 pm:    LEED-NC 2.2 uses "CSI Master Format 1995 Divisions 2-10 only" (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, April 23, 2010 - 10:53 am:    In terms of plumbing sections listed in posting above - they all appear to be the same as sections in the MASTERSPEC TOC. They are most likely using MASTERSPEC and following their section scopes. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 949 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 23, 2010 - 05:29 pm:    people who can't edit specs, can't edit them no matter what the section numbers are. How many sections have you seen "edited" by consultants that still include every option, every size, and every installation type? the narrow scope sections are there IF YOU NEED THEM. There is no "law" that you have to use all the numbers just because they exist. And, yes, I've seen those broadscope sections that the M&E folks uses -- 80 pages of materials, installation and codes that are indecipherable. as for the comment that the staff "can't find the numbers in the books" -- its the specifier's job to teach the staff; we are a resource in the office, not just some drudge in the corner. The young folks don't know the old numbers, so they can just as easily not know the new numbers. NONE of my clients have had an issue with this. Mr. Jordan is correct -- the time is coming when it will be more difficult to hang on to the old system rather than just forge ahead. and as for how LEED views specs.... don't even get started on this. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, July 23, 2010 - 12:08 pm:    To address Mr. Liebing's query: it is a function of repetition/duplication when using Masterformat 2004. Example: 210517 - Sleeves and Sleeve Seals for Fire-suppression Piping 220517 - Sleeves and Sleeve Seals for Plumbing Piping 230517 - Sleeves and Sleeve Seals for HVAC Piping All three of these sections are identical, save the section number and title. Under Masterformat 1995, these 21 pages would be condensed to ±4 pages and included in Section 15120 - Piping Specialties. We have submitted our 95% review set and as predicted the number of pages for MEP has increased. Here is the breakdown: 416 pages Owner furnished divisions 00 and 01 238 pages architectural sections - divisions 02 - 14 1,815 pages of MEP and civil - divisions 21 - 33 That's an increase of almost 400 pages. When using Masterformat 1995, far fewer than 400 pages would have covered MEP. Please note that due to editing, the number of pages in architectural sections has decreased. We, the project Architect and I, have determined that we need different MEP consultants. Richard L. Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 09:07 am:    Why blame the MEP consultant? In upgrading an industrial clients 1995 corporate engineering masters for mechanical and process work to MF04 I faced conflicts that were totally frustrating. Everything from Division 20 on is just not logical. The only way to make them manageable is to duplicate (really triplicate) sections. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 983 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 01:39 pm:    I would contend that the numbers beyond 20 are "logical" -- because they are set up to allow people to specify very narrow scope projects. What if your entire project is updating security, public address and fire alarmm systems? you might have one section to cover "patch and fix " in the architectural realm, but then you have the possibility of covering the security, public address and fire alarm systems individually and in detail -- which might be very necessary for a large school or hospital system. The old numbering system simply didn't allow for that sort of critical distinction, unless the consultant made up their own numbers. The same would be true for a civil piping job, or other systems project that would be more akin to some fussy decorative "architectural" project such as a custom designed private library. the 2004 numbering system certainly doesn't "make" people use zillions of sections.. but it does "allow" them to have coherent numbering if they have a project that would support that type of work. Architectural work has always referenced other sections -- painting and sealants are the typical ones that I reference in tens of other sections. the other consultants have to learn how to organize and set up their specifications in that manner instead of repeating everything three or seven times. This is an education issue, not a "doesn't make sense" issue. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1078 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 09:07 am:    If all three **0517 sections are "identical" as Unregistered Guest states, why not include the information just once in one Division and reference it from the other Divisions? Why must it be repeated? And why does one section of plus or minus 4 pages grow to 21 pages when multiplied by 3? In the numbering system I use (base 10), 4 times 3 is 12. As Anne states, specifiers have to organize and consolidate; but maybe they are just being too stubborn. Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: mking Post Number: 15 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, July 26, 2010 - 01:45 pm:    It is comical to see the architectural contributors to this forum comment about MEP specifications. Until the 1995 Edition, MasterFormat engineering divisions have been developed by architects for engineers to use and without much understanding of the actual content to be covered. In the development of the 1995 Edition, the MasterFormat Committee recommended going beyond 16 divisions, but the CSI Board rejected the recommendation. One reason it is difficult for engineering community to buy in to these organizational principles is because of this fact. Why have engineers not contributed? It has been said that there is an attitude of "let the architect argue over all this trivia and we will, somehow, make it work. While there is some truth to duplication of content in some (maybe a handful) sections like sleeves and sleeve seals and hangers and supports the duplications are only on the surface. Most of the redundancy is in section titles, article titles, and even paragraph titles. However, when you specify a particular valve for which there are applications in multiple piping systems, these text element titles remain identical, but the requirements for materials and performance are very different for fire protection, plumbing, and HVAC applications (even different within HVAC for hydronic and steam). Even the triplicate occurrences of the sleeve and sleeve seal topic are understandable. First, there are various materials and configurations from which to choose when specifying sleeves and sleeve seals; the choice of which depends on piping materials, piping content temperatures, insulation requirements, pipe sizes, and more. Secondly, there are several design disciplines at work here, each contributing to the project manual. Each discipline has to manage these differing requirements. The results will, undoubtedly contain some overlap, but are each focused on that discipline's particular requirements and the same specifier is not writing each. Engineers for the most part each write their part of the project manual, while architects often delegate that work to the office specifier or a consultant writer. About more pages: consider the increase in complexity of projects. The opportunity to be more specific about each subject has been granted by the expanded number of titles and thus content is easier to find. However, if you do not follow the valuable principles of specifying contained in the Project Resource Manual, you can very easily become so wordy that a large number of narrowly scoped sections will increase your page count. So, if you are diligent in keeping Parts 1 and 3 relative to the narrower scope of Part 2, page counts can be kept under control. MEP and civil titles and scopes of sections are just now becoming more in line with the way architectural sections have been written for many years. MEP specifications that do not embrace the more narrowly scoped arrangement of MasterFormat 2010, become very long because of the need to include many products, each produced by different manufacturers, and requiring Parts 1 and 3 to accommodate all of these different products; all which makes retrieval of particular information difficult. So, before you criticize the MEP specifications claiming redundancy, and before you blame MF 2010 for adding pages, know your subject. James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 71 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 09:05 am:    That is a great response, Mr. King. You have put the issue to rest in my mind. Thank you. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2011 - 03:34 pm:    The humor only comes from watching someone trying to sell a Master Specification product for building construction to engineers that work in many fields other than architectural. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1226 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2011 - 04:41 pm:    Yet, the committee for MF04 included representatives from ASCE, NFSA, ASHRAE, and Independent Electrical Contractors, Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada, and the National Systems Contractors Association. Of the 17 members listed, 4 were Professional Engineers and 4 were AIA members (assuming licensed Architects). All aspects of construction have gotten more complex; MEP is not alone in dealing with additional requirements, products, materials, manufacturers, and duplication. And yes, many architectural firms hire spec writers, either in-house or as consultants, because they understand the unique nature of writing a specification and how it differs from the graphic representation of a design. Why don't engineering firms do the same? Why do so many (not all) of them place the burden of writing specs on people not trained or educated to do so? Why do they expect an engineer, who may not have had even one writing class in college, to be able to produce a well-written, coordinated, clear, concise, (you know the rest) specification? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 382 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2011 - 07:33 pm:    Engineers are not usually illiterate. My understanding is all engineering degree programs require writing courses. Putting together a project manual requires general specification knowledge, knowledge about front end documents, technical subject matter expertise, and the ability to pull together and coordinate the contributions of the various parties. Because engineering consultant’s specifications are focused on a relatively limited number of sections the primary qualification for the engineering specification writer is technical subject matter expertise. To understand the current state of affairs you need to appreciate certain realities of engineering technical specification. Most professional specification writers do not have the technical expertise to write engineering specification sections. When it comes to the structural specification sections the master structural specification sections are usually challenging to say the least so the engineering consultants usually maintain their own master specifications. Because specifications is not a major part of their effort engineering firms typically cannot justify hiring a dedicated specification writer. This means that typically the project engineer edits the specifications for his project. Thus there is great variation in knowledge about good specification practices. There are few if any college courses on specification writing for engineers. What courses CSI has put on in the past locally were not advertised to attract engineers. This contributes to the ignorance. The architect’s specification writer or consultant typically doe not provide any feedback to the consultant. Doubt that the consultant’ specifications are even reviewed by the architect or his consultant. This lack of feedback does nothing to correct the problems. So they persist. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1138 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 05:03 pm:    I've worked with a couple of engineering firms over the years that had dedicated specifications writers -- who were also engineers. One of them was a structural firm in Seattle; the other was a long time M/E firm. And both of those firms were well over 100 engineers, so they could support someone full time in that discipline. As an architectural spec writer, I appreciated having only one person to coordinate with in each of those firms, rather than (as you mentioned) the variety knowledge bases that the typical engineer project manager brought to the job. We could work out a strategy for things like AESS steel painting (for example); develop a strategy for the various overlaps between architectural and the M/E disciplines, and at the very least, I knew they were referencing our Division 01 documents correctly. I sort of miss that... Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 249 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, April 01, 2011 - 05:26 pm:    I recently completed a small project for an architect in North Carolina. The mechanical engineer was the leader of the design team. I sent through a list of sections I proposed to use and they all agreed. However, after I completed the specs, I got a call from the engineer asking me to use the 5-digit numbers to match their format. Fortunately, it took just a few seconds to convert the files to MasterFormat 95 using MasterSpec's Masterworks conversion tool. It fixed the section numbers and names, even the cross references. Very slick. Use whatever format you want. I'm not going to let anything bother me. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1231 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 01, 2011 - 05:36 pm:    What, ME worry? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1142 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, April 04, 2011 - 06:15 pm:    well, you probably worry.. but at least not about that. Username (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 - 02:08 pm:    Just received instructions from a large city client that included ""Items are ordered generally according to the AIA Masterspec specification format." The list is organized according to Masterformat 1995. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 321 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 - 02:20 pm:    Did you ask them what other 17 year old standards they desired you to follow? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 769 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 - 06:26 pm:    David, several of our very successful clients still prefer we use MF95, in fact one client has teamed up with Sir Norman Foster's firm on a high profile hotel restoration that we are preparing specifications for, Foster's firm had no concern over using MF95, nor did any of the 30+ consultants. When asked, my client says if it ain't broken why fix it, he has had success with MF95 why bother with MF04, he is the principal of an award winning 30 year old firm, and one who pays his invoices on time, I don't argue. By the way, where did you get the 17 year comparison from, damn I did not know MF04 was that old, time to replace it? W. Dean Walker, AIA, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: wdwalkerspecs Post Number: 50 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 - 07:01 pm:    I have been using '04 for several years, but occassionally a Client's Owner or a municipality will request '95. For the most part my Client's engineers have switched. How many writers are using "00 01 00" and how many are using "000100"? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 23 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 - 07:39 pm:    I separate my pairs of numbers. ( 00 01 00 ) Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 142 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 - 08:13 pm:    I pair mine. Btw, I'm not going to get on my soapbox because I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I had an MEP firm recently ask me why some divisions in 40-49 had NOT USED as the title for a public bid job. I had to issue an addendum stating the reason and then told them to go to csinet.org to purchase the book and attend a chapter meeting once and awhile. Lol!!! Since the inception we tried to educate local design firms in this industry and if your not at their office giving them free lunch they don't want to learn. Also we had to cancel several large events here because of lack of interest. Now that state, government agencies, and others use it more they are complaining to us that they don't understand. Lol! The teacher appears when the student is ready... I know I know lol. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 847 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 02, 2012 - 11:06 pm:    I pair my numbers. WDG updated to the 2004 version, January of 2006. Since that time, no problem or question from any owner/developer, contractor or any consultant except 1 university. That was 2009 and they required 1995 - now with another project going ahead for them they have left that notion behind. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1385 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, February 03, 2012 - 10:17 am:    We do neither of the two suggested formats; we do 00 0000. Seems to work for us. We also haven't had problems with consultants or clients insisting on either '95 or '04. And if Division 00/01 are in '95 (and we've had a couple), they simply go in a separate volume and we bear no responsibility for them. J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, February 03, 2012 - 11:05 am:    I am seeing more resistance amoung local engineers to using '95 now. The only major local public client that has not fully switched over is the City of Houston. Their projects, however, routinely get issued with MF95 front end and MF04 Divs 02 - 49. I use the CSI recommended XX XX XX division, but see a lot of people using XX XXXX.