How to convince a client to use MF '0...

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1214 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 07:39 pm:    My firm has a school district client that insists on using the old CSI MasterFormat 1995 five-digit numbering system. How do we tactfully convince them to use the new MF'04 (or '10) system? My project manager is considering hitting the client with a large additional service if we have to use the old system. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 957 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 14, 2011 - 09:46 pm:    I have an additional charge to do it. Why do they even care? Is there some technological reason for them to hold out (i.e. database management system)? Did they buy a license for MasterSpec for their Division 01 many years ago and haven't renewed it? (Which violates the ARCOM license agreement, BTW.) Do they dictate how your drawings are also formatted? Probably not. So why should it matter to them how you format your specifications? The seal that goes on the documents is the design professional's...not the school district's. I get really irritated when owner's try to micro-manage the design professional's job. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tim_werbstein Post Number: 44 Registered: 09-2006 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 07:41 am:    Ron hit the nail on the head. Tactfully explain that it will merely co$t more both to design and probably to execute. Manufacturers are on-board with MF04. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: melissaaguiar Post Number: 136 Registered: 12-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 08:02 am:    I usually tell them that I will provide a matrix, and it has worked. Melissa J. Aguiar, CSI, CCS, SCIP Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1178 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 12:57 pm:    Suggest that if you use MF1995, you will also need to specify products that were only available in 1995, so that the entire package is consistent. seriously, I would simply add in a HUGE additional fee -- enough to discourage that practice. And your consultants will also have to add in a HUGE additional fee. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 603 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 01:12 pm:    Or, apropos of another discussion herein [http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/4254/5674.html?1310583718]tell them that MF1995 was not Y2K compliant so it didn't survive the millenium change. George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies St. Louis, MO Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 473 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 01:15 pm:    David, Does meet the "standard of care" in our region and is no longer supported by it's creators, CSI/CSC. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1216 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 01:40 pm:    What makes matters worse is that my firm uses the keynote system. So not only do the specifications have section numbers, but the drawings do as well. I am going to recommend to our partner the he convince the school district to allow us to convert the district's sections as a part of our basic services. In the long run our firm would save a ton of money and frustration by helping the district "for free". If the district does not want us to convert their specifications, I am going ask the partner to try convince the district to allow us to write our specs (and drawings) in the new format and the district can keep their specs/documents in the old format. I actually have done a few project with mixed formats and it worked okay. The owner provided Division 00 and Division 01. I changed a few references or removed references back to Division 01 sections in my sections. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 741 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 05:29 pm:    I offer both, MF95 and MF04, I find its not worth the time and effort to convince a client to change to MF04 if he is happy with MF95, fees are so tight right now, there is no time to hand hold an existing client changing to MF04, its their choice. I've had no disputes with consultants, they have both versions available. I don't see the need to distress a client, I've had phenomenal success with MF95 and lot's of confusion with M04, hell on some projects I offer a discount if the client will use MF95, these are usually long time clients who have established types of projects and work with less than sophisticated contractors, usually rental buildings and light commercial. The architect wants specs to protect himself but he doesn't have the time to learn new divisions and doesn't need a matrix to confuse him more. Why upset the cart guys, if your client is happy and pays his invoices, just get the job done and move on to the next one. I bet I get some flack on these comments from all u MF04 lovers out there...I'll have to read them all later, off to Sushi with my daughter. chow. D. Marshall Fryer, CSI, CCS, CCCA, Assoc. AIA Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 76 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 05:41 pm:    I kind of like Anne's first idea. First make a list of all the products (work results) that have come along since 1995 and therefore do not have a MF95 number/title. Then show the list to the client and ask if they desire to include any of those items in their project. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 283 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 06:05 pm:    I sort of like the concept of charging them an additional fee to use the old MF1995 numbering system. Particularly if half way through the project the client comes back all fired up from a trade show or convention and wants you to convert to MF2004 and you get to charge them twice. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1218 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 07:14 pm:    This begs the question of architect's means and methods. At what point can the owner dictate how the architect provides his service? For example what if the owner wanted hand drafted drawings with ink on mylar? I guess to answer my own question, if the owner had enough money they could buy what ever they want.....if they could find someone to do it. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 959 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 - 07:28 pm:    It boils down to what's in your agreement with the owner that you signed. If the agreement states "Prepare specifications conforming to CSI standards," then using MF2004 is the current CSI standard--MF1995 is no longer supported. Even if it states to just "Prepare specifications," then they have not made conformance to MF1995 a contractual requirement and should have no authority to dictate format. However, if it states "Prepare specifications conforming to MasterFormat 1995," then they've got you--you've agreed to it by signing the agreement. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1179 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Sunday, July 17, 2011 - 05:57 pm:    Ron's correct -- it comes down to your agreement, and there might be an issue with your liability insurer if they "strongly urge" that "current" formats be followed. And there's no "convincing" about it. You simply say that "the 1995 format is no longer available and we will be producing the documents in the current industry standard. " its not a discussion. This is simply not a client issue. The new format has been in place for nearly a decade now; all product information comes in the new numbering system, the consultants in the northwest have switched over. We are not doing a client a service by allowing them to 1) dictate how we produce the work and 2) allowing them to use out of date standards. Do they want to use the 96 UBC, too? Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 284 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 12:54 pm:    I am curious about who and where the hold-outs to previous numbering systems are. I would be interested to know if entire regions are sticking with the old. In the case of my work load, the hold-outs are almost entirely colleges and universities. A Client type that tends to have small but permament "Facility and Design" offices that have just enough structure to create rules and requirements, but not enough to keep them current. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 363 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 02:13 pm:    I do know that HUD finally issued a memo in Dec 2010 that specs are now to be in MF04. Finally! As for everyone else, there is a duty to perform at the industry standard of care. A good attorney will make the argument that specs in MF95 are not in accord with the current standard of care. Although this likely doesn't affect the technical content of the documents, it will likely influence a court and make them question why that architect is not current with their documents. As for spec writers not updating their specs, well, I personally think we are supposed to be role models and leaders in our industry. 'Nuff said. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 960 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 02:24 pm:    Robin, I assume you meant "are now to be in MF04." Correct? Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com J. Peter Jordan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 02:31 pm:    Wasn't going to name names, but the only significant hold out in our area is the City of Houston. They have been accepting a "hybrid format" where their standard sections (Division 00 and 01) are in MF95 and the rest can be in MF2004. Of course, I wind up supplementing or replacing their stuff anyway (they are still requiring bluelines for submittals) and they don't have any Division 01 sections addressing LEED issues, so we wind up with a hodgepodge. They just shrug. Interestingly enough, all the universities, colleges, and large health care entities in this area are on board wth MF2004. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 364 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2011 - 02:57 pm:    @Ron - yes, I corrected the Typo in the post! Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 105 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 09:10 am:    The Pennsylvania Department of General Services updated their "Engineering and Architecture Project Procedure Manual" in January 2010. This manual includes the Division 1 General Requirements documents. All of the sections were revised, except they keep MF95. Design Professionals have, at the descretion of the DGS PM, the option to use MF04. The DGS specifications are updated to MF04 by adding a "0" to the DGS section number, as mandated by DGS. It makes sense to them because "the difference between MF95 and MF04 is just an additional digit in the section number". Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tim_werbstein Post Number: 45 Registered: 09-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 09:17 am:    That is a truly remarkable quote, "the difference between MF95 and MF04 is just an additional digit in the section number"! Are they referring only to Division 01? Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 106 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 10:42 am:    Yes they are referring only to Div 1. You have to realize that we are dealing with people that may not be degreed or licensed and have probably never worked in industry. Their only experience is within the bureacracy. I truely believe that even in boom times they would never be given hiring consideration at an architect's or engineer's office. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 474 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 11:09 am:    Richard, It is called "Rising to their level of incompetence." We all have encountered a few of these creatures in the past, many with lots of initials behind their name. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 254 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Tuesday, July 19, 2011 - 03:41 pm:    PA is probably just trying not to push anyone into the modern era against their will. Be thankful they allow electronic means of producing your work. I am so happy we have have an FCSI with MAI credential as State Architect in Ohio. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1332 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 - 02:30 pm:    When this came up, the additional services fee was the solution. And not just because it was a way to discourage this, but because there really was additional fee since our MF95 masters no longer existed. If keynoting is included, it is pretty clear that the cost for this would be quite high. Also, it would almost certainly increase the odds of an error sneaking in, so you may want to (try to) get a waiver for errors occurring as a result of this change. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1221 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - 02:58 pm:    Well I don't know what we have negotiated with the school but last I heard we will NOT go back to the 5 digit numbering system. I know that we have told the school district that we will help them convert. I will keep you posted. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1280 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 - 03:15 pm:    Sounds like 6 steps in the right direction. guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 12:10 pm:    We are just a couple days away from issuing a renovation project for a local City. Surprise, surprise, the "front end" and Division 1 sections arrived in my inbox and are based on Masterformat 1995. We were instructed to use these documents "as is." I've been asking for these documents for weeks. Remainder of specifications sections were prepared using Masterformat 2004 section numbers. Thanks for letting me vent. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 750 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2011 - 02:40 pm:    This is why my dog & cat are allowed in my office, granted they constantly get into trouble and cause me aggravation, they are the best therapy, esp my dog, no matter how much I may vent at her, she still loves me unconditionally...and my cat, no matter how mean I am to her, she always wants my attention, loves being held and pet, great for stress reduction. Of course clients sometimes wonder why they hear a dog barking in the background, those who own dogs are very jealous and those that don't I still tolerate. Now getting to your problem, why not just issue the Front End as a separate Volume and than include the CSI Roadmap publication as a guide to translating 1995 version from 2004 - granted this is backward thinking, but it may reduce the confusion and aggravation of trying to get the City to change versions. Good luck anyway undisclosed guest whom ever you are. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 11:22 am:    There is no way that we will convince the city to change their front end and Division 1 sections. They are thoroughly entrenched in their existing system and see no reason to update. Thanks for the suggestion Jerome. This project is not large enough to issue separate volumes; containing only 19 technical specification sections. Has anyone issued a project with both Masterformat 1995 and Masterformat 2004 documents / sections in one volume? Note: I've revised all references to Division 1 sections contained in the technical sections to reflect use of Masterformat 1995. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 492 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 11:39 am:    Yes. On a recent project the mechanical, plumbing, electrical consultant (east coast location) was retained by the Owner. Consultant is mired in MF95 and will not change for a variety of stuborn reasons. We adapted. In the master TOC, Divisions 22, 23 and 26 refer back to Divisions 15 and 16. Architectural sections simply refer to Division 15 and 16 in the TOC. At the end of the day, is was not a problem. On another project, different MEP, the mechancial contractor told the Owner he could not bid the project because Div 15 is missing. Pendulum swings both ways. Consultants on board with MF04/10 but trades lag behind stuck in MF95. Makes for some interesting days. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1200 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 07:23 pm:    with the owner-provided documents, simply cover it in the table of contents. Simply put "Division 01" as the header and then "Provided by Owner". And list them the way they are. when I cant budge consultants, I've done exactly as Wayne suggests -- just reference things in the TOC, and people will figure it out. (and if they can't, then it goes back to the owner anyway) oh and Jerome -- I used to have TWO basset hounds and lived (in an old neighborhood) next door to TWO chocolate labs. by next door, I mean "the house was 36" from my house and that space was the dog run". When I got drawing deliveries, all four of dogs started barking and it sounded like I was working in a dog kennel. sometimes I just had to call people back. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 754 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 19, 2011 - 08:11 pm:    Anne, I have so many clients that have abandoned their offices and moved back to their homes that I hear the ocassional crying toddler during a conference call, its not an issue anymore. You do what you can to survive these days. The barking I can handle, but the cats walking on the keyboards and wierd text poping up well that gets old after a while. But than again therapy is expensive and sometimes petting the cat and venting on this forum will do just as well. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1248 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 - 03:49 pm:    Well it looks like we lost the battle with our owner. Two of our principals and the project manager could not convince the school district to allow us to use MF 2004 (2010). So does anyone know an easy way to convert our specs back to 1995? Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 418 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 - 04:01 pm:    this is not a major deal. mostly remove a "0". But seriously - don't you have the spreadsheet that came with the MF04 book? also - for large institutions (think port of seattle) that have years of jobs and tons of paper with one system....is it REALLY that important to force them into another. there is a strong argument for leting them be. CSI was so long in developing a division of telecom - that they made their own. as my daughter would say "just saying..." David E Lorenzini Senior Member Username: deloren Post Number: 125 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 - 08:19 pm:    David, Now that the specifications are done, it probably is a big deal. Here's what I would suggest: Ph.1: First and foremost, you should create a conversion list from MF04 to MF95 numbers. This is something you will refer to many times. Next, Add the MF95 numbers to the MF04 filenames, with a dash between. It will provide immediate recognition of the section from either vantage point. Ph.2: Create an Autotext entry that changes each MF04 number to each MF95 number using your conversion chart. Then, when you select a MF04 number and press F3, the number will change to MF95 with no typing necessary. If possible, keep the MF04 titles. It should save some time editing the sections and header/footers where the name might appear. Ph.3: Record a macro to search for the word "Section". Call it "FindSearch". At the end of the macro, when it finds the next "section", have the macro move the cursor to the right about 5 spaces. If there is a MF04 number following the word section, it will end up in the middle of the section number. Quit the record function. Ph.4: Create a Keyboard Shortcut to run the macro, and assign it to Alt-S, which should be available. How it Works: Open each section, press Alt-S, then press F3 each time the cursor ends up in the middle of a MF04 number. In many cases the word "section" will not be followed by a number. However, you may have to manually open the header/footer and press F3 on the section number that appears there. It may be laborious, the the easy part is that you don't have to look up the corresponding MF95 number or do any typing. In theory, this should work, but I haven't tried it. I do use Autotext to convert all my MF95 numbers to MF04, except the ones that just add a zero, and I do combine both MF section numbers in each filename. David Lorenzini, FCSI, CCS Architectural Resources Co. Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 257 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 - 08:54 pm:    Last time I had to convert from MF04 to MF95 I used the "Convert MasterFormat" feature in MasterSpec's Multi-File dialog box. I just selected the files I wanted converted and clicked on the button. It did all the work in a couple of minutes; numbers, titles, and cross-references. I couldn't believe how easy it was and how thorough. The only thing left to do was clean up the table of contents.