Post Number: 631
|Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 11:09 am: |
Makes you want to say "what the f--k? Why is this still happening after 10 years
Last week I sent an e-mail to our NY office advising the PM that civil is using the outdated and no longer supported version of CSI Masterformat (MasterFormat 95) for divisions and sections numbers-titles.
Yesterday, civil responded "Attached are the updated Specifications, we have revised the sections to be consistent with the current version of the CSI Masterfomat." Masterformat 95 again.
After civil was sent MasterFormat 2004, updated March 29/2011, they replied "Sorry I was not aware of the master format change, we will update our section numbers."
Makes me want to say hmmmmm!
|James Sandoz, AIA, CSI|
Post Number: 146
|Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 02:35 pm: |
I blame the time change. Don't forget to set your clocks ahead one decade before you retire tonight. :-)
|Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP|
Post Number: 1072
|Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 03:29 pm: |
I am not sure about other states, but in Florida, in both the private and public sectors, specifications are being prepared in MF95 for new projects. In order to appease my clients, I offer both formats, although I offer all the valid arguments for using MF04, many firms, including the well known ones prefer MF95. And sadly there are too many large projects being permited without any specifications.
Post Number: 740
|Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 03:53 pm: |
It's the McConaughey effect; they'll have it in ten years.
|William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS|
Post Number: 909
|Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 04:23 pm: |
We made the conversion officially in Jan of 2006, no public or private client or general contractor batted an eye then or since except 1 project
A few MEP were slow in converting, but I had put out a notice to all our consultants 6 months in advance of our official conversion date and they were all compliant by then.
We had only one project with the University of Maryland in 2008 that required 1995. But 1 year later started another project for them and it was the current version of of MF.
Most of our public sector work is Federal rather than state, so perhaps that is the difference.
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate
WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX
Post Number: 34
|Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 12:37 am: |
My office standard is 2004 (well, actually 2012) numbering, though for convenience of others in the office I've included approximate MF1995 numbering in parenthesis of each master spec file name.
I have found it both funny, and sad at the same time to explain to (very experienced) co-workers and clients that under the old system, most of sprinkler and Building Automation is in division 13, fire extinguishers are in division 10, and not in Division 15, and electric hand dryers are not in division 16.
If an architect forces us to use 1995 (or believe it or not, 1988) numbering, I've written a very complex word macro to renumber all the sections, and change the section references in each document. Took a long time to make work, and forces me to bring up this great comic: http://xkcd.com/1205/
|J. Peter Jordan|
Post Number: 702
|Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 07:22 am: |
What I told people ten years ago is that at some point, it will become more difficult not to do stuff in MF04. While most public clients here in the Houston area have made the conversion, the City of Houston has not. They do permit a bastardized dual format where their Div 00 and 01 is MF95, and the A/E produces the rest of the specs in MF04/12. In at least one case, a larger MEP firm forced the architect to convert.
Let ARCAT know that you want to see MF04 as the default view. When I contacted them recently, they told me that their users preferred the old format. Evidently we don't use ARCAT.
Post Number: 742
|Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 08:58 am: |
They prefer old building codes and reference standards, too. Compared to keeping up with all those, moving to current MF is simple.
|Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP|
Post Number: 1076
|Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 10:15 am: |
Sheldon unless you have worked on private sector work in Florida, you really don't know what you are talking about. I been doing this for 25 years. I consider myself fortunate to have very loyal clients who when they include specifications in the contract documents prefer to employ my services. For that loyalty, I repay them by preparing the specs as they want, and no they don't use out of date codes or references, you wish your were as successful as some of these firms. In Florida, specifications in an older format do not get an architect into trouble, not having specs or not coordinating specs with the drawings is the usual culprit in litigation
|J. Peter Jordan|
Post Number: 703
|Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 12:23 pm: |
I will have to agree with Mr. Lazar that the format usually doesn't get the design professional into trouble, but I will note that using MF04/12 makes some stuff a lot easier (especially in the 20-series of divisions). Enforcing consistency would be nice, but I have always had trouble getting people to do that or even see why it might be a good idea.
Post Number: 743
|Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2014 - 01:45 pm: |
I stand by what I said; our code analysts spend more time trying to keep up with the multitude of code changes, and I spend more time keeping up changes in reference standards and products, than it took to convert our specs from MF95 to MF04. And that was without simply choosing the option available in both MasterSpec and SpecLink.
Using your logic, which amounts to "we've always done it this way" - and I agree, it is logical as long as it works - anyone can write specifications any way they like. Write a letter, use a mortgage company's checklist, use cut sheets, put everything on the drawings, whatever works. I'm curious, though, why using current MasterFormat would get an architect in trouble. And how is coordination of drawings and specifications part of the issue? The version of MF used - or not using it at all - has no affect on that.
The point of having standards is to remove differences between work in Florida and other areas, improving communication for everyone by having the same information in the same organization for everyone. If everyone had the "we're not going to change" attitude, CSI would have been unable to create MasterFormat or SectionFormat, and construction documents would look different from one city to the next, from one firm to the next, and from one architect to the next in the same office. It's a lot easier to use the same base documents for all clients than to have separate documents for different clients or project locations.
I'm not faulting you; I have the impression you have a good thing going, and the important thing is getting the work done right the first time. But please, Jerome, I think I can say I do know what I'm talking about. We have individual clients who insist we do things their way; I understand that's part of doing business. However, with but few exceptions, our clients not only do not object to our use of current formats, they expect it, and many require it. As for the others, they either don't care, or we have successfully convinced them of the value of keeping up with current formats.