| Author |
Message |
robin treston
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 11:18 am: |    |
I recently had a client ask me if I was familiar with Uniformat. They have been asked by the State to prepare a Schematic Design and performance spec package for a project that will then be used to solicit RFP's from Contractors to take over the project as a design build. The specs are to be truely performance based, with no specific systems or materials (ie: Roofing: 20 year warranty,weathertight. The Design/Build team can then decide the type of roof and write the full spec for it during CD). My client asked about using Uniformat for this preliminary spec. I have never used Uniformat and truly thought it's only purpose was to stump me on the CCS exam. Has anyone used Uniformat in "the real world" and in what applications, and would anyone be willing to share any samples? Would this situation be a good use for it?
Thanks! |
Richard L. Hird
New member
Username: Dick_hird
Post Number: 1
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 29, 2002 - 04:42 pm: | |
If you look at Mark Kalin's "Project Description" product I think you will find it is set up "like" Uniformat. (Frankly I have an pretty old version so it may have changed)
Uniformat, as published, has some quirky things, like Division 1 stuff at the end. I think you will find Mark's format close enough and yet be compatible with your normal work.
|
Phil Kabza
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 21, 2002 - 07:23 am: | |
I've had occasion to use UniFormat for a Preliminary Project Description, with limited but encouraging results. Because team members were not familiar with the concept of systems and assemblies design in Schematic Design, they wanted to jump ahead to select products a la MasterFormat. UniFormat helped to keep them thinking in the Schematic mode. I expect this aspect of UniFormat would be of help in writing performance-based specifications.
CSI publishes UniFormat in a mostly useless Windows Help File format. We recreated it in a Word table format as a base outline for the PPD. The editor then deletes unneeded information as they go along, and fills out the outline for those systems and assemblies that apply to the project. We are back to working on this on another project now, and the team is finding UniFormat helpful.
|
David J. Wyatt, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 02:36 pm: | |
Robin, it takes a fair measure of nerve to make that sort of inquiry. Until fairly recently, I did not know what to do with UniFormat either! Too often we linger in confusion about something, hoping someone else asks the question.
Phillip's experience is consistent with mine - limited but encouraging. UniFormat gets people to think of projects as coordinated assemblies of major elements rather than a collection of little parts. It is a good tool for getting team participants to establish performance requirements and resolve important design issues during Schematic Design rather than putting them off. It uses concepts that owners, contractors, and CMs can understand, so dialogue gets started earlier.
Writing PPDs using UniFormat also helps bring the specifier into the project earlier, thus enhancing his/her value to the design team as a decision-maker and knowledge source (The ka-ching theory).
Bob Johnson, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA, of Johnson and Johnson Consultants, L.L.C., has written a very good presentation (The Earliest Words) that shows you how to use UniFormat to write effective PPDs.
|
Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 119
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 06:15 pm: | |
we also use Uniformat for PPD documents, primarily because most of the preliminary estimates are done using a "systems " approach. And, it produces a relatively short (10-30 pages) document that is easy to discuss and present to an Owner.
Just like a "regular" spec, you can make a Uniformat document as complicated (attach schedules, lists of materials) or simple (a couple of paragraphs per part) as you want. As a full time spec writer, I don't find Uniformat that helpful (and very little in it translates to the final spec) but I know that the project team finds it just about as detailed as they want in the early stages of the project. |
Tobin Oruch, CDT
Junior Member
Username: oruch
Post Number: 3
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
The Design Build Institute of Am (DBIA) promotes UniFormat in their MOP. And I think one of BSD's products produces performance specs numbered by UF98, too... |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 12
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 12:52 pm: | |
I have used UniFormat for several projects and it really seemed to be attractive because it seemed to be the same as what Means uses for preliminary cost information. HOWEVER, it seems that Means uses an ASTM standard as the basis for their organization of cost data which varies slightly from UniFormat (there has to be a story there about a missed opportunity for CSI).
I used Perspective (from BSD) to generate a UniFormat performance spec for a project expecting it to mesh with the way our cost consultant was organizing his information only to find annoying hiccups in correlating the two work products.
UniFormat does make it easier to address preliminary project requirements/information on the basis of performance of individual building systems without detailed specifications. |
Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 58
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 01:07 pm: | |
I, too, have used BSD's PerSpective software for the preparation of a performance spec for GSA's renovation of the old Phoenix Federal Courthouse. I thought it easy to use, however, the problem was with my consultants, who were unfamiliar with performance writing. They kept adding custom text that was very descriptive, thereby defeating the built-in links and making coordination a little difficult. I think the problem had more to due with the type of project. I think it would have worked extremely well on new construction rather than renovation. |
Tobin Oruch, CDT
Member
Username: oruch
Post Number: 4
Registered: 04-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 03:51 pm: | |
For folks that don't have UniFormat, you can get the bulk from www.CSI.org, searching on Uniformat Lite, and selecting the first hit.
The ASTM J. Peter refers to is E1557; it suggests a Level 4 (e.g, B202003-Storefronts whereas CSI's UF98 stops at L3 (B2030).
BTW, an earlier NIST paper had proposed another L4 scheme and has some good discussion of UF use. It might have used B2033. But I'm starting to sound like Dennis Hall;-)
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build99/PDF/b99080.pdf (slow server). |
Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: rjray
Post Number: 27
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Monday, September 13, 2004 - 09:21 am: | |
Correction to Tobin's link, for all the non-swimmers.
http://www.csinet.org |
|
4specs.com Home Page
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page