CSI Recommendations vs Practice

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

Author Message Edward R Heinen CSI CDT CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: edwardheinen Post Number: 19 Registered: 04-2022 Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2024 - 04:04 pm:    CSI's PPDFormat recommends UniFormat for use in SD documentation. Getting project teams to commit to UniFormat in lieu of their usual narratives is difficult and rarely done, I'd say for practical reasons. I've seen mix and match documentation, without my expert involvement, happen to owner/client satisfaction. What are your thoughts and insights? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, CDT, Certified Master Gardener Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 1006 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2024 - 04:16 pm:    Though I retired in Feb of 2017, the PPD and UniFormat recommendation was in use for some time prior to that. But I never used it because most of the rest of the team did not understand it, or even think in the way UniFormat requires one to envision a project. I was an ‘inside the firm’ specifier for my firm, not an independent specifier. Also, it was the project managers for the projecct that would write this document though I offered to try the PPD UniFormat for them, but we soon returned to the original way that we presented it. And talk about consultants (WDG is an architectural and interiors firm), consultants were just ‘NO!’ And lastly, the major developers we worked with liked and understood what we doing and did not want something different. Though mostly they did not really find it useful. I think it could be a useful tool. Actually very good, but, it’s not just not been supported enough (that is support by educating non-CSI members like consultants) and to the developer side of things almost total lack of education. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, CDT, SCIP Emeritus Greta Eckhardt (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2024 - 04:29 pm:    I applaud you, Edward, for reading PPDFormat and considering its recommendations! During my 20 years of preparing specifications as an in-house specifier, I was quite successful in implementing a UniFormat-based outline for SD and sometimes even DD documentation and I strongly believe it is the best way to organize construction information at this stage of a project. 1. The structure is based on systems and assemblies rather than individual products or "work results" which is very appropriate for the level of decision-making at SD. Because of that, it offers a great way to set up agendas for meeting with design team members to learn about the project in an early phase. 2. UniFormat offers a standardized way to convey the information so that multiple bidders are more likely to submit comparable bids than they would be if costs were based on the rather random inconsistent types of narratives I have sometimes seen. 3. UniFormat organization corresponds very well with the way many contractors estimate projects at early stages. I developed my own master and gave copies of relevant portions of it to consultants, and many times succeeded in getting them to prepare their SD documentation accordingly. David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 98 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, September 27, 2024 - 11:07 am:    Thank you, Greta. Your comments are excellent. It is encouraging that you were successful in implementing UNIFORMAT® in your firm. (I am under agreement with CSI® to use their marks and must show them as CSI prescribes). There are owners that demand design teams deliver information in a UNIFORMAT organization such as University of Maryland Baltimore County and Auburn University. UMBC began requiring it when they got tired of design teams providing complete construction specifications, in early design phases. My contact at UMBC labeled it design by the pound. He wanted to know the project needed amplifiers. He did not need eight pages used to describe each type of amplifier that may be needed. I have been involved with UNIFORMAT starting shortly after ASTM published E15157 - Standard Classification for Building Elements and Related Sitework—UNIFORMAT II in 1992. CSI followed by publishing UNIFORMAT and suggested its use in writing Preliminary Project Descriptions in the Manual of Practice Chapter FF180 (Formats and Fundamentals) to serve as a Schematic Design deliverable. Initially, I struggled to put it into use and to develop a method for presenting project data using UNIFORMAT. Fortunately, I served on the CSI committee that developed PPDFORMAT™ that suggested a structure for the data. Then in 2013 as I was preparing a presentation for the CSI national conference, I had a revelation. Strike the word Preliminary in PPD. Then it all made sense. UNIFORMAT can be the overarching document for every project, start to finish. Collect performance data and design data for all building systems in one place. UNIFORMAT becomes the go-to resource for the commissioning agent to put the building in operation and for the owner to support on-going operations. Ultimately MASTERFORMAT® specifications are relegated to be industry standards while UNIFORMAT specifications describe all the project particulars. How many times must we edit Section 092900 to tell the contractor how to buy and hang gypsum board? This should be a standard that applies across the entire industry. What is far more important is how is the gypsum board used in a particular project. UNIFORMAT describes those uses - partitions, ceilings, soffits with fire ratings, acoustic ratings, and structural capacities for each different assembly. Using UNIFORMAT to reference MASTERFORMAT standards can significantly reduce the volume of specifications data required for each project. I completed a cancer infusion center architectural spec using UNIFORMAT. The entire spec was 25 pages. The project was built from this. I had not one question during the construction. Can we rethink specifications? Let's focus on the project using UNIFORMAT. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED BD+C Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 156 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Sunday, September 29, 2024 - 03:22 pm:    I used Unformat for a DD spec back in the early 2000's and have been a fan ever since. I have seen CM's use it successfully in their estimating process, so for us to do SD and DD outlines makes our teamwork that much better. In healthcare the SD and DD narratives we use, loosely follow Uniformat, so I have been working to get our master narrative to be uniformat. So far not much push back - moving forward! Russ Hinkle Brian Payne Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 323 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Sunday, September 29, 2024 - 03:30 pm:    I'll be the naysayer here. I never really found a lot of value in PPD. Our SD > CD drawings don't go from assemblies > products, nor do they go from Generic > Specific. They go from typical conditions to unique conditions. Our SD set includes CD level drawings, just fewer of them. We almost always know what specific products we are going to specify in SD. In addition, I use SpecLink and greatly appreciate not having to loose any of the outline spec effort I put in early in the project, since you do not need to "start over". I'm writing my final CD spec throughout the entire design process. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 442 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, September 30, 2024 - 09:43 am:    As a free range specifier, I am often frustrated by the mess of notes I receive from Archtiects for 100% SD. I have a tight outline spec, which uses the exact same CSI numbers as our final specifications. I share it with my design Architects. It's helpful to get them thinking about the correct CSI numbers early in design - especially for firms using keynotes. We are required by some public agencies to use UniFormat, and it's probably more helpful for the CMs and Owners than the design team. I don't think it's worth the effor to teach junior staff to jump back and forth between the two systems. I'd rather get them thinking about CSI MF organization right away. - Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 795 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 01, 2024 - 02:30 pm:    Now and then I raise the question of UniFormat with the tech leaders in our client firms. So far there is little interest. I expect it will happen when they encounter a client that takes them there. The challenge for us will be that there will be an enormous amount of initial writing as we have no masters in place from which to start. Phil Kabza FCSI CCS AIA SpecGuy Specifications Consultants www.SpecGuy.com phil@specguy.com David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 99 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 01, 2024 - 10:27 pm:    Phil, I believe you may discover what I found when I started writing UNIFORMAT® masters. I stopped. Now our team starts from a blank page every time. We write what we know, when we know it. UNIFORMAT should always be additive because it is a living document start to finish. UIFORMAT is a great way to collect all performance and design criteria that the commissioning agent needs to start each facility and the information the owner needs for operations. UNIFORMAT is a great way to coordinate BIM, description, and estimate. It is an excellent way to allow cost analysis to balance performance, design, and aesthetic requirements to provide the owner best value when meeting the owner's project requirements. Imagine a future when there is no VE because project documentation allowed informed decisions at every step along the way to balance cost, performance, and aesthetics to solve the owner's design problem. I believe it is possible. UNIFORMAT is part of the solution. Greta Eckhardt (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 02, 2024 - 10:53 am:    With all due respect to the realities experienced by some contributors, I firmly support all that David Stutzman has to say about the benefits of Uniformat. And I believe it can be extremely helpful to the design team because it asks for a focus on assemblies without getting bogged down in making MaterFormat-type decisions too early in the design process. I do disagree with David's suggestion to start with a blank page every time. The UniFormat-based master document I developed primarily provided an outline structure, with some generic placeholders for commonly used assemblies. One could easily delete or add to it. For each of the firms where I worked, I also included some detail on assemblies that had been used successfully in the past by its designers, as a starting place for projects where we did not want to reinvent the wheel. And for an easy transition to MasterFormat, on some projects I included MasterFormat numbers when listing components of the assembly. Greta Eckhardt (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, October 02, 2024 - 12:23 pm:    And I would add that I applaud the designers in the firms where I prepared Uniformat project descriptions for SD and DD, for their constructive design thinking as we worked through the outline together. This process was a great way to get team members to articulate design goals in terms of performance requirements for each assembly, which then became part of the documentation. It also led them to an increased understanding of individual products as components of assemblies. David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 100 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2024 - 08:24 am:    Greta, I understand your position. Firms that can identify common systems used for most projects may be able to align a master UNIFORMAT® description with their assembly libraries. As independent specifications consultants, Conspectus does not have this same luxury. We work with many firms and on many project types. We have no control of what assemblies will be included. I strongly believe that if you flip the thinking of primarily subtractive spec writing when starting with a master to additive writing - building the project in your mind and writing what you know, the result will be a better, more inclusive description. When in a subtractive mode, often what must be added is ignored or forgotten. Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2024 - 03:04 pm:    Virginia switched over to Uniformat for cost estimating years ago. We were allowed to use a CM's estimate as the independent (in addition to A/E) estimate for schematic & preliminary submittals on CM projects. Most CMs prepared their estimates by trade, and converting to Uniformat categories was cumbersome. Loretta Sheridan Senior Member Username: leshrdn Post Number: 158 Registered: 11-2021 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2024 - 09:05 am:    RS Means provides Uniformat based and MasterFormat based estimates. At the earlier stages of estimating, the Uniformat option is by far the less cumbersome for estimators. (This is an way OVERLY simplistic summary/description.) David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 101 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2024 - 11:17 am:    It was estimators that invented the UNIFORMAT classification system for GSA as a means to provide reliable estimates early in the design process. ASTM E1557 gives guidance about units of measure and how to measure each building element when developing estimates. Having a uniform approach allows data to be portable one project to the next and enables comparative cost analysis to help keep project development in balance to meet owner requirements. Loretta Sheridan Senior Member Username: leshrdn Post Number: 159 Registered: 11-2021 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2024 - 01:12 pm:    Great point. I did know that at some point, but had forgotten. Related: At some point I started to think that well developed Uniformat specs might work well for GMP for Design Build projects. But I never got beyond thinking about that. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1649 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2024 - 02:28 pm:    Loretta, as David and I discussed years ago, my team at the time generated and issued a GMP set for a laboratory building at a large Baltimore teaching university that we called "DD Light". Long story about why but it was a D/B project, we got hard bids (with contingency design and construction allowances) from subs, and the team submitted the GMP. From what I understand it was built without entirely draining the contingencies. The trick was getting MEP to understand that the building needed total flexibility ranging from 100 percent office space to 100 percent lab space. We priced several envelope options and amazingly found that precast concrete with closed cell foam and fire-resistant coating was the least expensive option for our size and configuration. Allowed us to include a pretty cool window palette as well. I set the spec document up according to UniFormat content and used MF keynotes for designating the content within each Assembly. The Assemblies corresponded to the the Revit Families used in the model. Some of the clearest communication I've ever seen. Melody Fontenot Senior Member Username: melodyccs Post Number: 6 Registered: 01-2023 Posted on Friday, October 04, 2024 - 03:08 pm:    If anyone is interested in going further down the rabbit hole, check out the blog that Dave Stutzman and I wrote about our SPD (Systems and Performance Description), which is similar to PPD and uses Uniformat®: https://www.conspectusinc.com/blog/the-spd-leveraging-efficiency This is a paradigm shift and an attempt for design to be proactive- let's eliminate VE! There is also an excellent Deliberate Words podcast on this topic, called "Deconstructing the SPD": https://www.conspectusinc.com/deliberate-words-podcast - enjoy, curious specifier friends! Melody Fontenot, AIA, CSI, CCCA, CCS, CDT, LEED AP, SCIP Portland, OR David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 102 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Saturday, October 05, 2024 - 10:18 am:    This has been a great discussion about UNIFORMAT. Lorretta, I want to confirm it is possible to deliver a completed construction project using UNIFORMAT specs only. We did it for a cancer infusion center project. This was a negotiated construction contract. The owner, architect, and contractor had all worked together before. Because the Owner was a healthcare system, there was incentive to do a great job to continue the relationship for future projects. The entire architectural spec was 25 pages. The advantage here is that everyone probably read the spec. And because the spec was short and to the point, it became more enforceable. I believe UNIFORMAT is a great approach for Design-Build contracts. It will define the owner requirements and the building systems. The contractor will select trusted trade partners and really only needs enough information in the spec to buy the contract. Edward R Heinen CSI CDT CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: edwardheinen Post Number: 20 Registered: 04-2022 Posted on Sunday, October 06, 2024 - 01:59 pm:    Terrific dialog on this topic! My thanks to all contributors. Since my initial posting… The SD cost estimate came in - organized according to MasterFormat pre-2004, 16 Division. Annoying for this specifier, but not worth criticizing at this point. Narratives were developed by primary designers - architecture, landscape, historic - professionally written in descriptive, prose style. No use of UniFormat (no familiarity among team except me). Exterior assemblies, interior/exterior elements shown on drawings/diagrams/sketches. Engineering provided design criteria and outline specs from their usual toolkit. It's clear to me that UniFormat could not have been used in lieu of the these narratives, although could certainly have supplemented them and provided value. The narratives in this case conveyed broad qualitative aspects - e.g. the user experience and design approach, reflecting values and decisions made in concert with owner in predesign and SD culminating in the deliverable. Uniformat could have provided many of the corollary benefits described in CSI PPDFormat, and will still be used by me as a quality review checklist moving forward. I have successfully used Uniformat before, getting all disciplines on the same system with some quick training and my Word templates. This was necessarily supported by the lead design firm toward this LEED Platinum facility. This involved a negotiated construction contract, so it was important the architect recorded their design intent so costs were not skewed later. My current project is design-bid-build, so the stakes are a bit different, along with my opportunity. It seems the construction procurement/contracting method plays a role in the use of UniFormat. UniFormat for design-build makes a lot of sense to me, at least for bridging documents, supplemented as needed. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, CDT, Certified Master Gardener Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 1007 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Sunday, October 06, 2024 - 04:02 pm:    Ed, I often think that my career of 40+ years as a specifier gave me a lot of benefits from always being a specifier internal to an architectural firm. First with SOM DC and then moving on to head up WDG’s specifications. The later especially since the partners at that time really wanted someone to do that task as opposed to each writing their own project manual (typically cloning it from a past project). I went with them in ‘83 and retired in 2017. We never had the kind of problems you have expressed here, because we as the architect was in control. We did everything based on Master Format and when it was revised, we went with the revision, and simply required our consultants to comply at the time they were contracted. Makes life and the specification process a lot simpler. Also, I always thoroughly enjoyed getting to see a project from its very beginning to its occupancy, and maintaining the project manual from start through addendums to later revisions, working with the designers early on, being with the projecct architects through keynote/word coordination where you could not put a keyword on the drawings without coordinating with specifications in advance, and using the CSI recommended keywords and definitions. This is not to look askance at independent specifiers, just that I think independents have it MUCH harder than being an internal where everyone from top down is totally supportive of the process and vv. I always read the posts here from all the independents and truly appreciate the problems of having to comply with other team members who should be consultants rather than clients. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, CDT, SCIP Emeritus Edward R Heinen CSI CDT CCS LEED-AP Senior Member Username: edwardheinen Post Number: 21 Registered: 04-2022 Posted on Monday, October 07, 2024 - 10:33 am:    Thanks William, Glad to share more about being an independent specifier, but I'm thinking that is a separate topic from this string? Davemetzger (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, October 07, 2024 - 11:02 am:    David: It seems to me that several factors were in play on the cancer infusion center project you referenced, that made the use of UNIFORMAT specs successful: • private owner • negotiated construction contract • the parties had all worked together before. And so there was an established trust and confidence. Have you used the UNIFORMAT approach under different circumstances, eg public work? Design-bid-build work with open bidding? If so, what were the results? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, CDT, Certified Master Gardener Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 1008 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, October 07, 2024 - 12:56 pm:    Thanks, Ed, I agree a separate thread. My good friend of many years, David Lorenzini FCSI, he was for the huge majority of his career an independent specifier, several years older than me, but retired only 2 years ago or so. We would do joint presentations to our chapter every few years or so and depending on the topic would always introduce the difference of an Independent to an In-House specifier. Another great friend also local to me here is David Metzger, FCIS, also retired, also an independent and co-head of the Heller and Metzger specifications firm. Like I said, working ‘in house’ with a firm that truly appreciates the process and coordination that can occur made me feel I had it much easier than independents. One of the things I really enjoyed was when one of the designers would come to me with something that they really wanted to do and I would do the research for them and recommendation. Or being called into a meeting with a developer to explain why the firm was not recommending something they wanted to do. Well, I guess I am wandering into that ‘other thread’ -grin! William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, CDT, SCIP Emeritus