HIP, HIP HOORAY! HIP, HIP HOORAY! HIP, HIP HOORAY!
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.
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.
“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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
We have used the officious sounding line: “CSI doesn’t support MasterFormat 95 anymore.” Try it, it might work.
I’ve been using “outdated and unsupported by CSI”…
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!
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?
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”).
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.
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.
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.
…or 1975.
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.
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.
LEED-NC 2.2 uses “CSI Master Format 1995 Divisions 2-10 only”