In terms of plumbing sections listed in posting above - they all appear to be the same as sections in the MASTERSPEC TOC. They are most likely using MASTERSPEC and following their section scopes.
people who can’t edit specs, can’t edit them no matter what the section numbers are. How many sections have you seen “edited” by consultants that still include every option, every size, and every installation type?
the narrow scope sections are there IF YOU NEED THEM. There is no “law” that you have to use all the numbers just because they exist. And, yes, I’ve seen those broadscope sections that the M&E folks uses – 80 pages of materials, installation and codes that are indecipherable.
as for the comment that the staff “can’t find the numbers in the books” – its the specifier’s job to teach the staff; we are a resource in the office, not just some drudge in the corner. The young folks don’t know the old numbers, so they can just as easily not know the new numbers. NONE of my clients have had an issue with this.
Mr. Jordan is correct – the time is coming when it will be more difficult to hang on to the old system rather than just forge ahead.
and as for how LEED views specs… don’t even get started on this.
To address Mr. Liebing’s query: it is a function of repetition/duplication when using Masterformat 2004. Example:
210517 - Sleeves and Sleeve Seals for Fire-suppression Piping
220517 - Sleeves and Sleeve Seals for Plumbing Piping
230517 - Sleeves and Sleeve Seals for HVAC Piping
All three of these sections are identical, save the section number and title.
Under Masterformat 1995, these 21 pages would be condensed to 4 pages and included in Section 15120 - Piping Specialties.
We have submitted our 95% review set and as predicted the number of pages for MEP has increased. Here is the breakdown:
416 pages Owner furnished divisions 00 and 01
238 pages architectural sections - divisions 02 - 14
1,815 pages of MEP and civil - divisions 21 - 33
That’s an increase of almost 400 pages. When using Masterformat 1995, far fewer than 400 pages would have covered MEP. Please note that due to editing, the number of pages in architectural sections has decreased.
We, the project Architect and I, have determined that we need different MEP consultants.
Why blame the MEP consultant?
In upgrading an industrial clients 1995 corporate engineering masters for mechanical and process work to MF04 I faced conflicts that were totally frustrating.
Everything from Division 20 on is just not logical. The only way to make them manageable is to duplicate (really triplicate) sections.
I would contend that the numbers beyond 20 are “logical” – because they are set up to allow people to specify very narrow scope projects. What if your entire project is updating security, public address and fire alarmm systems? you might have one section to cover "patch and fix " in the architectural realm, but then you have the possibility of covering the security, public address and fire alarm systems individually and in detail – which might be very necessary for a large school or hospital system. The old numbering system simply didn’t allow for that sort of critical distinction, unless the consultant made up their own numbers. The same would be true for a civil piping job, or other systems project that would be more akin to some fussy decorative “architectural” project such as a custom designed private library.
the 2004 numbering system certainly doesn’t “make” people use zillions of sections.. but it does “allow” them to have coherent numbering if they have a project that would support that type of work.
Architectural work has always referenced other sections – painting and sealants are the typical ones that I reference in tens of other sections. the other consultants have to learn how to organize and set up their specifications in that manner instead of repeating everything three or seven times. This is an education issue, not a “doesn’t make sense” issue.
If all three **0517 sections are “identical” as Unregistered Guest states, why not include the information just once in one Division and reference it from the other Divisions? Why must it be repeated?
And why does one section of plus or minus 4 pages grow to 21 pages when multiplied by 3? In the numbering system I use (base 10), 4 times 3 is 12.
As Anne states, specifiers have to organize and consolidate; but maybe they are just being too stubborn.
It is comical to see the architectural contributors to this forum comment about MEP specifications. Until the 1995 Edition, MasterFormat engineering divisions have been developed by architects for engineers to use and without much understanding of the actual content to be covered. In the development of the 1995 Edition, the MasterFormat Committee recommended going beyond 16 divisions, but the CSI Board rejected the recommendation. One reason it is difficult for engineering community to buy in to these organizational principles is because of this fact. Why have engineers not contributed? It has been said that there is an attitude of "let the architect argue over all this trivia and we will, somehow, make it work.
While there is some truth to duplication of content in some (maybe a handful) sections like sleeves and sleeve seals and hangers and supports the duplications are only on the surface. Most of the redundancy is in section titles, article titles, and even paragraph titles. However, when you specify a particular valve for which there are applications in multiple piping systems, these text element titles remain identical, but the requirements for materials and performance are very different for fire protection, plumbing, and HVAC applications (even different within HVAC for hydronic and steam).
Even the triplicate occurrences of the sleeve and sleeve seal topic are understandable. First, there are various materials and configurations from which to choose when specifying sleeves and sleeve seals; the choice of which depends on piping materials, piping content temperatures, insulation requirements, pipe sizes, and more. Secondly, there are several design disciplines at work here, each contributing to the project manual. Each discipline has to manage these differing requirements. The results will, undoubtedly contain some overlap, but are each focused on that discipline’s particular requirements and the same specifier is not writing each. Engineers for the most part each write their part of the project manual, while architects often delegate that work to the office specifier or a consultant writer.
About more pages: consider the increase in complexity of projects. The opportunity to be more specific about each subject has been granted by the expanded number of titles and thus content is easier to find. However, if you do not follow the valuable principles of specifying contained in the Project Resource Manual, you can very easily become so wordy that a large number of narrowly scoped sections will increase your page count. So, if you are diligent in keeping Parts 1 and 3 relative to the narrower scope of Part 2, page counts can be kept under control. MEP and civil titles and scopes of sections are just now becoming more in line with the way architectural sections have been written for many years. MEP specifications that do not embrace the more narrowly scoped arrangement of MasterFormat 2010, become very long because of the need to include many products, each produced by different manufacturers, and requiring Parts 1 and 3 to accommodate all of these different products; all which makes retrieval of particular information difficult.
So, before you criticize the MEP specifications claiming redundancy, and before you blame MF 2010 for adding pages, know your subject.
That is a great response, Mr. King. You have put the issue to rest in my mind. Thank you.
The humor only comes from watching someone trying to sell a Master Specification product for building construction to engineers that work in many fields other than architectural.
Yet, the committee for MF04 included representatives from ASCE, NFSA, ASHRAE, and Independent Electrical Contractors, Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada, and the National Systems Contractors Association. Of the 17 members listed, 4 were Professional Engineers and 4 were AIA members (assuming licensed Architects).
All aspects of construction have gotten more complex; MEP is not alone in dealing with additional requirements, products, materials, manufacturers, and duplication. And yes, many architectural firms hire spec writers, either in-house or as consultants, because they understand the unique nature of writing a specification and how it differs from the graphic representation of a design.
Why don’t engineering firms do the same? Why do so many (not all) of them place the burden of writing specs on people not trained or educated to do so? Why do they expect an engineer, who may not have had even one writing class in college, to be able to produce a well-written, coordinated, clear, concise, (you know the rest) specification?
Engineers are not usually illiterate. My understanding is all engineering degree programs require writing courses.
Putting together a project manual requires general specification knowledge, knowledge about front end documents, technical subject matter expertise, and the ability to pull together and coordinate the contributions of the various parties. Because engineering consultants specifications are focused on a relatively limited number of sections the primary qualification for the engineering specification writer is technical subject matter expertise.
To understand the current state of affairs you need to appreciate certain realities of engineering technical specification.
Most professional specification writers do not have the technical expertise to write engineering specification sections. When it comes to the structural specification sections the master structural specification sections are usually challenging to say the least so the engineering consultants usually maintain their own master specifications.
Because specifications is not a major part of their effort engineering firms typically cannot justify hiring a dedicated specification writer. This means that typically the project engineer edits the specifications for his project. Thus there is great variation in knowledge about good specification practices.
There are few if any college courses on specification writing for engineers. What courses CSI has put on in the past locally were not advertised to attract engineers. This contributes to the ignorance.
The architects specification writer or consultant typically doe not provide any feedback to the consultant. Doubt that the consultant specifications are even reviewed by the architect or his consultant. This lack of feedback does nothing to correct the problems. So they persist.
I’ve worked with a couple of engineering firms over the years that had dedicated specifications writers – who were also engineers. One of them was a structural firm in Seattle; the other was a long time M/E firm. And both of those firms were well over 100 engineers, so they could support someone full time in that discipline.
As an architectural spec writer, I appreciated having only one person to coordinate with in each of those firms, rather than (as you mentioned) the variety knowledge bases that the typical engineer project manager brought to the job. We could work out a strategy for things like AESS steel painting (for example); develop a strategy for the various overlaps between architectural and the M/E disciplines, and at the very least, I knew they were referencing our Division 01 documents correctly.
I sort of miss that…
I recently completed a small project for an architect in North Carolina. The mechanical engineer was the leader of the design team. I sent through a list of sections I proposed to use and they all agreed. However, after I completed the specs, I got a call from the engineer asking me to use the 5-digit numbers to match their format. Fortunately, it took just a few seconds to convert the files to MasterFormat 95 using MasterSpec’s Masterworks conversion tool. It fixed the section numbers and names, even the cross references. Very slick.
Use whatever format you want. I’m not going to let anything bother me.
What, ME worry?
well, you probably worry.. but at least not about that.
Just received instructions from a large city client that included "“Items are ordered generally according to the AIA Masterspec specification format.”
The list is organized according to Masterformat 1995.
Did you ask them what other 17 year old standards they desired you to follow?
David, several of our very successful clients still prefer we use MF95, in fact one client has teamed up with Sir Norman Foster’s firm on a high profile hotel restoration that we are preparing specifications for, Foster’s firm had no concern over using MF95, nor did any of the 30+ consultants. When asked, my client says if it ain’t broken why fix it, he has had success with MF95 why bother with MF04, he is the principal of an award winning 30 year old firm, and one who pays his invoices on time, I don’t argue. By the way, where did you get the 17 year comparison from, damn I did not know MF04 was that old, time to replace it?
I have been using '04 for several years, but occassionally a Client’s Owner or a municipality will request '95. For the most part my Client’s engineers have switched.
How many writers are using “00 01 00” and how many are using “000100”?
I separate my pairs of numbers. ( 00 01 00 )