Btw, I’m not going to get on my soapbox because I know I’m preaching to the choir here but I had an MEP firm recently ask me why some divisions in 40-49 had NOT USED as the title for a public bid job. I had to issue an addendum stating the reason and then told them to go to csinet.org to purchase the book and attend a chapter meeting once and awhile. Lol!!! Since the inception we tried to educate local design firms in this industry and if your not at their office giving them free lunch they don’t want to learn. Also we had to cancel several large events here because of lack of interest. Now that state, government agencies, and others use it more they are complaining to us that they don’t understand. Lol! The teacher appears when the student is ready… I know I know lol.
WDG updated to the 2004 version, January of 2006. Since that time, no problem or question from any owner/developer, contractor or any consultant except 1 university. That was 2009 and they required 1995 - now with another project going ahead for them they have left that notion behind.
We do neither of the two suggested formats; we do 00 0000. Seems to work for us.
We also haven’t had problems with consultants or clients insisting on either '95 or '04.
And if Division 00/01 are in '95 (and we’ve had a couple), they simply go in a separate volume and we bear no responsibility for them.
I am seeing more resistance amoung local engineers to using '95 now. The only major local public client that has not fully switched over is the City of Houston. Their projects, however, routinely get issued with MF95 front end and MF04 Divs 02 - 49.
I use the CSI recommended XX XX XX division, but see a lot of people using XX XXXX.