My firm has a school district client that insists on using the old CSI MasterFormat 1995 five-digit numbering system.
How do we tactfully convince them to use the new MF’04 (or '10) system?
My project manager is considering hitting the client with a large additional service if we have to use the old system.
I have an additional charge to do it.
Why do they even care? Is there some technological reason for them to hold out (i.e. database management system)? Did they buy a license for MasterSpec for their Division 01 many years ago and haven’t renewed it? (Which violates the ARCOM license agreement, BTW.)
Do they dictate how your drawings are also formatted? Probably not. So why should it matter to them how you format your specifications? The seal that goes on the documents is the design professional’s…not the school district’s.
I get really irritated when owner’s try to micro-manage the design professional’s job.
Ron hit the nail on the head. Tactfully explain that it will merely co$t more both to design and probably to execute. Manufacturers are on-board with MF04.
I usually tell them that I will provide a matrix, and it has worked.
Suggest that if you use MF1995, you will also need to specify products that were only available in 1995, so that the entire package is consistent.
seriously, I would simply add in a HUGE additional fee – enough to discourage that practice. And your consultants will also have to add in a HUGE additional fee.
Or, apropos of another discussion herein [http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/4254/5674.html?1310583718]tell them that MF1995 was not Y2K compliant so it didn’t survive the millenium change.
David,
Does meet the “standard of care” in our region and is no longer supported by it’s creators, CSI/CSC.
What makes matters worse is that my firm uses the keynote system. So not only do the specifications have section numbers, but the drawings do as well.
I am going to recommend to our partner the he convince the school district to allow us to convert the district’s sections as a part of our basic services. In the long run our firm would save a ton of money and frustration by helping the district “for free”.
If the district does not want us to convert their specifications, I am going ask the partner to try convince the district to allow us to write our specs (and drawings) in the new format and the district can keep their specs/documents in the old format.
I actually have done a few project with mixed formats and it worked okay. The owner provided Division 00 and Division 01. I changed a few references or removed references back to Division 01 sections in my sections.
I offer both, MF95 and MF04, I find its not worth the time and effort to convince a client to change to MF04 if he is happy with MF95, fees are so tight right now, there is no time to hand hold an existing client changing to MF04, its their choice. I’ve had no disputes with consultants, they have both versions available. I don’t see the need to distress a client, I’ve had phenomenal success with MF95 and lot’s of confusion with M04, hell on some projects I offer a discount if the client will use MF95, these are usually long time clients who have established types of projects and work with less than sophisticated contractors, usually rental buildings and light commercial. The architect wants specs to protect himself but he doesn’t have the time to learn new divisions and doesn’t need a matrix to confuse him more. Why upset the cart guys, if your client is happy and pays his invoices, just get the job done and move on to the next one.
I bet I get some flack on these comments from all u MF04 lovers out there…I’ll have to read them all later, off to Sushi with my daughter. chow.
I kind of like Anne’s first idea. First make a list of all the products (work results) that have come along since 1995 and therefore do not have a MF95 number/title. Then show the list to the client and ask if they desire to include any of those items in their project.
I sort of like the concept of charging them an additional fee to use the old MF1995 numbering system.
Particularly if half way through the project the client comes back all fired up from a trade show or convention and wants you to convert to MF2004 and you get to charge them twice.
This begs the question of architect’s means and methods. At what point can the owner dictate how the architect provides his service? For example what if the owner wanted hand drafted drawings with ink on mylar? I guess to answer my own question, if the owner had enough money they could buy what ever they want…if they could find someone to do it.
It boils down to what’s in your agreement with the owner that you signed.
If the agreement states “Prepare specifications conforming to CSI standards,” then using MF2004 is the current CSI standard–MF1995 is no longer supported.
Even if it states to just “Prepare specifications,” then they have not made conformance to MF1995 a contractual requirement and should have no authority to dictate format.
However, if it states “Prepare specifications conforming to MasterFormat 1995,” then they’ve got you–you’ve agreed to it by signing the agreement.
Ron’s correct – it comes down to your agreement, and there might be an issue with your liability insurer if they “strongly urge” that “current” formats be followed. And there’s no “convincing” about it. You simply say that "the 1995 format is no longer available and we will be producing the documents in the current industry standard. " its not a discussion.
This is simply not a client issue. The new format has been in place for nearly a decade now; all product information comes in the new numbering system, the consultants in the northwest have switched over. We are not doing a client a service by allowing them to 1) dictate how we produce the work and 2) allowing them to use out of date standards. Do they want to use the 96 UBC, too?
I am curious about who and where the hold-outs to previous numbering systems are.
I would be interested to know if entire regions are sticking with the old.
In the case of my work load, the hold-outs are almost entirely colleges and universities. A Client type that tends to have small but permament “Facility and Design” offices that have just enough structure to create rules and requirements, but not enough to keep them current.
I do know that HUD finally issued a memo in Dec 2010 that specs are now to be in MF04. Finally!
As for everyone else, there is a duty to perform at the industry standard of care. A good attorney will make the argument that specs in MF95 are not in accord with the current standard of care. Although this likely doesn’t affect the technical content of the documents, it will likely influence a court and make them question why that architect is not current with their documents. As for spec writers not updating their specs, well, I personally think we are supposed to be role models and leaders in our industry. 'Nuff said.
Robin, I assume you meant “are now to be in MF04.” Correct?
Wasn’t going to name names, but the only significant hold out in our area is the City of Houston. They have been accepting a “hybrid format” where their standard sections (Division 00 and 01) are in MF95 and the rest can be in MF2004. Of course, I wind up supplementing or replacing their stuff anyway (they are still requiring bluelines for submittals) and they don’t have any Division 01 sections addressing LEED issues, so we wind up with a hodgepodge. They just shrug.
Interestingly enough, all the universities, colleges, and large health care entities in this area are on board wth MF2004.
@Ron - yes, I corrected the Typo in the post!
The Pennsylvania Department of General Services updated their “Engineering and Architecture Project Procedure Manual” in January 2010. This manual includes the Division 1 General Requirements documents. All of the sections were revised, except they keep MF95. Design Professionals have, at the descretion of the DGS PM, the option to use MF04. The DGS specifications are updated to MF04 by adding a “0” to the DGS section number, as mandated by DGS. It makes sense to them because “the difference between MF95 and MF04 is just an additional digit in the section number”.