Is there any official CSI language that talks about the proper way to reference Divisions 1-9? e.g., when should one write Division 1 vs. Division 01?
MasterFormat 1995 and earlier = single digit
MasterFormat 2004 and later = double digits
The Applications Guide in each shows the format.
So, I am proper (but probably way too anal 
if I say and write Division “oh-one” (01) as opposed to Division “one” (1) if I am writing a memo and simply referring to the General Requirements via Division #?
I was looking for any MF introductory guide text on how to reference without the context of the entire 6-digit number.
Maybe a better question…what do YOU do?
(Also, whoops. I should have added this to the MasterFormat 2004 discussion area instead of here.)
Division 00, 01, 02, 03,. . . . 09 etc
When speaking, you would still call them Division 1, 2, 3. No need to aspirate an ‘oh’. The 01, 02, 03 is only when written.
Division 01 when writing using MasterFormat 2004 and later. Division 1 when writing using MasterFormat 1995 or earlier.
I say “zero one” when speaking (“oh” is a letter of the alphabet). That’s just me, though.
I, too, use "zero’ for numbers instead of “oh”. But, usually, when speaking about THE Divisions, will simply use the single digit number. When writing, I always use a leading zero for Divisions 00-09. A good reason to do so is continuity; all divisions are then 2 digits. When ordering them in a list, such as a computer folder, they will order themselves correctly.
IIRC, the MasterFormat police recommend that “Division 00” be pronounced simply “division zero” (no “double aught,” etc.)
Another bit of trivia: Division 00 as an official division is new to MF04; in MF95 Bidding Requirements, Contract Forms, and Contract Conditions were not called Division 0. At least, not officially - I think a lot of us used the term “Division Zero” informally prior to MF04.
Right, George. After decades of stonewalling against using the term “Division zero” for those front-end “documents” (CSI wouldn’t let us call them “sections,” since back then, they weren’t, technically, “specifications”) and resisting adding additional divisions (typically, “Division 17,” for communications, fire protection, or what-have-you), CSI finally caved in, the dam broke, and we now have as many empty divisions “Reserved for Future Expansion” as we once had total divisions (16)! Go figure…
Exactly! We couldn’t “go figure” out what would be needed in the future, hence we have empty divisions waiting to be filled with space elevators, matter transporters, replicators, living walls, and the stuff of our dreams, going where no one has gone before. I can’t wait to see what will fill those divisions!
Now, if only we could use “section” for everything, instead of “document” for Division 00…
Sheldon, I think the rationale for that is everything in Divisions 01-49 is in three-part section format, and nothing in Division 00 is (Don’t you love absolute statements?). Hence Division 00 has to contain documents instead of sections.
Now, the real question: Isn’t a “Section” also a “Document”?
We produce the whole shebang and call it/them Construction “Documents”, right? The drawings, the project manual containing both documents and sections - all are “Construction DOCUMENTS”. (And yet, somehow, we all figure it out…)
All sections are documents, but not all documents are sections…
FWIW, SpecLink uses the term “Sections” for the Division 00 documents (that may have to do with programming consistency/convenience).
Division 0 was introduced in MF88 (I think) when the bidding and contracting documents were assigned MF numbers. The Division 0 was dropped in MF95 because of concerns that there might be confusion between the Specifications and Bdding and Contracting Documents (which are not specifications).
The AIA Owner-Agreement Form says that the Architect prepares specifications, but assists the Owner in preparing bidding and contracting requirements.
A little off on the years Peter. Numbers for Bidding and Contract Requirements goes back to the first MasterFormat edition in 1978. They were also called Division 0 in 1978. The Division 0 title was dropped in 1983, 1988, and 1995 to return as Division 00 in 2004. The title for the group also changed slightly over the editions.
If I recall correctly (it’s been a couple of years since I used it), you can tweak SpecLink so it uses Document instead of Section for Division 00 files. Regardless, it’s an arbitrary convention that adds little. If someone refers to Division 00 sections, I don’t think anyone will be confused, nor do I think that referring to a bid form as Section 00-4100 will cause a problem.
Only when I’m pulling someone’s chain do I correct them when they refer to Division 00 sections; I suspect many specifiers refer to them as sections instead of documents if only because they see no point in trying to get others to use the correct term. Still, in e-mail and other forms of communication with owner or contractor, I toe the line and use document or section as defined.
Of much greater concern is the casual use of furnish, install, supply, provide, and similar words. I have a ruler by my desk, and a virtual ruler for e-mail, both of which I frequently use, to no avail. I’m sure I have conversations like this one on every project:
“What about the paper towel dispenser?”
“The owner is providing that.”
“So it’s not in contract?”
“No, the contractor is supposed to install it.”
“So the owner is furnishing the paper towel dispenser.”
“That’s what I said!”
I agree, Sheldon, about these language conventions that serve only to divide the specifiers from the non-specifiers. AIA A201 discusses ‘specifications’ not ‘sections.’ Even if it did, we can manipulate the definitions for formal, legal purposes, yet still use terms so that we are not seen as pedants in the industry.
We determine “proper” language, then find we must enforce it.
For example: Why do we have to maintain the strict distinction between ceiling “panels” and “tiles.” Who but specifiers care about this language nicety? Maybe we like feeling that the rest of the industry is just not properly informed, even though we’re the ones who created and maintain this artificial, arbitrary distinction?
This statement can be added to the front-end, if you feel the need to be legally correct: “The documents in Division 00 are not Specifications. References to Division 00 Documents as ‘sections’ are not intended to imply that they are Specifications.”
However, the need for this is questionable. It’s my experience that legal disputes turn on questions of fact and intent, not nit-picking terms.
And I’m with you regarding furnish/install/provide, because these terms are basic and allow for conveying intent efficiently. I feel perfectly comfortable instructing A/E’s on their proper use, but I recognize that the occasional misuse [I bet it occurs in at least 50% of contract document sets] does not make or break a lawsuit.
Language is our tool, but sometimes we make it our master.
Ceiling tiles? or ceiling panels?
Plate glass? or float glass?
Yes there is a difference, embedded in the standards that we reference. I once had an architect that said he needed sections for both acoustical tile ceilings and acoustical panel ceilings. Plate glass was last manufactured in the US about 40 years ago (it requires polishing to achieve an optical quality equal to or better than float glass). It drives me crazy to think that such distinctions are trivial matters when we spend so much time on trying to be correct in an industry that sometimes makes a lot of money on ambiguity.