A potential client is not accepting CSI’s stance that MF95 is no longer supported and that MF04(14)is the Industry Standard, they want to see this statement from AIA. Since I am not an AIA member can a fellow specifier (or architect) provide a link to an AIA website that would put this complaint to bed once and for all?
MasterSpec, which is an AIA product, quit using MasterFormat 1995 in 2013. http://www.arcomnet.com/blog/masterspec-masterformat-1995-be-discontinued
Of course, the post referenced also mentions converting to 1995 when necessary, so it may not be helpful.
Thanks Liz, unfortunately ARCOMM is not AIA, other spec writers know ARCOMM, but most architects do not. In order to use this I would have to explain how ARCOMM is related to AIA, too much explanation required, architects don’t have the attention span for that (personal experience w/fellow architects) I need an AIA reference or statement.
MasterFormat is a CSI product. It is developed and distributed by CSI. They announced that MasterFormat 1995 was not going to be supported (by development or distribution) starting about 1-1/2 years ago.
Whether or not AIA has a position on the current version of MasterFormat being and “industry standard” has no bearing on CSI’s position. I doubt very much that there is an “official” AIA position although you may find some reference in the current Handbook of Professional Practice.
The lack of continuity/consistency between CSI and AIA on this and other issues is unfortunate, but it is a byproduct of “stuff” that happened in the late 1950s and early 1960s. The fact is that CSI fills in many holes that AIA will not or cannot properly address and AIA tacitly relies on CSI to do this.
CSI’s MasterFormat is widely accepted as “industry standard” by many public and private entities. There are still some significant holdouts. Some of these are organizations that have vested interest in older formats while others are simply functions of organizational inertia.
The fact is that the current version of MasterFormat will become the “industry standard” when it becomes more difficult to obtain information in older 5-digit formats than it is to obtain information in the current format.
If the client wants specifications in MF95 format, by all means provide the client with what he/she has requested.
Jerome, As long as you agree to use MasterFormat 95, your clients will never stop requesting it. It is probably costing you extra money to keep two masters anyway.
It’s time to tell them you are a CSI member, a SCIP member, and you recommend they accept new industry standards when they become accepted by most of the construction industry.
Personally, I would tell, and have told, anyone requesting MF95 to go find another specifier. I would not want a client who was out of touch with the recommendations of a professionals society.
And BTW, it’s my understanding that AIA owns Arcom MasterSpec, so there is your link.
AIA owns Masterspec. ARCOM is an independent company that (according to the ARCOM website), was selected by the AIA “to operate all aspects of MasterSpec, including the maintenance and expansion of the master guide specifications, marketing and sales, production, fulfillment, software development, and client support.”
I have to concur with Peter and David L.
I do not agree with “User”
Where I just started working, I just finished the last spec under MF95 (It was already started that way). All specs going forward will be in 6 digit, MF14.
Client’s that want MF95 will be informed that we are no longer using it and will tactfully & respective explain why we are no longer using MF95.
While working on the 5 didgit project, I received specs from a consultant in 6 digit format and had to request them to renumber the sections. It wasn’t pretty. Creates too much confusion and lots of room for error.
I appreciate my colleagues responses, but seriously gentlemen you couldn’t be more wrong.
I prepare specs in both 16 div and 48 div formats, by offering this option my earnings increase, no loss of revenue here, loss of revenue is coming from a different problem or epidemic which I will address in another thread this weekend as it is happening on another project this week.
Those who believe offering two formats is difficult does not have an organized office, its never been a problem for my business as long as you maintain decorum. But than again, I am a one man operation, I have no pions to manage.
By decorum, here’s an example: all disciplines must submit specs following the job format, when push comes to shove a Consultant will find a way to meet the job format, if they want the job. I’ve had jobs where the architect will change from one format to another to appease a Consultant, but those are rare. If there is no requirement on format from a governing body or funding source, the Architect chooses the format, I usually suggest a format, but most of my clients know what they want. I always recommend 48 division for new clients. I have a lot of repeat clients who are comfortable using 16 division format and are not willing to change, actually I have one client who I have prepared specs for almost 20 years, 40 projects, only two being in 48 division format.
David L I wish that my credentials were enough to sway a client from the dark side, they are not. What’s that saying about how money talks? Its always about the fee, yes I have the reputation that is important, however its no longer a game changer, the fee is what sways most architects, especially the ones who have not been involved in litigation. But even the seasoned architect who knows the value of specifications is no longer insisting on their incorporation in the contract documents.
And that my friends is the epidemic that specwriters are facing in Florida. Developers are refusing to pay for specifications. Architects do not have the budgets to pay for specifications, and even if they did, contractors are convincing developers to delete specifications from the documents to meet construction budgets. Sad indeed.
BTW, I lied in my opening post, its not a potential client its my 20 year client. My apologies for the fib.
I wrote specs for this client 5 years ago for a rental apartment project part of a 20 year build out PUD containing both residential and commercial projects. The developer is using my client for the condo and rental residential projects and a different architect for the commercial and office projects. The architect on the commercial buildings has not included specs in their documents.
Going back to the project in question, the specs were prepared in the 48 division format because the project was being funded by HUD. I recall many objections from the developer and the architect, but HUD’s requirements were in stone, and the parties agreed. Construction was completed late last year. Now the same developer wants to repeat the project, except w/o HUD financing. The architect claims that the same footprint is being used and the list of differences between projects is minimal.
Seems easy enough, we can just ‘reuse’ the format from the previous job changing the building code criteria and bring the specs up to date for current industry standards and product changes. However the developer prefers 16 division and does not believe that 16 division is considered archaic.
The Developer wants proof that 48 division is the industry standard, and that is the reason for this thread.
I’ve sent an email to my client paraphrasing all the input I’ve received here, hopefully that will be enough. I’ve added the caveat that the fee will increase dramatically if we are to convert to 16 division format, not because its a hardship to issue 16 divisions, rather on this particular project, the specs were revised dramatically during negotiations between the Developer, Contractor and Architect, to the point where I’ve told the architect these specs are specific to this project only. Revising to 16 division would be difficult. BTW, the Developer hopes to negotiate a contract with the previous contractor. I am told construction took a while to start due to all the HUD paperwork, but once underway there were minimal problems, none with the specs.
I recently refused to take on a 16-Division format job. It is just too difficult for me. On this particular project, the client had a master that dated from the 1980s that was in serious need of being discarded.
MasterSpec does have a utility to “back convert” documents from the current version of MasterFormat to MF95; however, because it only addresses the section title and number and not cross references, a lot of work tedious mind numbing work remains.
If it helps any, Flad officially refuses to use the 16 Division Format.
SpecLink also has the ability to “back convert” like MasterSpec. Because it’s a database, it might deal with the references. I don’t know because we’ve never done it - grin.
BTW, MF 04 etc. has 50 Divisions. Note Div 00 + Div 00 thru 49 = 50 Divisions, except (to get very nit-picky) there are Divisions that are listed in Masterformat as “not used” and “reserved”.
Why not simply reference the edition of Masterformat which will be used to organize the Project Manual? To add to the fun, refer to the Project Manual" and not the “book specs” or “spec book”. Which takes precedence: slang and misnomers or published titles?
Perhaps the agreement for specification writing services should simply state that the documents will be prepared in accordance with the recommended principles, practices and formats of the Construction Specifications Institute.
Will drawings be prepared in accordance with some mythical standards and formats of the American Institute of Architects? Which will govern: the Section numbers and titles of Revit or the specifications writers’ interpretation and adaptation of Masterformat?
John, I like this:
“the documents will be prepared in accordance with the recommended principles, practices and formats of the Construction Specifications Institute.”
But I could only add it to agreements with new clients, the existing clients would question why I’ve added it to the agreement and perhaps question if previous specs were or were not in compliance with CSI. In reality CSI means nada to most of my clients, several think I’m referring to building forensics, go figure.
In my current practice 80% of my work is with existing clients. With the newbies I recommend the latest and greatest, MF14, but my reputation precedes me and many architects come to me because they are fed up with pompous by the book specwriters who don’t live in the real world. I expect the epidemic to continue , at least in Florida, there is one light shining dimly, rumors that litigation against architects who do not follow industry standards by not including specifications in their contract documents. I fear that by the time that threat sinks in, I will have followed Lynn’s magical mystery tour to retirement or death, which ever comes first.
Jerome,
I follow your logic. Your MO is content rather than format.
Since you and your clients are satisfied, I’m only left wondering why you posed the question to begin with.
David, the original question was a request for proof that MF95 was no longer the industry standard. However I needed an AIA version of this proof, not CSI, because my architectural clients care little about CSI, actually I’ve had a few ask me if my CSI Certification is for building forensics, too much TV I guess?
just tell them that AIA is not the appropropriate authority to reference on this issue. It would be akin to asking FIFA’s stance on Olympic venues 
Google is your friend, learn to harness its power.
See “Goodbye 16 Divisions!”: http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/ek_members/documents/pdf/aiab096888.pdf
Also in website format rather than PDF here: http://www.aia.org/practicing/groups/kc/AIAB081787
Except that I never heard of FIFA until this past week, sort of like CSI, Architects think CSI is about criminal forensics…
Nathan, I see you are not an Architect, I am, I can tell you that the egos are massive and telling an Architect (especially one who belongs to AIA) that AIA is not the appropriate authority on a contract document is just not done.
Oh sorry, I thought you wanted a factual answer, not a political one.
Interestingly, the link posted by Annon describes an “AIAs MasterFormat Transition Advisory Team” but I couldn’t find anything else about it on AIA’s website. I do note that this AIA article talks about CSI’s position on this, not AIA’s, giving credence to the fact that CSI is the governing body for Specifications, not the AIA