David, I’ve engaged in several threads where my colleagues have advised their dissatisfaction with my MO. They consider me a traitor to the CSI cause, that I am performing a disservice to the spec writing profession by not turning my back on MF95 and fully supporting MF04.
TOUGH!
As you said my clients are very appreciative that I offer alternatives. I have many repeat clients, one firm who has used my services for 20 years, in fact today I will be starting my 39th multifamily project with them. If I were not to offer them specs in MF95 they have advised they will find someone else who can or they will go spec-less…they refuse to use MF04.
All of my clients prefer shorter specifications, Ive prepared both MF95 and MF04 for the same type and size projects, I can tell you that the size of an MF04 Project Manual is always larger than MF95. Developers measure the thickness of Project Manuals these days, its pathetic.
I think there is one better than the “Goodbye 16 Divisions!” article. Use AIA Document A521 which references the 50 MasterFormat divisions (not 16) as location for subject matter.
Anon, much thanks for your contributions, I have downloaded what I can and will review them when time permits.
My client who’s query generated this thread has responded, they don’t care that AIA or CSI has stopped supporting 16 divisions, for this company they are comfortable with specifications in 16 divisions, they see no reason to change any time in the future as long as no funding source or government agency requires them to use MF04. End of discussion.
I can’t argue with this client, they have continued to support my efforts as an independent spec writer and although we’ve had some rough patches, 20 years of loyalty is worth my respect.
Anon, how about sharing your secret for googling and getting these great finds. I don’t have this kind of success, and I thought I was pretty good at searching the web. Please keep it up, your efforts are much appreciated by us ordinary folk.
Use this to show off your new powers and embarrass those who don’t know how to use Google in internet forums … or your mother/grandmother: http://bfy.tw/1Hy
Jerome, I think you have quite a few good take-a-ways from this thread. One is that you do what is best for your clients. Both institutions and their stances may not be best for your business.
Another one is that you are correct about the growth of the specs. While I have always issued specs on my projects, I also realize that the “size” has gotten beyond the means to correctly review and coordinate them properly within the time-frame or budget of the architectural fee. The architect is so busy with the drawings and getting them done, he has little time coordinating or reviewing them. I long for the old spec books from the past. Even pre MF95. I remember Sheldon presenting at a now defunct specifier conference about shorter specs. In fact, when asked about the need for part 3, he agreed that with many, if not most, sections really did not need a part 3 since that delves into means and methods. An interesting concept with a lot of truth. It is about thinking differently.
I will never forget the AIA seminar put on by ARCOM about short form specs. What I learned was that they were created for the typical use. If there was no special use of gyp board, then the short form is appropriate. What I have found is that specifiers tend to create the long form all the time. There are many sections that can shrink by thinking along those lines.
Jerome, an idea for an approach that I would challenge you to do, is actually try to find ways to convey specs in the drawings. In other words, just see if it can be done. Think differently. Most of the time I see everyone digging into their stance and never budging. While I agree that a full spec is the best, there are clients that will not accept what is absolutely the best. The trouble with specs on drawings means that the independent has a harder time coordinating since he is using the drawings as his medium. I know what the AIA and CSI stances are. Everything by their book. That actually might not be right for your clients. You have addressed these issues in past threads, too. Do what is right for your clients and your business.
Alan, I have teamed up with another Florida based specwriter and we are looking at creating sheet specs for specifically for Florida projects. The problem is that there is not enough potential for profit. Fees are low as it is in private sector work and even though sheet specs could solve some problems, my clients don’t seem to be interested in them, especially if the cost is higher than book specs (at least initially).
IMO, when there is a lawsuit, and the Plaintiff points out that the Architect couldn’t even product documents that are in keeping w/ industry standard, what else aren’t they keeping current with, it will immediately present a negative impression to the jury. Even though the organization of the specs isn’t likely the cause of any defects, it still reflects on an architect who isn’t current with industry standards, and that is what a jury will take away. After all, if they can’t create documents in current industry standards, maybe they aren’t complying with the necessary professional standard of care in other ways? Why give them any unnecessary negative ammunition. This isn’t legal advice.
BTW, the decision of whether it is “industry standard” (per your original question) depends on what reasonable professional specifiers would say. If most agree that the MF04 is the appropriate system, than that is the industry standard. Because AIA is not a professional entity focused on specifications, they are not the appropriate source for legitimizing specification formats.
Robin your first post is absolutely correct especially in regards to condo work in Florida. Attorneys are looking for negligence and not issuing correct contract documents according to the law is grounds for negligence. Many architects are jumping on the no specs bandwagon and forgetting about their work history, in the last boom 10 years ago many of these architects included specifications as part of their contract documents but not in current work. Nothing has changed in AIA documents, nor Florida Standards (i.e FL Condo Law), nor the Building Code, I just don’t get it, why take the risk?
“not issuing correct contract documents according to the law is grounds for negligence”… actually, not quite accurate. There are a number of things that are required to show negligence, and falling below the standard of care is one of the elements. Standard of care is determined by reasonable professional in a similar profession and location (this is a cliff notes version). Architects are not required to provide perfect contract documents. The fact that the documents themselves aren’t correct doesn’t automatically lead to a negligence claim. An attorney would use the absence of specifications as a way of proving the architect did not meet the standard of care, but several other elements need to be proven to show negligence. I think there are some statutes that required drawings and specs. In those jurisdictions, the absence of specs could automatically show the architect didn’t meet their standard of care, but wouldn’t necessarily prove negligence if other factors required for this claim aren’t present (eg; duty, causation, damages).
I understand that the low voltage system interests who unilaterally broke the 16 Division format with the unauthorized addition of Division 17 now insists that Div 17 continue to be used and not the alien “20” series Divisions of MF 04 et. al. I don’t care. I leave it to those who use non-conforming Division numbers, including cross-referernces to other Divisions, to resolve conflicts if they occur. Only by experiencing the consequences, I believe, will there be interest in conforming to established formats and practices.
Now if MF would get rid of the goofy gerund titles, which, BTW, are not in the engineering divisions! ‘Steel deck’ and ‘tile’ are work results that are improvements to real property, but ‘decking’ and ‘tiling’ grammatically are processes–not results of contract work. Why not ‘concreting’ or ‘toilet compartmenting’ or ‘plumbing fixturing’ to be consistent?
Please pardon the non-sequitur, but some Friday afternoons I just have to vent.