During the MF2004 Accredited Instructor training at the CSI Show & Convention, it was suggested that a list be maintained with anyone that has converted to MF2004, is planning to convert to MF2004, or is requiring its consultants to use MF2004.
Greg Ceton, CSI Staff, has volunteered(?) to develop this list, but I thought starting this thread may help him generate the list.
The list would include (but is not limited to) federal, state, county, and local agencies and departments; private companies/corporations; utilities companies; A/E firms; etc.
If you’re aware that any of the above have taken the “leap of faith,” please add to this thread. I’ll start:
*Department of Defense (Army, Navy, Air Force)
*National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
*Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
We are in the process of completing our converstion and have a target date of August 1, 2005 for use of the new system. We rolled this out to our staff just before the Convention.
Might add that due to the type of practice we have, and our clients’ projects we have adapted a slight variation of the Division format. FYI, we are an A/E firm with all disciplines in-house.
To be really helpful, any such list needs to include more than just the names of the organizations signing on. The target date and perhaps a brief description of the circumstances of the adoption are just as important. For example, The DoD reportedly plans to make the switch in April of 2006 (apparently as an abrupt and across-the-board change, including all projects initiated after that date, in all jurisdictions). But some users may continue to use MF95 for some projects along with 2004 for others. As long as they do, the data needs to reflect the partial or gradual nature of the change.
King County Washington has allowed use of MF2004 for technical specifications sections 02-49 on a recent project. However, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office Contracts Section has not set a timetable for revision of Division 0 and Division 1.
We attempted to implement MF2004 Division 1, however the agency was unable or unwilling to advance those important elements. We are not aware of any person who was aware MF2004 was ‘out there’.
Perhaps it would be beneficial at some point for CSI to engage procurement departments, legal sections and others in an information-dissemination process. (or maybe not)
GSA: Owners are getting together, and we know we are speaking with a loud voice, said Charles G. Hardy, deputy director of the Office of Property Development for the General Services Administration (GSA) Great Lakes Region. Hardy said the GSA will begin requiring all new projects to use MasterFormat 2004 Edition this fall. We want continuity of language. We’re going to ask for more information up front. Were looking for the tools that will allow us to do the business we do. MasterFormat makes sense. from Home - Construction Specifications Institute
“Many owners, such as General Motors, Walt Disney Imagineering Labs, the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART), and the Canadian government, are requiring future projects to follow MasterFormat 2004 Edition.” from Home - Construction Specifications Institute
University of Washington is looking at a Jan 1, 2006 conversion date, with some allowances for smaller firms who have not converted yet.
anyone out there have any information on the University of California system?
The division in which I work for my employer is Buidling Engineering. This division’s specialty is building science. I am with the assessment and rehab studio in my office. We also have a new construction studio. I found the MF2004 to more suitable for rehab strip and reclad projects (thanks Dennis) than the MF95. I made the conversion to MF2004 in the 4th quarter of 2004. Our rehab projects are competitively bid to invited bidders. The extent of MF2004 divisions we use is limited to Divisions 00, 01, 02; very limited 04, 05, & 06; most of Division 07; limited 08; and very limited 09. My conversion was not a big task. At the end of the day, I have more documents and sections in Division 00 and 01 than from Divisions 02-09. The decision to convert was mine alone. Our other North American offices are aware of the MF2004 and may or may not have converted. As an aside, I opted to format the document and section numbers with a space between the 2nd and 3rd numbers. I have also taken liberites with some section names and made minor tweaks to better reflect the rahab project, such as “00 5300 Replacement Plastic Windows” versus "00 5300 Plastic Windows.
Oops, delete Section number 00 5300 and
Substitute 08 5300. Operator error (OE).
There are some level 4 numbering recommendations that address rehab, replacement, renovation, etc., indicated in the MasterFormat Book. Thus the liberties you have taken, could be brought closer into conformance.
But it is also doubtful that the MasterFormat Police will come after you.
any updates to the list of associations/organizations/owners converting to MF2004?
Schmidt Associates, Indianapolis: Jan 1 2006
Office of State Architect, Ohio:
Through June 30, 2005 – Optional
July 1 - Dec. 31, 2005 – Recommended & Preferred Jan. 1,
2006 and after-- Required
http://www.agcohio.com/Legislative/03-11-05.pdf
pg 4
Joy Davis [jdavis@csinet.org], CSI Communications Manager is collecting a list of who is converting.
In addition to the Department of Administrative Services in Ohio, the OSFC (Ohio School Funding Commission) will also be including MasterFormat 2004 as a requirement when their April 2006 update comes out.
DesignGroup plans to be fully converted by January 1, 2006.
When we received our copy of the Houston Community College System’s Design and Service Guidelines for a “Public Safety Institute” a few weeks ago, I found out we had gotten ourselves into our first MasterFormat 2004 project.
Would there be any value in A/E firms identifying when they are planning to convert?
We are planning to convert Jan 1 2006 (with allowance) We are specification consultants and have advised our clients of the change and in some cases will be making presentations to their offices. We are hoping all our clients are willing to change over, and to request their other sub consultants to change over as well at that time.
As mentioned in Chris’s posting above, Joy Davis is in the process of putting together a current list.
Perkins+Will is currently in the process of converting nation-wide, and expects to have at least some of the our in-house regional spec masters MF '04 ready by September. For the Dallas and Houston offices alone, there are currently about 12 - 15 projects that are being prepared under MasterFormat 2004.
Noteworthy is that the conversion is a corporate-wide mandate, for ALL offices and ALL consultants working for those offices. So the ripple effect will certainly lengthen that list.
DCAM - Division of Capital Asset Management, Commonwealth of Massachusetts has issued a new master using Masterformat 2004 numbers. They do state funded projects, over $200 million a year in construction volume (I did the conversion for them)
Our 10 office firm is changing to MF04 October 1 of this year. We have notified all the consultants we work with (approx. 30) and they all have no problems with the change. They seem to all be on board.
We’re at DD with several MF04 projects and are phasing it in over the next several months in all our offices. Last to change will be repeat/prototype projects. We’ve been talking to consultants about this for 8 months, so they’re pretty supportive and taking advantage of the opportunity to upgrade their specifications.
In anticipation of our converting to MF 2004, I sent out a e-mail message to all of our civil and mep consultants in December of last year asking if they had converted to MF 2004 and if not had they established a deadline for conversion. Almost all of the responses were “Huh, you’re the first architect that we work with who asked about the new format.” and “If you’ll give us two new projects, we’ll be happy to convert.” One MEP consultant called to say that they had not planned to convert until forced to and that he did not see the benefit of converting; and went on to say that the size of their specifications would increase by about 1/3 due to duplicate sections for mechanical and plumbing. Another MEP consultant’s response was “I think I read something about this in an ASHRAE publication.”
We have converted all of our in-house master specification sections and would like to convert to MF 2004 during the first quarter of 2006. However, the heaviest burden of conversion falls on our civil and mep consultants. If we are the only architectural firm asking them to convert, what is their incentive? Has anyone else met this type of resistance with their independent consultants?