Continental Automated Buildings Association
Information Series
IS 2007-42
MasterFormat 2004 Edition
2007 Implementation Assessment
www.caba.org
MasterFormat 2004 Edition 2007
Implementation Assessment
Reprint Date: September 2007
This report was developed by the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and
Construction Specifications Canada (CSC), and is published by CABA with permission
from the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and Construction Specifications
Canada (CSC). CABA expresses its appreciation to the Construction Specifications
Institute (CSI) and Construction Specifications Canada (CSC) for making this report
available to be included as part of CABA’s INFORMATION SERIES.
Neither the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) and Construction Specifications
Canada (CSC), nor CABA, nor any other person acting on their behalf assumes any
liability with respect to: the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any
information, equipment, product, method or process disclosed in this report.
This full report and other INFORMATION SERIES reports appear on CABA’s Web site
“Members’ Lounge”: (http://www.caba.org), and are available to CABA Members. This
information is also keyword searchable. Contact the CABA office if you do not have the
passwords to access this material by email caba@caba.org or phone 1-888-798-CABA
[2222]. CABA requests that its express written consent be obtained prior to the
reproduction, in whole or in part, of any of its INFORMATION SERIES publications.
MasterFormatTM 2004 Edition
2007 Implementation Assessment
September 4, 2007
Charles E. Gulledge III, PE, CSI
Lane J. Beougher, CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA, LEED AP
Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS
Robert Paul Dean, CSI, CCS, AIA
Dennis J. Hall, FCSI, FAIA
Nina M. Giglio, CSI, Assoc. AIA
G. Wade Bevier, CSI, CCS, LEED AP
Phil Steinberg, CSI, CDT, AIA
INTRODUCTION
MasterFormat 2004 Edition (MF04) was published by the Construction Specifications Institute
(CSI) and Construction Specifications Canada (CSC) in the fall of 2004. Release of MF04
marked a significant change in the construction industry as a new 50-Division organizational
structure replaced the familiar 16-Division structure that dates back to 1964. A full listing of the
MF04 Division numbers and titles can be seen in Figure 1.
Reasons for change are well documented in the print version of MF04, as well as how change
was minimized where possible. The expansion of the numbers and titles is a masterful response
to keeping pace with a dynamic built world that continues to add complexity and new work
results. What may be surprising to some people in the industry, though, is how MF04 opens the
door to perspectives beyond traditional building
Work Results: Permanent or temporary
construction. Significant enhancement has been
aspects of construction projects achieved
provided in looking at holistic facility life cycle
in the production stage or by subsequent
needs. Work results for heavy civil and industrial
alteration, maintenance, or demolition
solutions have been given expanded coverage. In
processes, through the application of a
an effort to address environmentally responsible
particular skill or trade to construction
design initiatives, methodologies for incorporating
resources.
green, sustainable, and high-performance design
solutions have been mapped into the new format.
The transition to MF04 will take time, CSI’s expectation being at least five years before
significant industry acceptance is realized. Three years have now passed since MF04 was
released. How effectively have stakeholders in the
Stakeholder: A general reference to all
built world converted to or supported conversion to
who are affected by MasterFormat.
the new numbers and titles? This paper seeks to
provide a candid, real-world assessment of
conversion penetration.
1 of 27
ADOPTERS
With the release of MF04, CSI created an “adopters” page to capture the anticipated
implementation strategies of stakeholders. To date, more than 240 organizations have indicated
their individual intentions or accomplishments in the conversion process.
Perusal of the adopter entries indicates that many organizations
have adopted or converted. Some entities, however, have
indicated that they are in the process of converting and have given
target dates spanning 2005 through 2007 to finish, well within
CSI’s five-year projection.
Based on the efforts of these early adopters, a conversion
timeframe of approximately five years should not be viewed as
unreasonable or onerous. What is startling, though, is that many
“potential” adopters have barely commenced or not even begun the
process of conversion at all.
Is it fair, or practical for that matter, to assume that the built world
will dispatch with the measured comfort of MasterFormat 1995
Edition (MF95) in favor of the new and improved MF04?
Remember, constrained limitations of the MF95 16-Division
structure had forced an entire industry to creatively develop their
own solutions to address advances in construction. While MF04
greatly mitigates the need for hybrids and inconsistent work results
organization, it is conceivable that unique solutions developed by
stakeholders are not going to be dispensed with overnight. Such
resistance will challenge CSI’s conversion projections. Metrics
presented later in this paper will reinforce the point that many
organizations still cling to legacy MF95 or older formats.
Let’s explore some current adopter sectors to see who is initially
championing the conversion progression and taking advantage of
the new benefits that MF04 has to offer.
Owners
Based on review of the CSI “adopters” page, we can see that
owner interests account for approximately 10 percent of the entries
listed. We have captured some of these entries for discussion, and
we have added a few notable entries of which the authors have
direct knowledge. From a simplicity perspective, we can see that
the majority of owner conversions reside in the government and
institutional sectors.
Federal Government. Organizations within the umbrella of
the United States Federal Government have made considerable
progress with the conversion to MF04. Design guides have been
reworded to direct inclusion of MF04 structure, master
specifications have been revised to reflect the new MF04 numbers
and titles, and conversion paths have been developed to migrate
2 of 27
Figure 1: MasterFormat
2004 Edition Division
Numbers and Titles
from MF95 to MF04. Note the following examples:
•
Los Alamos National Laboratory released the 02-21-06 revision to its Master
Specification Manual (ISD 342-2) directing the use of the new MF04, 50-Division
format.
o A complete master specifications database is currently being populated.
o A “crosswalk” conversion matrix has been created to assist in conversion.
•
The Department of Veteran Affairs, via the Office of Construction & Facilities
Management, is in the process of converting its Master Construction Specifications to
MF04.
o Standards Update #155, released in August 2007, notes that updating of
existing specification sections will be limited while the conversion process
unfolds.
o MF04 Downloads are currently available for a Table of Contents and a
conversion matrix from MF95 to MF04.
•
The Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) for military services have been
fully converted to MF04. The UFGS represents a joint effort of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE), the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), the
Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (AFCESA), and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA).
o Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) document 1-300-02 was revised on
December 14, 2006 to include full reference to MF04.
o The UFGS Web page, located within the Whole Building Design Guide Web
site, contains detailed information on current master specs, tracked changes,
MF95 to MF04 conversion matrices, and future editing strategies for
individual sections.
o An interesting declaration on the UFGS Web page notes that the last issue of
MF95 documents occurred in January 2006 for use with electronic
specification writing software. This last issue in MF95 version was made to
support closeout of jobs in progress.
o The UFGS database makes full use of the Level-5 numbering option created
in MF04 to indicate agency specific specifications. As the UFGS is a joint
effort to organize specifications across multiple groups, use of the Level-5
mechanism allows for multiple specifications that cover the same work results
for the individual client needs to be centrally organized. Current Level-5 tags
have been assigned as follows:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
XX XX XX.XX.10 – USACE.
XX XX XX.XX.14 – USACE/NASA.
XX XX XX.XX.20 – NAVFAC.
XX XX XX.XX.30 – AFCESA.
XX XX XX.XX.40 – NASA.
3 of 27
•
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) publishes Facility Standards for the
Public Building Service as document P100. The March 2005 (latest) edition of P100
generically refers to specification preparation according to “CSI Division format.”
The Appendix section of P100-2005 does contain some example reference to older 5digit MF95 section titles. Discussions with GSA staff indicate that GSA intends to
adopt the newer MF04 format. GSA is in the process of updating the P100 document
and projections are to have conversion to MF04 captured by the first quarter of 2008.
State Government. Agencies responsible for construction of public facilities and
infrastructure at the State Government level have mixed adoption strategies. Some agencies
have aggressively mandated conversion to MF04 and have provided resources to assist with
implementation. Other agencies are taking a dual application approach that allows for a more
gradual conversion. Most agencies, however, have yet to convert to MF04. Notable early
implementation examples include:
•
In March 2005, the Ohio Department of Administrative Services (DAS) issued notice
that MF04 would be required for all new projects that use the design and construction
contracting models established by DAS after January 1, 2006. To support this
adoption, the State Architect’s Office (SAO) recently completed a major overhaul of
their Division 00 – Procurement and Contracting Requirements. Entitled State of
Ohio Standard Requirements for Public Facility Construction, SAO utilizes a
modular approach for various project delivery methodologies such as single prime,
multiple prime, and construction manager. SAO published common Instructions to
Bidders and other documents and forms that may be used with the Bid Form,
Contract Form (alternate term used), and General Conditions specific to each of the
various project delivery methods. SAO is currently developing a similar set of
documents for its energy services’ performance contracts. These documents all
feature MF04 Division 00 and 01 numbers and titles.
•
The State of Colorado, through the Office of the State Architect, has revised their
Architect/Engineer Agreements to mandate use of the current edition of
MasterFormat published by the Construction Specifications Institute. As the
Design/Bid/Build Standard Format (State Form SC-5.1) and Construction
Manager/General Contractor Model Format (State Form SC-5.2) have both been
revised current to August 2006, this would correlate into adoption of MF04 format.
•
In the January 2006 edition of its State Construction Manual, the State Construction
Office for the State of North Carolina notes that project manuals may have
specifications prepared in MF95 or MF04 format.
Institutional. Institutional entities cover a broad mix of university, college, community
college, and city/county school systems. Notable implementation examples include:
•
In response to the Ohio mandate discussed above, the Office of Facilities Operations
and Development at the Ohio State University published the 2006 edition of its
Building Design Standards in MF04 in January 2006.
•
Additionally, the Ohio School Facilities Commission, which provides funding,
management, oversight, and technical assistance for construction and renovation of
4 of 27
K-12 educational facilities to local school districts, used MF04 numbers and titles to
organize its Ohio School Design Manual released in August 2006.
•
In the October 2005 edition of the Facilities Design Standards, the Minnesota State
Colleges and Universities has defined material use and specification requirements
based on MF04 structure.
•
The Jefferson County School District, located in Golden Colorado, office of Facilities
Planning and Design fully adopted MF04 in April 2005. The 2005 Consultant
Guidelines provide specific reference to following MF04 format. Reference
specifications have been included on the Web site spanning Divisions 00 through 33.
Commercial. Commercial entities have limited conversion mandates, unless the parent
company is of large enough scale to merit policy edict. Most commercial projects inherently
exhibit a singular occurrence, and as such, project manual structure is dependant on project
delivery policies of the design professionals. Some notable implementation examples include:
•
Marriott International publishes Design Guideline documents for their Select Service
and Extended Stay brands; including Courtyard by Marriott, Fairfield Inn & Suites,
SpringHill Suites, Residence Inn, and TownePlace Suites. These documents include
standards, prototype drawings, and specification masters for use in the development
and support of architectural and interior design, project and construction
management, and procurement related services. MF04 was adopted in 2006 and new
master specification documents were released in January 2007.
•
Choice Hotels International released corporate master specifications near the end of
2006 in MF04 format.
Design Community
Architects, engineers, and specification consultants account for approximately 80 percent of the
entries currently listed on the CSI “adopters” page. As these entities are the ultimate source for
creation of project manuals, it would seem reasonable that they comprise the converted majority.
We have asked some of these firms to summarize their conversion experience in testimonials,
which can be found later in this paper.
Suppliers
Manufacturer/supplier interests account for less than 5 percent of the entries listed. While we do
not presume this to be an up-to-date snapshot of the current industry penetration, we do find this
to be a limited representation.
Facility Construction Subgroup. Manufacturers who provide general building construction
products seem to have converted supporting work results offerings to the new MF04 numbers
and titles better than other subgroups. Some prominent adopters include:
•
Armstrong World Industries, Inc. has a “build a specification” utility on its Web page
that allows users to generate comprehensive 3-Part specifications for flooring and
ceiling system work results. Specifications are presented with the new MF04
numbers and titles and a cross reference to MF95.
•
Andersen Windows and Doors has posted comprehensive 3-Part specifications for
window and door work results per product offering on its Web page in MF04 format.
5 of 27
•
Marvin Windows and Doors has posted comprehensive 3-Part specifications for
window and door work results per product offering on its Web page in MF04 format.
Facility Services Subgroup. Manufacturers who provide products in the facility services
sectors have been slow to adopt MF04 numbers and titles. Reference specifications that are
provided to engineers are predominantly still in MF95 format or various non-standard, homegrown formats.
We did discover one prominent electrical product manufacturer that has included Division 26
structure in specifications posted on their Web site. Figure 2 depicts a sample listing of
specification sections that are available. The reader will note that a useful keyword utility is
available to help find the manufacturer’s suggested specification content. Unfortunately, the
reader will also note that the numbers and titles presented herein vary significantly from the
actual MF04 database. Unique numbers and titles of this nature reinforce the need for users to be
on the lookout for variances and opportunities to mistakenly deviate from the consistent, official
MF04 numbers and titles.
Figure 2: Division 26 Manufacturer’s Sample Specification Listing
In order to understand why facility services sectors do not have MF04 specification offerings,
the authors directly approached various HVAC manufacturers and their representative networks
to ask the fundamental question: “Why are you not providing Division 23 numbers and titles
with your reference specifications?” The overwhelming response was somewhat troubling, but
not unexpected. The consensus was that the HVAC engineering community has not pushed for
this service, and until such time as demand is present, current support tools seem to be adequate.
We can only hope that this response from industry changes over time.
6 of 27
Constructors
Contractor, design-build contractor, and construction manager companies account for less than 5
percent of the entries listed. This is a low percentage, but we do not perceive it to be accurate in
real practice. As projects evolve with the new MF04 structure, procurement strategies and
construction administration must evolve in parallel.
Specification Services
Some design firms subscribe to master specifications systems in lieu of generating master
specifications in-house or as a basis for their office masters. For those who subscribe to such
services, the transition to MF04 is simple as these providers have realigned their products with
the new numbers and titles.
The reader will note that these services have self-generated new numbers and titles for sections
not currently published in the MF04 database. Selective generation of new numbers and titles is
supported and encouraged by MF04 to account for undefined work results. As we will see later
in this paper, though, this proactive attempt to define additional structure has lead to a
harmonizing issue. Vendors have defined inconsistent numbers and titles between product
offerings and, in some cases, have not actually followed the CSI prescribed rules for assigning
new numbers and titles.
ARCOM. ARCOM publishes MASTERSPEC®, which is a library of master specifications
in both word processing and database formats (LINX® and e-Specs Linx®). ARCOM began
providing MASTERSPEC® in the new MF04 format in the spring of 2005. The conversion
process began with the task of mapping the MASTERSPEC® content from MF95 to MF04
organization structure. In this initial step, ARCOM concluded that about 10 percent of
MASTERSPEC® sections needed to change scope. Some sections were split into multiple
sections and some were combined in order to comply with the new MasterFormat organizational
structure. Software developed by ARCOM was used to automate the conversion according to
the mapping created in the initial task. Finally, human eyes validated the automated process.
MASTERSPEC® is currently published in both MF95 and MF04 formats for the word
processing format and the two database formats. ARCOM has not announced a date for
publication in MF04 format only. It should be noted that ARCOM creates and updates
MASTERSPEC® sections in a single combined file that includes both numbering schemes then
separates them into files for MF95 and MF04 to make sure that content and internal structure is
identical and cross referencing is accurate.
ARCOM has updated its MASTERWORKS® software to recognize which MasterFormat
classification system is being used, thereby ensuring that its specification editing tools, table of
contents, and reports will operate appropriately. These tools also allow users to decide among
the various presentation formats listed in MasterFormat's Application Guide for the presentation
of the six and eight digit numbering scheme. MasterFormat recommends a presentation format
of three pairs of numbers separated by spaces. But it also allows a six-contiguous-number
format or two-plus-four digit format. Users can decide on a project basis which format to use
and can save various formats to apply to new projects. Format wizards guide users though the
process.
7 of 27
Building Systems Design, Inc. Building Systems Design, Inc. (BSD) publishes BSD
SpecLink®, which is a master specification system based on a relational database. SpecLink®
fully implemented the new MF04 numbers and titles in the fall of 2004.
By using a relational database approach, BSD was able to automate the transition from MF95
to MF04 by adding new fields for the 2004 numbers and titles, mapping the old numbers and
titles against the new ones, and modifying its software slightly. Since the fall 2004 release of its
software, users have had the ability to convert the specifications for any project from the MF95
format to the MF04 format with a single mouse click. The BSD software provides for seamless
internal cross referencing, converting the number and title of each to the appropriate format.
Users can just as easily convert their project specifications back to the MF95 format, if
necessary. This feature is especially useful for consulting engineers working with different
architects that may not have transitioned to the MF04 format.
BSD is developing the next generation of its specification software, with release anticipated
in early 2008. This new generation enterprise software product will offer specifications only in
MF04 format and is designed to automatically convert projects produced with the current
software.
Resources
Various entities in the construction industry provide aggregated product data, details, catalogs,
cost information and 3-Part specifications for stakeholder use. Two significant industry
resources have fully embraced the conversion to MF04 as outlined below.
Reed Construction DataTM. Reed Construction Data publishes a wealth of construction
books and related products. One significant publication series is the RSMeans® Construction
Cost Data Guides. RSMeans® has more than 20 guides that provide unit and assembly costs.
Figure 3 reflects a sample listing for screen and storm doors referenced to MF04 Level-3 and
Level-4 penetration as extracted from the Means® Building Construction Cost Data 2007 book,
65th edition.
Figure 3: RSMeans® Division 08 Sample Listing
RSMeans® has incorporated use of MF04 structure throughout the 2007 edition of their cost
data publication. Figure 4 reflects a sample listing for interior lighting referenced to MF04
Level-2, Level-3, and Level-4 penetration as extracted from the Means® Electrical Cost Data
2007 book, 30th edition. Note that the example depicts use of a Level-4 number and title at
26 51 13.90 - Ballast, Replacement HID that does not exist in the MF04 database. Considering
the use of the word “replacement” in this listing, one might find conflict with why this item
should not have been identified under 26 01 00 Operation and Maintenance of Electrical
Systems. This listing demonstrates an excellent example of harmonizing issues raised earlier.
8 of 27
Figure 4: RSMeans® Division 26 Sample Listing
McGraw Hill Construction. The McGraw Hill Construction Sweets Network® now has
MF04 structure available online to assist stakeholders in finding 3-Part specification content.
Figure 5 shows a sample Web page capture for a search on Division 22 – Plumbing. Note that
the right hand column lists information in MF04 format. Information in the left column
maintains a legacy to MF95 structure.
Figure 5: McGraw Hill Construction Sweets Network® Division 22 Sample Search
METRICS
From our review of adopters, we can ascertain that MF04 is being used both by prescribed
mandate and by proactive choice. This reinforces the acceptance of select stakeholders to apply
the enhanced elements of MF04 to improve delivery of built solutions. Unfortunately, we cannot
say that implementation is evenly distributed across all industry sectors.
A Snapshot in Time
In order to gauge “real world” utilization, a sampling of currently bidding projects within North
Carolina was reviewed to see who was applying MF04. North Carolina was intentionally picked
as it offered a diverse mix of military, government (Federal, State, and local), institutional,
healthcare, and commercial projects. Note also that North Carolina currently allows either MF95
or MF04 format for projects that have oversight by the state.
The Carolinas branch of The Associated General Contractors of America (CAGC) was
instrumental in providing the authors with access to project documentation for perusal. CAGC
publishes bidding building, highway, and utility project data for both North and South Carolina.
9 of 27
At the time of review, 100 building projects within North Carolina were posted for bidding as of
August 3, 2007. Of these, 71 projects had accessible project manuals. Based on the 71 project
benchmark, the following general observations were made:
•
Seven projects had fully applied MF04 in the project manuals. This equates to an
implementation ratio of approximately 10 percent. Industry sectors covered include:
o Four state or local government buildings.
o Two healthcare buildings.
o One military facility.
•
Four projects had a combined application of MF04/MF95 in the project manuals. This
equates to an implementation ratio of approximately 5 percent. Industry sectors covered
include:
o Four state or local government buildings.
•
The remaining 60 projects, or approximately 85 percent of the sample, used MF95 and
hybrids thereof. The reader will note that these “yet to convert” projects consisted mostly
of educational and government type buildings, with a few healthcare, commercial,
assembly, multi-tenant, and waste-water treatment facilities.
While these metrics do not provide a true statistical comparison of data, it is interesting to note
that application of MF04, in part or whole, is not widely supported at this time in North Carolina.
This observation was posed as a question to the CAGC group by the authors, who were seeking
to understand if this low implementation ratio was an anomaly of the samples or if it was
indicative of a general trend. The response received in general terms was project manuals for
work in North Carolina currently have less than a 10 percent penetration of MF04 on a revolving
collection of building project postings. Granted, this evaluation was made for a singular market
sector in a fixed region, but the results are consistent with the opinions expressed by CAGC.
This simple snapshot indicates that CSI’s expectation of substantial industry conversion in a
nominal five-year period will be influenced by regional issues, mandates, and business practices.
Hybrids
In the samples perused above, it was noted that four projects had hybrid project manuals. From a
perspective of propriety, we will refrain from identifying project details, but we would like to
highlight a few issues of concern.
•
One manual used basic Division 1-16, MF95 format, but did add Division 31 Earthwork.
•
Two of the manuals applied MF04 predominantly, but maintained Division 2 - Sitework.
•
One manual used basic Division 1-16, MF95 format, but used mixed 5-digit MF95 and 6digit MF04 section numbers.
While it is outside of the scope of this paper to determine what dynamics led to the need, or
desire, to have such hybrid project manuals in our sampling, it does raise questions. Why do
sitework and earthwork work results have a common contribution to hybrid manual status? Is
this a byproduct of design team structure across multiple firms not having integrated conversion
efforts?
10 of 27
As for the mixed use of five and six digit section numbers in a common project manual, we are
concerned with the message this communicates. Mixed use of MF95 and MF04 sections is
confusing and creates a significant burden on the design team to keep work results uniquely
scoped, the bidding contractors to consistently find work results within the manual, and the
installation contractor to manage construction administration paperwork in two different
numbering schemes. This exact scenario was envisioned by the MasterFormat Implementation
Task Team (MFITT) and its application has been highly discouraged. Yet, in the “real world,”
we see that it can and does occur.
TESTIMONIALS
As we can gather from the preceding content, MF04 is achieving selective acceptance. The
question that begs asking, though, is “Do the advertised benefits and improvements truly allow
for better project manuals and organized work results?” In an effort to gauge stakeholder views,
the authors have compiled the following testimonials that describe, in more intimate detail, how
implementation has been approached and what measurable value has been realized by embracing
the MF04 structure.
Testimonial #1: Schenkel & Shultz
Schenkel & Shultz, Inc. (S&S) is a design firm with eight offices located in Indiana, North Carolina, and Florida. As part of
our coordination with outside engineering consultants on institutional projects, letters were issued to collaboration firms
indicating that projects that begin Schematic Design after January 2006 will utilize MF04 structure.
Initially, there was some concern among our consultants that this conversion would be a hardship as they typically produce
specifications after the drawings are nearing completion and there is limited time to include these changes while being
productive. Now that a few projects have been completed though, it seems that this concerned has diminished. We are
seeing that firms are expecting this request, changes have been made in business practice, and a notable level of expertise has
been achieved with continued exposure to the new structure.
S&S has assisted some of the key K-12 schools systems in Florida in converting their master guideline specifications to the
new format. These include Orange, Seminole, Brevard, and Palm Beach counties. We have completed projects using MF04
for school systems in these counties and we are in construction on projects in Hillsborough, Sumter, Lake, Clay, and Marion
counties using MF04. In addition to Florida schools, we currently have two projects at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill that recently went to bid using MF04.
To date, the conversion process has not met with undo resistance and the transition has gone well for us. In the course of
using the new format, the following advantages have been realized:
1.
The clarification of work results between Plumbing and HVAC is easier now that Mechanical has been parsed into
distinct facility services sectors.
2.
Defining Fire Protection as a separate Division negates the trend of improperly implying that said work results are
design discipline responsibility of plumbing engineering.
3.
Creation of separate Communications and Electronic Safety and Security as separate Divisions outside of Electrical
work results makes it easier to define facility services infrastructure.
4.
The expansion of Civil work results into Earthwork, Exterior Improvements, and Utilities has been well received in
organizing Site and Infrastructure work results.
The only issue that we have encountered of significance has been the coordination of work results from consultants so that
duplication is avoided. Despite the structure of MF04, we continue to see consultants attempt to define “front end”
requirements to the first section in each Division. This is not a MasterFormat issue, but rather an industry misapplication of
interpreting that organization of work results defines design discipline and construction trade jurisdiction.
G. Wade Bevier, CSI, CCS, LEED AP
Schenkel & Shultz, Inc.
We can see from Testimonial #1 that design teams are pushing use of MF04 from the source and
helping owners implement the new structure. This is encouraging as it indicates a proactive
11 of 27
response that isn’t waiting for owner mandates to incorporate. Additionally, the authors were
especially intrigued to see S&S’s opinion concerning the improved communication of facility
services, site, and infrastructure work results achieved by use of MF04. Let’s look at another
testimonial.
Testimonial #2: Hall Architects; Hall | Building Information Group
Hall Architects, Inc. is an architectural firm located in Charlotte, North Carolina providing design and forensic architectural
services predominantly in North and South Carolina. Hall⏐Building Information Group, LLC is a 6-person specifications
consulting firm preparing project specifications for architectural and engineering firms throughout the US and assisting
product manufacturers with the preparation of product guide specifications.
Hall Architects, Inc. (HAi):
100% of all our project manuals produced since 2004 have used MF04 as their organizational structure. Our experience is
that the MF04 structure is more logical than MF95, making it easier to understand and use, as well as offering several other
technical advantages. These include an expanded Division 00 and 01, the new concept of performance specifying in
Division 01, and clearer organization and identification of many sustainable design subjects.
We require our engineering consultants to be compliant and have not had any problems in achieving compliance from them.
Once they became acquainted with the structure, they too preferred it because it better addresses the building engineering
discipline subject matter in greater detail than MF95 did.
Hall⏐Building Information Group, LLC (BiG):
95% of the project manuals produced for our A/E firm clients have incorporated the MF04 organization. Not all of the 95%
that incorporate MF04 are fully compliant, but the intent of the update has certainly been met. Generally, the 5% that have
not adopted the updated numbers and titles are projects on which specification documentation had started prior to publication
of MF04 and have been revived or recently completed. When this occurs, our clients will request our recommendations
related to converting.
In the spring of 2005 area design firms and specification consultants sponsored a MasterFormat Implementation education
series for Charlotte region A/E/C professionals. The three sessions, each three hours in length, started with the basics of
understanding the changes, developing an implementation plan, and also troubleshooting the future.
Change of any kind is usually difficult. Logically, those affected most by the update have been the most reluctant to change,
including mechanical, plumbing, and fire suppression consultants. Often the reluctance is primarily due to a lack of
understanding of the changes, and once the firms are educated about the philosophy of the update, the process of change is
easier.
On more than one occasion, people have remarked that though they were initially resistant to the change, they have
committed to the update and in the process have taken the opportunity to thoroughly review and update the specification text
as well.
BiG works with many large A/E firms that are on the cutting edge of the design industry, and are committed to utilizing
current industry standards. In one instance, the mechanical engineer was adamant about not converting, at which point the
Architect calmly responded that if the engineer elected to not change, it would be the last project their engineering firm did
for the architect. Needless to say, the engineer got on board and has become very conversant in the use of MF04.
MF04 has been one of the driving factors seen by manufacturers for updating guide specifications. Manufacturers typically
want to respond to what the industry demands, and though they are often cautious about changing too quickly, they want to
appear that they are in tune with current standards.
Dennis J. Hall, FAIA, FCSI
Hall Architects, Inc.
Nina M. Giglio, CCS, CSC, SCIP
Hall⏐Building Information Group, LLC
Testimonial #2 provides another proactive response from the design team in pushing for the full
conversion to MF04. The reader will note the interesting dynamic of members of the design
team expressing reluctance to convert. In an effort to maintain a consistent, integrated project
manual, the architect has taken the lead in minimizing the use of hybrid or multiple formats. The
reader will also note HAi’s advocacy for the new MF04 structure to provide technical advantage
in organizing and identifying sustainable subjects.
12 of 27
Testimonial #3: State of Ohio
The State Architect’s Office (SAO) establishes procedures and policy for the effective management of virtually all statefunded capital project design and construction except K-12 schools in the State of Ohio. Additionally, SAO manages projects
for any state agency, institution, board, or commission that requests it. In the previous fiscal year, SAO serviced 30 agencies
with 221 projects having a combined value of $997 million.
The announcement that SAO would require MasterFormat 2004 had been in the works for quite some time and it brought me
a great deal of personal satisfaction. While in private practice and shortly after our Institute Directors asked me to chair the
Region Technical Committee, I attended The CSI Show and Convention in April 2003. I wanted to absorb as much as I could
about the pending changes to CSI’s family of technical documents, including MasterFormat. When I came back from the
convention, I made a report to the AIA Columbus Board of Directors and suggested that they follow the developments
closely. One of my fellow board members at the time was our State Architect. He arranged for me to come to his office and
discuss the changes with his staff. The response was not exactly overwhelming acceptance.
In September of that year, I made a presentation at our CSI chapter meeting, and an SAO staff member attended. I also
understand that SAO actively participated in making comments about the document to the expansion task team. Later that
year, I sat on a panel discussion at the SAO College seminar. Early in 2004, the State Architect asked me to work with his
staff to develop a presentation for one of the seminars for SAO College. Since then, I made the presentation a total of eight
times in Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland. Somewhere in the midst of revising and practicing the ever-evolving
presentation, I suggested that SAO consider formal adoption of MF04.
One of the common responses to our seminar was that design professionals would make the transition only when their clients
forced them. The obvious solution is to convince their clients that it is in their best interest to require use of the new standard.
The SAO announcement became public seven days before I was scheduled to give a presentation at our monthly CSI chapter
meeting. We quickly sent an email to every CSI and AIA member with a copy of the release and the meeting notice. The
result was a packed house of folks who suddenly found themselves in great need of this information.
In order to meet their own deadline, SAO decided to revise their internal office master specifications to comply with MF04.
My firm was engaged as a consultant to perform this conversion. We initially proposed performing the conversion for three
of their prototype projects. In the end, they decided to convert only the maintenance facility project at that time. We began
by trying to understand the scope of work. I created a spreadsheet listing each of the specification sections in the Project
Manuals, finding the appropriate MF04 number and title, and determining if ARCOM would be issuing that Section. Any
Sections not issued with MASTERSPEC would be revised from the original documents. We engaged engineering consultants
to assist us and provided a modest amount of training to them.
In retrospect, we should have spent more time on the training effort. We estimated two hours of technical time and one hour
of clerical time as an average for each Section. In the end, we exceeded our budget by approximately 30 percent. The total
time was surprisingly accurate. However, our consultants needed more help formatting the documents than we anticipated,
and the clerical time was used assisting them, and the technical time backfilled the gap. Not long after completing this
project, I joined SAO’s senior management team.
Our experience shows changing the numbers and titles is a small part of the work. As long as you organize and plan
appropriately, it goes very smoothly. What we found was the references, manufacturers, and products were badly in need of
revision. Updating this information should be part of writing the specifications for any project. Since the prototype projects
had been developed several years ago, the documents had been re-used numerous times without much intervention. As most
professional specifiers will attest, this can be a very dangerous practice. In the event of a claim or litigation, the standard of
care in preparing construction documents can be used as evidence that the practitioner was negligent. If your documents have
not been sufficiently maintained over the years, you may find the upgrade process rather painful. If you decide to avoid
updating your documents, the result could be even more painful and expensive. If your office master specifications contain
current information, conversion to MF04 is a relatively clean and painless process.
We’ve opened bids on a number of these facilities, and the pricing was not inflated due to unfamiliar documents. After a
year-and-a-half of the requirement to use MF04, it is now uncommon to see MF95 or MF88 numbers. We had a minor issue
with a conflict in the scope of work for our multiple-prime contracts involving carbon monoxide sensors and which contractor
was responsible for them. The cost of the resulting change order was only $11,000, a tiny percentage of the work.
Overall, we are very pleased with our progress and the results and do not regret the decision to be an early adopter of MF04.
Lane J. Beougher, CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA, LEED AP
Ohio Department of Administrative Services
Testimonial #3 highlights that the insistence of a public owner to use industry best practices is
becoming more common. SAO’s experience indicates MF04 has become one of those best
13 of 27
practices. Testimonial #3 echoes Testimonial #2 in its finding that updating master
specifications to MF04 provides an opportunity to revise often out-dated specifications text, and
expanding on that finding by noting that keeping specifications current is an often-overlooked
cost of maintaining construction documentation.
THE LIVING DOCUMENT
MF04 is intended to be a living document that maintains the foundation of organizational
structure in the face of a dynamic construction world. To this end, CSI has established a third
team to continue the progression of the MF04 retooling. Building on the efforts of the
Expansion and Implementation Task Teams, a MasterFormat Maintenance Task Team
(MFMTT) has been created and charged with adding and revising titles as needed to meet the
needs of the industry. The focus of this regular maintenance will allow MF04 to evolve
gradually, rather than producing new editions with major changes every five to seven years.
MFMTT Scope
The MFMTT will make decisions with long-reaching implications. In order to afford a method
for making these decisions, and to avoid potential self-contradiction, a procedure for making
these decisions has been established so that it can be referenced by task team members and those
submitting proposals for new numbers and titles. The following context has been selectively
compiled from the MFMTT Operations Guide to reflect key issues and processes that will be of
interest to stakeholders moving forward.
Adding Numbers and Titles to MasterFormat. Generally, suggestions for new numbers
and titles will be proposed by industry stakeholders. That does not preclude, however, the
flexibility of the MFMTT to generate numbers and titles on their own or change the number/title
from what was suggested as needed. As new suggestions are reviewed, the following
fundamental interests will be met:
•
The MFMTT will preserve the MasterFormat focus on “work results.” Products are a
part of almost every work result, but numbers and titles will not be created for
products.
•
The MFMTT will not add numbers and titles higher than Level-2.
•
The MFMTT will strive to avoid deleting any “official” MasterFormat numbers and
titles currently in existence. This principle does not apply to custom numbers and
titles created by stakeholders in the interim.
Harmonize Numbers and Titles Added by Integrators. The MFMTT will work to
harmonize numbers and titles added by integrators since the publication of MF04. This activity
may include the deletion of some integrator-added numbers and
Integrator: Entities
titles.
having an agreement
Consult With and Appoint Corresponding Members.
with CSI for
Given the expanded content of MF04, there will likely be
implementation of
subjects with which MFMTT members are generally unfamiliar.
MasterFormat. A
For these subjects, task team members will solicit input and
current list of integrators
information from “corresponding members.” Integrators should
can be found at
note that the decision of how to resolve a proposal will still fall
www.masterformat.com.
14 of 27
solely under the purview of the official members of the MFMTT.
Reporting Changes in Numbers and Titles. The revisions to MasterFormat generated by
the MFMTT will be reported to the industry in a consistent and timely manner.
Maintenance Task Team Membership
CSI/CSC Appointed Members. The MFMTT comprises five members. Four members,
including the chair, have been appointed by CSI, and one has been appointed by CSC. Task
Team members were required to be members in good standing of CSI or CSC, and preference
was given to individuals who have specifications experience and who hold certification as a
Certified Construction Specifier (CCS) or Registered Specification Writer (RSW). Task team
members were solicited to not be formally affiliated with any product manufacturer or
distributor. This was done to support the primary application of MasterFormat being focused on
organizing work results rather than products.
Corresponding Members. The MFMTT has been charged with contacting corresponding
members to represent other organizations and provide expertise on subjects with which the task
team members may not be familiar. The critical point to grasp here is that the task team is
cognizant of providing comprehensive coverage of the entire MasterFormat database content,
not just the “low hanging fruit” Divisions of facility construction.
Contributing Organizations (Liaisons). In addition to the above corresponding members
appointed to provide information to the MFMTT on select subject matter, the task team will also
have corresponding members who will be appointed by organizations with an interest in
MasterFormat. Such appointments will be requested by the CSI president.
Relationships have already been established with notable peer Societies. The task team has
already developed liaison relationships with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE). Procedures have been set in motion to utilize the technical committees of ASHRAE
to provide pertinent feedback on work results coverage of the HVAC world.
Guiding Principles
Scope of Decisions. The MFMTT will not be authorized to make any decisions on adding or
deleting anything above the section level (Level-2). Changes at the Group, Subgroup, and
Division levels, if needed, will be undertaken by an expanded review process that will be
conducted periodically. It is anticipated that such a review will occur every five years.
Revision Criteria. When presented with a proposal, the MFMTT will be faced with a
number of choices: approve the request, deny the request, or approve the request generally, but
not in the exact form in which it was put forth. Prior to making the decision, the task team, may
ask the requester for more information, may consult with specialist experts (the corresponding
members mentioned above) and may review external information available to them.
To add a number, the task team will be asked to review the subject matter in question and
determine if it is indeed a work result; that is, could a spec section be written for the topic at
hand. If the proposal is indeed a work result, then the task team will decide if it is already
addressed by an existing title and number.
15 of 27
During the course of its authoring, many recommended additions to MF04 were not included
as separate numbers and titles because they were not thought to be distinct work results. Rather,
they were addressed under other numbers and titles; with the differences detailed within the
specification section in question. An example of this type of proposal was a comment made
during the MF04 expansion process that there should be a number and title for paint with
antimicrobial and antifungal properties. The MasterFormat Expansion Task Team (MFETT)
decided that this was another type of painting and the antimicrobial or antifungal properties and
the brand of paint would be specified in a painting section such as 09 91 23 – Interior Painting.
In this particular case, this type of title was distinguished from one such as “High Performance
Coatings,” where the nature of the performance was central to the purpose of the coating itself –
“Abrasion-Resistant Coating,” “Marine Coatings,” etc. Though these distinctions can be
difficult to make, the general approach will be to avoid making a change or addition in the
absence of a demonstrable need for a new number and title.
Harmonization of Integrator Numbers and Titles. The MFMTT has been charged with
“harmonizing numbers and titles added by integrators,” which, in addition to addressing new
numbers and titles added by integrators, includes addressing any titles that diverge in any way
from how the titles are currently presented in MasterFormat. This task is assigned to the
MFMTT in order to establish consistency among the major information providers for the
construction industry. These include commercial master specifications providers, product
information providers, and cost information providers. Since MasterFormat allows "userdefined" numbers and titles, each of these information providers can and do create unique
numbers and titles not currently existing in MasterFormat. This is not only allowed, but is
encouraged by MasterFormat project design teams and construction information providers alike.
It is not surprising that similar topics are addressed by various information providers with
varying numbers and titles. The harmonization effort is designed to bring the information
providers together to collaborate, through the MFMTT, on a common and consistent assignment
of numbers and titles for new subjects.
Revision or Deletion of Existing Numbers and Titles. If a proposal is made that may
require a change to or the deletion of an existing number and title, the burden of proof shall be
significant. In general, absent some problem presented with the number and title as published in
MF04 that can only be resolved by revising or deleting the number and title under discussion,
numbers and titles will remain as published. If there is a way to address the issue in question
without deleting or changing existing numbers and titles, that option shall be the preferable
course of action. In some cases such a course may not be possible, and in those cases, a change
or deletion of a published title and number may be called for. In that case, a reorganization of
the section or sections that the published number is in the context of may also be called for. In
general, however, wholesale reorganization of the sections within a Division, like the creation of
new Divisions, is beyond the scope of the MFMTT and will be referred to the next expanded
review.
16 of 27
Processes
Assignments and Responsibilities. The maintenance process will have oversight from three
distinctive entities: CSI staff, a Consultant, and the MFMTT. Individual tasks for these entities
are outlined below:
1. CSI Staff:
a. Manage process from a global perspective and assist Consultant as needed.
2. Consultant:
a. Organize proposals to inform the task team and to help order their decision
making process.
b. Make recommendations to the task team for its consideration and gather
additional information that the task team may require. The Consultant’s
recommendations will be based on his considered reading of all facts
surrounding proposals or sets of proposals.
c. Apply the task team’s decision on each proposal to the MasterFormat
database and inform the proposing party of that decision.
3. Task Team:
a. The task team’s responsibility will be to consider the proposals and
recommendations put forth by the Consultant and then to make decisions on
the addition of appropriate numbers and titles to MasterFormat. The task
team will be free to follow a recommendation or to strike out on its own.
Work Flowchart. The review and update process detailed below that is followed by the
MFMTT is graphically depicted in Figure 6.
1. The Consultant shall review the proposal and decide if it is a work result. If it is not
a work result, in his opinion, the Consultant shall make a recommendation to the task
team that it reject the proposal.
2. If the proposal is a work result, then the Consultant will determine whether it is
already covered by an existing number and title. If it is, the Consultant shall
recommend that the suggestion be denied because the subject matter is already
covered in MasterFormat.
3. If the subject is not already covered, then the Consultant shall review the options for
proper classification of the work result under existing MasterFormat hierarchy and
shall forward suggested possible numbers and titles to the task team. Note, that the
task team will be free to accept the Consultant’s suggestions or to establish an
alternative approach. The task team will always be free to reject the recommendation
made by the Consultant and to arrive at an alternative on its own.
17 of 27
Figure 6: MasterFormat Revision and Update Work Flowchart
Decisions. To help ensure that decisions continue to be made in a consistent and rational
fashion over time, a record of all decisions made by the MFMTT will be maintained in the
MasterFormat database by the Consultant.
Holistic Review. There are currently plans for an expanded MasterFormat task team to
conduct a more holistic review of the comprehensive MasterFormat structure on a periodic basis,
most likely a five year review cycle. Much like the MFETT, this task team will include full
member representatives from a variety of organizations interested in MasterFormat and will also
conduct public review for commentary of its proposed changes and expansions. As it is
currently conceived, the “expanded review” task team will accomplish the following:
1. Compile previous years’ changes for the new “edition”.
2. Conduct a year-long review with public commentary on drafts and a wider scope of
review than the ongoing maintenance review.
18 of 27
3. Evaluate the potential for new Divisions or even new subgroups if warranted by
dramatic changes in the construction marketplace.
4. Update references between added, deleted, or changed titles and the last edition’s
existing titles and keyword index.
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
Beginning with the release of MF04 in the fall of 2004, CSI has issued and continues to develop
implementation tools to help stakeholders with the conversion process. These tools include
legacy conversion matrices, interactive Web Forums, online webinars, and a dedicated resource
Web site.
MF04 Transition Matrix
Each published copy of MF04 includes a comprehensive conversion matrix for 1995 and 1988
legacy editions in Microsoft Excel® format. Figure 7 shows basic guidelines and instructions for
applying the matrices.
MasterFormat 2004 Transition Matrix Usage Guidelines
For more information on MasterFormat visit www.csinet.org/masterformat
Date: November 2004
Explanation and Usage
The matrices contained in this file are designed to ease transition to MasterFormat 2004, both for
users of previous editions of MasterFormat and for new users. The spreadsheet consists of three
worksheets, identified on the tabs at the bottom of the scr
1) 1988 – 2004 Transition
This sheet relates 1988 edition MasterFormat numbers and titles to the equivalent titles in
the 2004 edition. It is sorted by MasterFormat 1988 numbers. The intended use of this
sheet is to aid in the transition of information organized by MasterFormat
2) 1995 – 2004 Transition
This sheet relates the 1995 edition MasterFormat numbers and titles to the equivalent
titles in the 2004 edition. It is sorted by MasterFormat 1995 numbers. The intended use
of this sheet is to aid in the transition of information organized by MasterFor
3) 2004 Numbers and Titles
This sheet is a comprehensive list of all MasterFormat 2004 edition numbers and titles.
Because of the expanded content in the 2004 edition and the significantly larger number
of titles, the two transition sheets do not contain all of the MasterFormat 20
Figure 7: MasterFormat 2004 Transition Matrix Guidelines
Figure 8 shows a limited sample of HVAC related numbers and titles. Note how the matrix
helps define the parsed locations in the new 50-Division structure. For example, work results
previously aggregated into 15060 - Hangers and Supports under MF95 are now spread across
Divisions 21, 22, and 23 to cover fire suppression, plumbing, and HVAC scenarios.
19 of 27
Figure 8: MasterFormat 2004 Transition Matrix Sample
CSI Forums – MasterFormat Discussion
In September 2006, CSI established a Forum on the CSI Web site to allow construction
professionals to share knowledge about the revised and expanded MF04. Knowledgeable
moderators are available to discuss specification issues, conversion challenges, and success
stories. As of August 2007, 28 topics have been posted for group discussion and direction. A
sample of one discussion thread can be viewed in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Sample MasterFormat Discussion Forum Exchange
20 of 27
MasterFormat.com
In 2006, CSI created a resource Web site promoted as MasterFormat.com. The vision of this
resource was to allow stakeholders to access transition information, purchase copies of MF04,
determine what applicable MF04 numbers and titles pertain to a user’s needs, and to suggest
proposed revisions to the MF04 database (see Figure 10).
Figure 10: MasterFormat.com Home Page
An abbreviated Transition Guide has been posted to help users understand some of the more
significant reasons for and impacts of change (see Figure 11). Note that the actual MF04
publication has a more expanded discussion on this topic, but the “big picture” perspective does
provide direction to those who may not have a full reference publication at hand.
21 of 27
Figure 11: MasterFormat.com Transition Guide
Education
CSI continues to prepare education programs to assist stakeholders with the transition from
MF95 to MF04. These programs include canned presentations available for CSI chapter use,
pertinent technical presentations at the CSI annual meeting and CSI Academies, a MasterFormat
training program and instructor listing, customized in-house instruction, and distance learning
Webinars. A sample Webinar scheduled for fall of 2007 is depicted in Figure 12.
Figure 12: Sample MasterFormat Webinar Training Class Scheduled for Fall 2007
22 of 27
SUMMARY
At the beginning of this assessment, we asked a fundamental question: “How effectively have
stakeholders converted to or supported conversion to MF04?” Our evaluation of the industry
three years into the five-year transition period for MF04 has uncovered some interesting answers.
Consider the following observations:
•
Entities within the U.S. Federal Government have taken a proactive approach to adopting
MF04. We have identified a number of agencies that have construction oversight who
have fully converted. We also see that some agencies are still in the process of
converting. This does not, however, imply that all agencies have or will convert.
Agencies like the Federal Highway Administration have not embraced the new features
offered in the Site and Infrastructure Subgroup.
•
State Government agencies have limited conversion success to report. While some
agencies like the State of Ohio have prominently mandated conversion, some continue to
allow either MF95 or MF04 format. Most, however, remain mute on prescribing
conversion to MF04, leaving the choice of format to the discretion of the design
professionals.
•
Our sample bidding market evaluation indicates that around 10 percent of projects have
project manuals prepared in “true” MF04 format. As the sample market selected allowed
a choice of MF95 or MF04 formats, we see that proactive conversion has been limited
when left to choice. Associated with this relatively low rate of early implementation, a
number of hybrid and mixed formats have been used. Such action provides confusion for
bidding interest and subverts the intent of MasterFormat to establish consistent location
of work results.
•
Manufacturers have mixed results when it comes to converting to MF04. The traditional
plumbing, mechanical, and electrical sectors (now referred to as facility services) have
been slow to provide support materials to engineers in the new format.
•
Construction data, resource support, and specification services have been proactive in
providing products, materials, and publications in MF04 format. It is extremely
encouraging to see the breadth of tools available for stakeholders to use. While this is a
positive development, some concern can be found in the fact that inconsistent new
numbers and titles have been created by many of the entities. One of the strengths of the
MF04 structure allows customization to cover work results not currently identified in the
MF04 database. This strength has, unfortunately, allowed entities to establish new
numbers and titles that are not harmonized, thus sending an inconsistent message to the
users of MF04. Users are left with questions as to who has a correct or appropriate
number and title combination between support providers.
•
The creation of the MFMTT by CSI is a wise decision. First, this group must resolve the
issue of harmonizing new numbers and titles that have been “publicized,” but not
officially adopted into the MF04 database. Second, the role of the task team to provide
continuous maintenance will be crucial in ensuring that changes have industry acceptance
and that there is harmony among the construction information providers representing
design, construction, and facility management interests. Growth of the MF04 database in
23 of 27
response to industry needs is a planned feature of the expanded MF04 structure. Change,
however, must have control so that consistency is maintained for all users.
•
CSI has demonstrated a remarkable stewardship in supporting MF04 as a living
document. The published resources, educational materials, Web forums, and
instructional expertise are necessary to support the continuing conversion process. A
strong body of knowledge that remains timely and pertinent will be required to assist
those who have yet to convert.
Our final synopsis indicates the MF04 conversion process is still in transition and the five-year
conversion window envisioned by CSI was realistic. As confirmed by testimonial, proactive
practitioners have embraced the new structure and are aggressively applying its use in their
everyday practice. Encouragingly, the reasons for adoption go beyond the issues of mandates,
prescribed criteria, and keeping pace with the industry support network. Practitioners who have
transitioned early report advantages that should not go unnoticed. For example:
•
The clarification of work results for Fire Suppression, Plumbing, and HVAC are easier
now.
•
Separating Communications and Electronic Safety and Security from Electrical makes it
easier to define “smart building” work results.
•
Moving civil related work results to the Site and Infrastructure Subgroup allows for better
organization of “horizontal” elements of construction than the previous Division 2 –
Sitework did.
•
Addition of sustainable, green, and high performance sections to Division 01 allows for a
technical advantage in providing responsible design solutions.
•
A major cost area in updating specification documents to MF04 was not simply updating
the numbers and titles, but rather came from correcting references in those documents
that had slipped out-of-date unnoticed. Updating specifications to MF04 provided a
much-needed and perhaps overlooked opportunity to review document contents.
Though the pace of conversion is slower than may have been expected and resistance to change
is perhaps stronger than anticipated, we can see that the new structure is performing as intended
for firms who have made the switch. As critical mass continues to build, it will be interesting to
see how adopters will take advantage of the new “life cycle” features of MF04 that look beyond
the perspective of “turning the keys over.”
We would encourage CSI to disseminate the views of this paper to all stakeholders as a candid
assessment of where conversion stands three years out from original publication of MF04. We
recommend that CSI continue to aggressively support the education of all stakeholders as they
struggle with the issue of change and the subsequent act of change. It would seem logical that a
more comprehensive industry assessment be performed in 2010 to benchmark conversion
penetration relative to CSI’s original five year transition expectation. At that time, we would
hope that more of the life cycle, high-performance, industrial, and infrastructure opportunities
provided in MF04 could add to the success stories.
24 of 27
WEB PAGE BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Construction Specifications Institute:
Home
http://www.csinet.org
MasterFormat.com
http://www.masterformat.com/
Standards – MasterFormat 2004 Edition
http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?CID=1377&DID=11339
Forums – MasterFormat Discussion
http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec_forums.asp?CID=11&DID=11&ForumId=12
Professional Development
http://www.csinet.org/s_csi/sec.asp?TRACKID=&CID=6&DID=6
Adopters (Listed in order of appearance):
Los Alamos National Laboratory
http://engstandards.lanl.gov/
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
http://www.va.gov/facmgt/standard/spec_idx.asp
Unified Facilities Guide Specifications
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_org.php?o=70
U.S. General Services Administration
http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/channelView.do?pageTypeId=8195&channelPage=%2Fep%2Fchannel%
2FgsaOverview.jsp&channelId=-14201
Ohio Department of Administrative Services, State Architect’s Office
http://das.ohio.gov/gsd/SAO/stdrqrmnts.htm
State of Colorado, Office of the State Architect
http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/dfp/sbrep/
State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Construction Office
http://www.nc-sco.com/
Ohio State University, Office of Facilities Operations and Development
http://fod.osu.edu/dc/Building_Design_Standards.htm
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Office of the Chancellor, Facilities Unit
http://www.facilities.mnscu.edu/mainpage/design_construction.htm
Jefferson County School District, Office of Facilities Planning and Design
http://sc.jeffco.k12.co.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=111272&catfilter=549
1#showDoc
Armstrong World Industries
http://www.armstrong.com/
Andersen Windows and Doors
http://www.andersenwindows.com/
Marvin Windows and Doors
http://www.marvin.com/
Integrators:
ARCOM
http://www.arcomnet.com/
Building Systems Design, Inc. (BSD)
http://www.bsdsoftlink.com/
McGraw Hill Construction, Sweets Network®
http://products.construction.com/portal/server.pt
Reed Construction Data
http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/
Miscellaneous:
Carolinas Branch of the Associated General Contractors of America
http://www.cagc.org/
25 of 27
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Charles E. Gulledge III, PE, CSI is a mechanical engineer with the design-build firm of AC Corporation located in
Greensboro, NC. Mr. Gulledge served on the MFETT as an official representative of ASHRAE, is a MasterFormat
Accredited Instructor, provides CSI sponsored training for new MasterFormat Accredited Instructors, and conducts
multiple Webinar classes for CSI on Basic MF04 and MF04 for HVAC Engineers. As a member of ASHRAE, his
notable activities include: past Chair of Technical Committee 7.01 – Integrated Building Design, past Chair of the
Chapter Technology Transfer Committee, current member of the Handbook Committee, current Chair of Technical
Resource Group TRG4 – Sustainable Metrics, current member of the Sustainability Certification Ad Hoc
Committee, current member of the Building Information Modeling and Interoperability Ad Hoc Committee, and a
current Distinguished Lecturer on the topics of MF04 and Integrated Building Design. Mr. Gulledge holds a
Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from North Carolina State University.
Lane J. Beougher, CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA, LEED AP is an architect with the State Architect’s Office (SAO) in
the Ohio Department of Administrative Services. Mr. Beougher manages the SAO Special Services and Energy
Services teams, providing support for communications, document development, and energy efficiency initiatives.
He is a MasterFormat Accredited Instructor, provides CSI-sponsored training for new MasterFormat Accredited
Instructors, and conducts multiple Webinar classes for CSI including MF04 for Architects and Uses of MF04 in
Practice. He is a former president of the Columbus chapter of CSI, a former chair of the CSI Great Lakes Region
Technical Committee, served on the MasterFormat Implementation Task Team and the Institute Technical
Committee, and currently serves as Vice President of the CSI Great Lakes Region and as one of its Institute
Directors. He is also president elect of the Columbus chapter of the American Institute of Architects and a member
of the organizing committee for a chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council proposed for Central Ohio. Mr.
Beougher graduated from The Ohio State University with a Bachelor of Science in Architecture.
Michael J. King, FCSI, CCS is the Vice President of Engineering Specifications for ARCOM in its Alexandria,
Virginia office. Mr. King has over 43 years of experience in HVAC design, total project specifications, and
construction contract administration. Mr. King has worked on the MASTERSPEC® program for over 20 years and
is responsible for the content of the facility services specifications sections. Mr. King is a Fellow of CSI and a
Certified Construction Specifier. He has served CSI as Chair of the Certification Committee, Chair of the
MasterFormat Committee (charged with updating MF88 to MF95), served on the MFETT (charged with updating
MF95 to MF04), and is currently serving as the Chair of the MFMTT. Mr. King is a MasterFormat Accredited
Instructor. Mr. King is an Associate Member of ASHRAE, serving on Technical Committee 7.01 - Integrated
Building Design and is the Chair of its Specifications Subcommittee. In 1994, Mr. King chaired a Steering
Committee that founded the International Construction Information Society (ICIS) and then served four years as its
President. ICIS consists of 18 member organizations in 14 countries from five continents. Mr. King provides inhouse training to consulting engineers on MasterFormat and general specifications writing principles and
specification software applications; as well as speaking at conventions for national societies like ASHRAE, CSI,
NSPE, ACEC, AIA, BICSI, NSCA, and others.
Robert Paul Dean, CSI, CCS, AIA is President and COO of Building Systems Design, Inc. (BSD), an Atlantabased software company developing applications for the architectural and engineering markets. At BSD since 1993,
Mr. Dean is one of the country’s foremost experts on automated construction specifications and is responsible for
the creation of BSD’s premier product, BSD SpecLink®. He designed and assisted in production of the
PerSpective® product for a joint venture between CSI and the Design-Build Institute of America. He also designed
and managed the development of AGC DocuBuilder® for the Associated General Contractors of America. Prior to
joining BSD, Mr. Dean developed the first commercial automated specification system in the United States for
Sweet’s Division of McGraw-Hill, Inc. As a Vice President at Heery International, Inc., he originated the concept
for a Q&A specification system for the microcomputer that was launched in 1989 as SweetSpec and ultimately
became MASTERSPEC® Q&A. Mr. Dean was an Assistant Professor of Architecture at Tulane University for six
years, where he taught a number of technical subjects in addition to design studios. He also taught at the University
of Washington, the University of California at Berkeley, and Georgia Institute of Technology. Mr. Dean holds a
Master of Architecture degree from Tulane University and a Master of Architecture degree from the University of
Washington.
Dennis J. Hall, FCSI, FAIA is founder and managing principal of Hall Architects, Inc. in Charlotte, North
Carolina. Mr. Hall currently serves as National President of the Specification Consultants in Independent Practice
(SCIP), a member of the NIBS National CAD Standards Committee, the OmniClass Construction Classification
26 of 27
System Development, UniFormat Task Team, AIA MASTERSPEC Review Committee, and the NIBS/SCIP/CSI
BIM Committee. He is the former chair of the CSI/CSC MFETT and the CSI Uniform Drawing System Task Team,
as well as a former Institute Vice President of the Construction Specifications Institute. His professional writing
includes coauthor of The Architect’s Guide to the US National CAD Standard; contributor and senior executive
editor for Architectural Graphics Standards, 11th edition; contributor to the Architect’s Handbook of Professional
Practice, 14th edition; and contributor to the Uniform Drawing System. He is currently the Editor-in-Chief of the
Architectural Graphic Standards for Residential Construction that will be published in 2010.
Nina M. Giglio, CSI, Assoc. AIA is President of Hall | Building Information Group, LLC in Charlotte, North
Carolina. Ms. Giglio serves as a member of the CSI Institute Technical Committee and the CSI/CSC
SectionFormat/PageFormat Update Task Team updating the North American standard for organizing specification
sections within a project manual. She also serves as the National Secretary for Specifications Consultants in
Independent Practice, the North American organization that is the voice of the specifier community as a specialized
practice of architecture. She recently served as an executive editor for the 11th edition of Architectural Graphics
Standards.
G. Wade Bevier, CSI, CCS, LEED AP is a specifications writer with the architectural firm of Schenkel & Shultz,
Inc. located in Raleigh, NC. Mr. Bevier is the past president of the CSI Raleigh-Durham Chapter and is currently
the Vice President of the CSI Southeast Region and is one of its Institute Directors. He is also a member of the
Sustainable Facilities Task Team involved in the development of the GreenFormat soon to be released by the
Institute.
Phil Steinberg, CSI, CDT, AIA is a principal architect with Braun & Steidl Architects with offices in Akron and
Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Steinberg manages the office’s specifications department and specializes in hospitality design
and historical preservation projects. He is a former president of the Akron-Canton chapter of CSI and the Akron
Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, currently chairs the CSI Great Lakes Region Technical Committee,
and is president-elect of the Akron Chapter of the America Institute of Architects.
27 of 27