CSI Dynamic Standards FAQ

What is The Construction Standard, and what is its relationship to CSI?

The Construction Standard is the authorized commercial licensing channel for CSI's standards: MasterFormat®, UniFormat®, and OmniClass®. It is operated by Construction Information Network, LLC (CIN), a for-profit LLC that began operating publicly under The Construction Standard brand in July 2025. The company was originally incorporated as Construction Information Network, LLC in January 2020 in Alexandria, Virginia.

What is the history of the relationship between CSI and CIN?

CIN (Construction Information Network, LLC) is the for-profit entity that operates as The Construction Standard (TCS). It is not new:
 
  • In 2018–2019, the CSI Board of Directors launched “Project Dynamo” and a “Construction Information Exchange” concept aimed at modern, interoperable classification services.
  • In May 2020, CSI launched “Project Dynamo” as Crosswalk to integrate CSI standards into software via an API. This accelerated the licensing of CSI standards (MasterFormat, UniFormat, OmniClass) into multiple software platforms. Concurrently, CSI formed CIN as a for-profit LLC to license the standards for broader digital delivery, to mitigate risk to CSI, and to enable development.
  • In July 2025, CSI brought in a software-development partner; CSI retained significant control, and “The Construction Standard” became the operating name/brand. The products and services have been developed with feedback from testers (architects, engineers, specifiers).
  • For more on the vision and mission of CIN, visit theconstructionstandard.com

Please describe the difference between the roles of CSI and TCS and how they work together?

CSI (Construction Specifications Institute) remains the owner and steward of the standards. The Construction Standard's role is to make those standards more useful in modern workflows: current, connected, and easier to use across the full project lifecycle. CSI and TCS work in close partnership: CSI continues to govern the standards while The Construction Standard focuses on authorized access, licensing, distribution, and delivery.

Are there examples of other nonprofit organizations that have for-profit entities?

Yes, this is a common model used to support innovation while preserving the nonprofit mission. The ASME, UL, ICC are just a few examples of nonprofits that operate for-profit subsidiaries to among other things leverage new technologies for the advantage of members.

Why did CSI decide to invest in a for-profit entity?

Similar to other nonprofits, we realized the benefits to our members of setting up a for-profit structure to leverage technology. The for-profit structure was designed to enable greater investment in technology development capacity and move development and distribution costs to TCS. A separate for-profit entity mitigates financial and operational risk to CSI as a nonprofit. This change will improve development capacity and also shift expenses to TCS, allowing CSI to focus on standards stewardship and governance while TCS handles licensing, distribution, and platform development.

Does CSI control The Construction Standard (TCS)? 

While CSI does not control TCS’s operations, it maintains significant influence through its ownership of the standards and its role in guiding how they are delivered.

CSI retains full ownership and control of its standards, including how they are developed, maintained, and licensed. That has not changed.

The Construction Standard (TCS) operates as a separate entity focused on delivering the digital platform and tools that make those standards more accessible and usable. This structure allows each organization to focus on its strengths—CSI as the steward of the standards, and TCS as the provider of the technology.

This separation helps enable faster innovation and specialized expertise while ensuring the integrity of the standards remains with CSI.

Why is something that CSI used to control now managed by TCS?

CSI has not given up control of its standards—the standards themselves remain fully owned, governed, and developed by CSI.

What has changed is how those standards are delivered. The Construction Standard (TCS) was established to provide the digital platform, tools, and infrastructure needed to modernize access and usability. This shift allows CSI to focus on its core role as the steward of the standards, while TCS focuses on technology and delivery.

This separation was intentional. Delivering modern, connected, and contemporary standards requires specialized expertise, investment, and speed that are better supported through a dedicated technology-focused entity. By partnering in this way, CSI can maintain control of the content while enabling better tools and faster innovation for users.

Has TCS invested more in technology development?

Yes. One of the primary reasons for establishing TCS was to enable greater investment in technology development than CSI could support on its own. This increased investment is what allows for faster innovation, more robust tools, and a better overall user experience.

Why is CSI moving to more frequent updates?

Industry stakeholders—including government, contractors, trade organizations and related manufacturers, engineers, design professionals, and specifiers—consistently told CSI that changes to standards are too infrequent, forcing firms to create workarounds when they would prefer to work with CSI to update. The CDS platform is designed to support regular releases - targeting annual updates initially, with the goal of quarterly updates once the existing backlog of proposals has cleared. The connected digital format makes this possible.

Is CSI still a non-profit organization?

Yes. CSI has always been, and remains, a tax-exempt not-for-profit 501(c)(6) organization. TCS is a separate for-profit LLC that licenses and delivers the standards. 

Does CSI feel the communications process for introducing the CSI Dynamic Standards was a good one?

No. We recognize the communications were lacking and that the rollout of the changes was incomplete, leaving many unanswered questions. We are truly sorry and are working to make improvements with more frequently updated FAQs and more dedicated and responsive communications.

Who owns the copyright to MasterFormat, UniFormat, and OmniClass?

CSI (Construction Specifications Institute) owns all three. MasterFormat®, UniFormat®, and OmniClass® are copyrighted works and registered trademarks of CSI. The Construction Standard is authorized by CSI to provide licensed commercial access to these standards. CSI still owns the standards.

Who updates the CSI standards going forward?

Maintenance and updates to MasterFormat, UniFormat, and OmniClass continue to be performed by CSI volunteers and staff through CSI's established consensus-based process — the same model that has always been in place. This is consistent with how major standards bodies like ASTM and NFPA operate: volunteer subject-matter experts propose additions, revisions, and reclassifications under agreements that assign their contributions to CSI. The Construction Standard's role is delivery and licensing of those standards.

What is the benefit of more frequent updates compared to a static PDF updated less often?

More frequent updates ensure that you are working with the most current, accurate, and relevant information. Instead of waiting years for a new edition, updates can reflect industry changes, fill gaps, and respond to user feedback in a timely manner.

This reduces the risk of using outdated standards, minimizes rework, and helps teams make better decisions. At the same time, version control ensures that individual projects can remain tied to a stable standard, providing consistency where it’s needed.

If TCS is now selling the standards, why should I still be a member of CSI?

There are substantial benefits to CSI membership. And remember, membership remains individual, not firm-based. The benefits of individual CSI membership include:
 
  • Community and professional network: chapters, regions, and national events that connect specifiers and construction information professionals
  • Discounted access to education, professional development, and CSI certifications (CDT, CCS, CCPR, and others)
  • Preferred (discounted) CDS pricing for CSI members: member pricing tiers are available for firms with $10MM or less in annual revenue
  • Participation in shaping faster, more frequent standards updates through CSI's volunteer committee process
  • Being part of the stewardship body that governs the standards the entire AECO industry depends on.

Why are you now charging for the standards when they used to be free?

We have always charged for the modern standards, what has changed is the introduction of the annual subscription model. It is possible to register for a free lookup account. Visit theconstructionstandard.com for more information.

Why are you charging for something that was designed by volunteers?

While volunteers develop the standards, there are real costs to support, maintain, and deliver them—especially in a modern digital platform. This includes technology, updates, quality control, and ongoing improvements.

Charging for access ensures the standards remain current, reliable, and sustainable, while continuing to support the volunteer-driven process behind them.

Will there be lower-cost options for individuals who need limited access to the standards?

Yes. Member-specific pricing tiers are available.

Where can I find more information about licensing and pricing? 

Key resources:
 



Ownership, Governance, and Structural Authority

Who owns CIN (The Construction Standard), and can any CSI board member or employee personally profit from it?

CSI owns just under 50% of CIN, with contractual protections – including the right to block any sale to an outside party, which exceeds what an ownership percentage of that size would normally carry. CIN’s controlling owner is 18Below LLC, CSI’s software development partner which CSI engaged in July 2025. CIN is a privately held company, and any disclosures are at CIN’s option and subject to non-disclosure agreements with CIN. CSI does not publish the equity holdings of private investors beyond what is stated here. All disbursements from CIN to CSI accrue to CSI as an organization. No CSI Board member or employee receives revenues from CIN.

What authority does CSI hold over CIN, and what does the CSI-CIN agreement actually govern?

CSI owns MasterFormat®, UniFormat®, and OmniClass® and other CSI copyrighted standards and publications (collectively “CSI Works”) and related trademarks (“CSI Marks”) and licenses them to CIN – ownership never transferred. The license agreement, reviewed by the Board, independent legal counsel, and auditors, sets the terms of that arrangement. The commercial terms are confidential, which is standard practice for such agreements.

CSI does not run CIN’s day-to-day operations. CSI's control comes from what it owns and from specific rights granted in the agreement between CSI and CIN: 

  1. CSI holds a board seat on CIN and has designated the CEO to serve in that position.
    • Although not required, the CSI Board receives regular briefings from CIN. 
  2. CSI owns the CSI Works and the CSI Marks outright and licenses them for certain periods of time and on conditions.
  3. CSI holds contractual minority protections, including consent rights over any sale; and it retains full governance of the CSI Works themselves, meaning CSI retains control of CSI Work content, updates, and the consensus process.

This is similar to how CSI sits on the CSI Foundation’s board without running the Foundation day-to-day. 

What happens to the Standards if CIN fails financially? Does ownership of MasterFormat revert to CSI, or could it be sold to a third party?

Ownership of the Standards never left CSI, so there’s nothing to revert. If CIN were to fail financially, the license agreement would be terminated, and CSI would keep the Standards and could license them elsewhere. CIN can’t sell the Standards because it doesn’t own them, and CIN itself can’t be sold – in whole or in part, to anyone – without CSI’s approval.

What formal board action approved CIN, and can members see the records?

The CSI Board of Directors unanimously authorized CIN’s formation on December 4, 2019 and approved the 2025 licensing partnership, both with independent legal counsel involved. Board minutes aren’t published outside the Board, consistent with Maryland law.

CSI makes annual reports, governing policies (including strategic direction, financial statements, and organizing documents) available at Governance - Construction Specifications Institute. Further, CSI has received their Platinum Seal of Transparency from Guidestar/Candid. Members with a question about a specific action can raise it directly with the Board Chair.

When and how were members told about the changes before the February 13 launch?

The broader initiative – CIN, Crosswalk, modernizing standards delivery – was described for years in CSI annual reports and CSI national conferences. The specific licensing terms and pricing were not effectively communicated ahead of the launch in the way members deserved. CSI has said publicly following the launch and again here: the communications to members were lacking, the rollout was incomplete, and we are sorry.

Who authorized CSI’s current litigation, and is member or licensing revenue funding it?

The Board authorized these actions, as it has both the responsibility and authority to take to protect CSI’s standards. Both matters are public record, and neither is against a CSI member or customer. Beyond that, CSI can’t disclose litigation strategy, internal deliberations, vote-by-vote records, case-level spending, or budgets for future litigation while the cases are still pending, as doing so would damage CSI’s legal position and violate the Board’s duty to protect the Institute’s assets (Policy 3.4). Protecting the CSI Works and CSI Marks is not optional; an organization that does not defend its intellectual property will lose both the intellectual property and the substantially valuable goodwill embodied in that intellectual property.

How is the executive bonus and deferred compensation decided, and why was there a bonus in a “loss year”?

The Board and a compensation committee decide CEO compensation using independent comparability data, and it’s reported on the Form 990. CSI’s 990s are publicly available at GuideStar/Candid. Variable compensation is tied to Board-approved performance objectives set in advance and are not linked to licensing revenue.

How are fiduciary duties balanced between nonprofit mission and for-profit revenue objectives?

Not-for-profit status limits where net earnings can be used, not whether an organization can earn revenue. State law permits a nonprofit to earn more than it spends; associations are permitted to generate greater income than expenses and still retain their nonprofit status. What the law prohibits is the distribution of earnings in the nature of a dividend, meaning net profits or surplus cannot flow to the individuals who control the organization. Revenue, surpluses, and commercial activity are all lawful so long as they serve the mission and no insider receives the residual.

What safeguards exist to prevent commercial incentives from influencing standards development? How will volunteer-driven technical committees remain insulated from revenue pressures?

The development and maintenance of the CSI Works continue to be performed by CSI volunteers and staff through CSI's established consensus-based process. CIN delivers the CSI Works; it does not write them or influence them. Volunteer technical committees answer to CSI, not to CIN, and the Board's conflict-of-interest rules (Policy 2.5) prohibit self-dealing by anyone in the governance and volunteer chains. Revenue pressure cannot dictate content because content authority and commercial delivery sit in different organizations.



Financial Transparency and Pricing

Why did CSI choose this licensing model instead of another funding approach, and did members vote on it?

The Board studied several alternatives before choosing this model. There was no member vote. Like most associations, CSI’s elected Board makes decisions like this on members’ behalf.

What led to the decision to choose this licensing model?

For years, users have consistently provided feedback that updates to the CSI works were too infrequent, including the MasterFormat pause between 2020 and 2026 (MasterFormat was released every two years, but was paused primarily due to COVID-era factors as well as resource limitations). CSI also received feedback that books and PDF forms did not fit contemporary digital workflows, and that firms were building error-prone workarounds. At the same time, CSI needed the CSI Works to become self-sustaining from a cost and revenue standpoint. There are significant costs to develop and maintain consensus standards beyond the volunteer efforts required. In the past, these costs far exceeded the revenue generated by sales of books and PDFs, and the balance was supported by other CSI revenues including member dues. This unfairly burdened CSI members, who were supporting the standards both through book sales and through membership dues, while the broader industry outside CSI membership enjoyed significant benefits (including financial benefits) from using CSI Works without meaningfully supporting them.

What share of licensing revenue comes back to CSI, and how is it used?

The exact split is confidential, as is standard for agreements like this. Proceeds from CIN are shared by CSI and its development partners; the partners built and operate the platform, and CSI is compensated as owner, licensor, and partner. What CSI receives is used to support its mission, including the development of the CSI Works, and shows up in the annual report, the independent audit, and the Form 990.

What are the projected 3–5 year licensing revenues?

Licensing revenues fall to CIN, and CIN’s forecasts are proprietary, the same way most privately-held companies don’t publish commercial projections. Actual results will appear in CSI’s published financial reporting as they’re earned.

How much has CSI invested in Crosswalk, and what has it delivered?

From FY2021 through FY2025, CIN spent $4.2 million against $2.3 million in revenue, a gap covered by Board-authorized reserves from the sale of Building Systems Design, not member dues. FY2025 was CIN’s first profitable year.

The formation of Crosswalk in 2000 accelerated licensing of CSI standards into multiple software platforms, and CSI Dynamic Standards is built on that foundation. Licensing exists to sustain the standards and drive adoption; CDS is how modern users reach them. 

What evidence will firms be required to provide to confirm revenue tier? How is the “value” determined as presented by The Construction Standard?

Revenue-tier confirmation is handled by The Construction Standard during licensing, and firm-specific questions can be sent to info@theconstructionstandard.com. You’ll also see on the TCS website that firms are asked to self-report within a range and not a specific revenue amount, as well as provide information to see if one qualifies for a CSI member price.

We recognize that the value proposition for each user and firm is unique, and The Construction Standard’s earlier effort to simplify or quantify it with one savings figure was well-intentioned but incomplete.

Enterprise licenses are priced to reflect organizational scale, consistent with the value the standards deliver across a company based on size, and specific use cases for that organization.

The value of the standards goes far beyond the simple numbering; the classification systems run throughout a project’s lifecycle from conception into facility maintenance; design standards, master guide specifications, project specifications, BIM, estimating, procurement, scheduling, project management, contract administration, asset management, and facility operations.

Well-coordinated specifications improve pricing accuracy, reduce interpretation disputes, and support fairer competition. The benefits of time and cost savings, disputes avoided, and better-performing facilities are real and significant, although impossible to quantify. 

How does this revenue-based pricing (or “value-based" pricing) navigate legal, regulatory, and antitrust considerations to avoid violating consumer protection or anti-discrimination laws?

To be clear, CIN is asking for revenue reporting within a range, not a specific revenue number. Revenue-based, organization-wide pricing is generally lawful because businesses may charge different B2B prices. For example, models used by ANSI, USGBC, Procore, and Constructionline demonstrate accepted approaches that scale fees by revenue, relevant business activity, or construction volume while extending access across the organization (See also: One Size Does Not Fit All for Standards Funding Models | X12). Scaling a business license by firm revenue is not consumer price discrimination. One might even make the case that the prior model of single-user licenses delivered through book and PDF sales benefitted large firms at the expense of smaller firms and independent specifiers.

What prevents or caps annual changes to the licensing structure once in place? How do we know the price next year won’t change?

No one can promise that prices will never change. CSI's interest, as owner and as a partner in CIN who will benefit from CIN's long-term success, is broad adoption and a sustainable model, Discounted pricing tiers for CSI members will continue, and CSI has committed to communicating any future pricing change well in advance, a direct lesson from this rollout.

How will CSI share financial reporting? Will licensing revenue be reported separately to members?

Through FY2025, CSI's audited financial statements consolidated CSI, the CSI Foundation, and CIN, with separate columns for each entity and intercompany eliminations, which is the correct presentation for related entities. Beginning in FY2026, CIN's expenses are wholly CIN's and are no longer consolidated in CSI's financials. Royalties and distributions received by CSI will appear in CSI's financial reporting, and the Form 990 will reflect related-entity transactions as the form requires; members will be able to see what CSI receives.

CSI Annual reports have been published since 2020 and will continue to be published annually. As noted previously, CSI 990s are available on Guidestar/Candid, and CSI has received the Platinum Seal of Transparency from Guidestar/Candid.



Volunteer Contributions and Intellectual Property

Were volunteers told their work could be licensed commercially, and what changes for volunteers now?

Yes. The Standards have been sold in book and PDF form for decades, and volunteer agreements have always assigned rights to CSI. Single ownership is critical in upholding the mission: if every contributor owned a piece, anyone could publish a variant, and there would be no authoritative version. This is not unlike other volunteer-supported services that come with a cost, whether local or national (e.g. chapter events, magazines, product shows, practice guides).

Why should members continue to volunteer? Will volunteers who work on MasterFormat updates need to sign over IP rights? Will they receive compensation? Is the development being turned over to an AI?

We hope and trust that the motivation to volunteer remains what it has always been: professional stature, influence over the tools of practice, and service to the industry. Volunteers who work on MasterFormat updates will continue to sign the same IP agreements and are not compensated, which is nearly universal among standards developers, including ASTM and NFPA.

Development is not being turned over to an AI: maintenance and updates continue through CSI's volunteer consensus process, and MasterFormat 2026, with 2,185 new and 617 reorganized listings, is the most substantial update in years. 

What is CSI claiming constitutes a “derivative work” in day-to-day specification practice? For example, does modifying section numbers for client needs create derivative content?

Normal professional use: organizing a project manual, keeping an internal master, marking up your own licensed copy, are normal, permitted licensed use. The line the license draws is reproducing or redistributing beyond your own licensed use. The published EULA and terms can be found at theconstructionstandard.com and unclear scenarios should be sent to info@theconstructionstandard.com.

Can I keep using MasterFormat 2020 or an earlier version I already purchased?

Yes. Your existing license isn’t being revoked or invalidated. If an earlier edition works for you, you’re covered to keep using it within the scope of its original license. Those legacy rights were never firm-wide or transferable.



Access and Practical Implementation

What distinguishes a single-user license from a firm license? How are multi-office or multi-discipline firms treated? Can one firm license cover all internal specifiers? What if I have additional questions on licensing that are specific to my firm?

For all questions related to a use case scenario and specific costs, please contact info@theconstructionstandard.com so they can work with you directly.

Will the license of single entities or firms be applied to part-time employees doing work for the license holder?

Yes. Part-time employees doing work for the license holder (firm) are covered as the license holder's users while they are doing work for the license holder firm.

If my firm uses SpecLink, MasterSpec, Conspectus Cloud, or similar tools, does that cover my license?

No, and these firms are aware this is the case. Those platforms license the standards for their own product, not on your firm’s behalf. Your firm needs its own license for its professional use of the standards, separate from any software subscription – and if a platform’s license lapses, that’s the platform’s liability, not yours.

Will MasterFormat updates be available exclusively through CSI Dynamic Standards?

Yes. MasterFormat 2026 and future updates are delivered through CSI Dynamic Standards, and CSI no longer publishes printed or PDF editions.

I don’t need the updated standards to run my practice. What is preventing me from using the 2020, 2016, or even an earlier version? I already “purchased” a license for those versions.

Nothing. If you purchased a license for the 2020, 2016, or earlier edition, you may continue running your practice on it within that license's original scope.

Does CSI membership include a MasterFormat license, and what does membership get me?

Membership and licensing have always been separate; members previously bought the book like everyone else, at member pricing, and preferential member pricing remains.

Membership gets you preferred CDS pricing plus community, region and chapter connection, education, certification discounts, professional development, and the standing to participate in CSI Works’ development and governance. The value of membership is professional; it is not a bundled license. 

What happens to existing specifications? Are firms required to obtain licenses retroactively for specifications already written and delivered to clients?

No. Specifications already written and delivered to clients do not require retroactive licensing. Projects have always fixed a specific edition of the applicable CSI Works as their static reference point, and completed work stays completed.

What about project archives? Do firms need licenses to maintain access to their own historical project documentation that references MasterFormat?

No license is needed to keep, access, or reference your own historical project documentation. CSI Dynamic Standards changes how the standards are maintained and accessed going forward, not the status of work already performed.

What happens if my firm is found using the Standards without a license? Can there be retroactive enforcement?

There is no penalty program aimed at members and no retroactive enforcement for use that was within the scope of a prior license; a system lawfully used under purchased editions is not the target.

The approach is education first, then licensing conversations. Where genuine infringement of a CSI Work or CSI Mark occurs, meaning unauthorized reproduction or redistribution of a CSI Work or unauthorized use of a CSI Mark, CSI has the ordinary remedies of any copyright and trademark owner under existing law; there is no novel retroactive theory.

CSI's ability to oversee CIN's conduct runs through the CSI-CIN license terms. The two pending cases are not against CSI members or customers. 



Communication and Trust

Why was this model not previewed to members prior to publication?

CSI treated this as a product launch when it really was a change to how the industry's shared language is accessed. That was a misjudgment of what the moment required. The initiative itself had been described for years in annual reports and on conference stages, but the licensing specifics had not, and it was a communications error on the part of CSI, and for that we have apologized to members and have worked hard to improve communications since the launch.

What internal process allowed “incomplete” information to be publicly released and what will prevent this in the future?

The launch materials went out before the answers to foreseeable questions were finished. To prevent recurrence, CSI has consolidated to one definitive set of public sources: the CSI Dynamic Standards FAQ on csiresources.org, and the pricing, terms, EULA, and FAQ pages at theconstructionstandard.com. Updates will be published there rather than improvised across channels.

Why were early clarifications issued at variance with the known as-launched and previously published intent to charge individual specifiers and firms?

Early responses were drafted while details, including the firm-level licensing model and the end-user license agreement, were still being settled, so when the answers firmed up they read as reversals. And, now, CSI and CIN are taking in feedback from a variety of customer types.

How will future policy changes affecting membership be communicated?

Material changes affecting members will be announced to the full membership through CSI's owned channels (email, the weekly newsletter, CSI Connect, and the website) and through executive summaries for members who cannot attend conferences or MSRs.

CSI is committed to publishing answers that can be shared publicly, to be direct when a question requires individual follow-up, and to avoid speculating where facts are not yet settled. 

What portions of revenue are assigned to carry the cost of additional litigation?

None. No revenue stream is earmarked for litigation. Legal costs, including intellectual property protection, are managed within the budget the Board oversees, and CSI does not disclose case-level spending or budgets for future litigation while matters are pending.

What portions of revenue are assigned to carry the cost of enforcement?

No revenue stream is earmarked for “enforcement.” Most often, copyright or trademark infringement is successfully handled by staff or minimal legal engagement. Enforcement of the licensing model is CIN's operational responsibility as licensee. CSI's legal spending is visible, at the appropriate level, in the audited financial statements.