Do you review drawings? what does a good set of drawings look like to you?

[Paul Munford]

This goes out to Architects, Engineers and designers who review drawings from other companies - eg. Contractors.

What fills you full of joy when you open a set of drawings? What fills you full of dread!

Id really love to get your feedback on what you look for in a set of submittal drawings.

Thanks in advance for your time.

Paul

[Norton_cad]

That depends on the result required?

[StDoodle]

My pet peeve is when I ask a simple and direct question on my drawings as a sub-contractor / manufacturer, such as "verify dimension from face of pier to face of typical masonry" and get back a response of "see architectural drawings." Really, I never thought to look.... I'm sure that during the many hours I poured over your drawings, I simply missed the clearly labeled information I need. If something is a design issue, the architect should really be able to provide simple information. If it's a matter of field conditions, have the GC check. But often, no one wants to take responsibility, and we all know which direction on the sloped earth excrement travels in.

[Paul Munford]

@StDoodle

So would you say that you want to feel confident that the drawings you are reviewing have already been coordinated and verified before you receive them (or at least have it noted when a site survey is still to be carried out).

[Norton_cad]

Well in Acad, I'm looking for a drawing that opens quickly, follows a layer structure, and a drawing numerical sequence,. To name a few.
In Revit, I'm looking for, more features. Also rendered images have those own quality test. It depends...

[StDoodle]

@StDoodle

So would you say that you want to feel confident that the drawings you are reviewing have already been coordinated and verified before you receive them (or at least have it noted when a site survey is still to be carried out).

My dread is the infamous "verify in field." It never says who should verify, and as a manufacturer, that's never supposed to be us. Honestly, a good 30% of my markup review headaches would probably be gone if, every time such a note was added, it said who is responsible and had an indication of when they planned to do so (or were required to). That would give me a much better idea of whether or not it should be examined further at this time (if markups indicate we'll only get such field-verification a week before ship date, effort needs to be made to supply a product that could be field-cut to work in a variety of conditions; if this isn't possible, it'd be nice to know so we can push for more information or find a different way to deal with things).

Also, I've seen, in he past five years, maybe two sets of markup drawings where it was immediately obvious which level / company had done them. If everyone could either initial their notes, use a distinct color scheme, whatever, that would greatly simplify many things.

[jaberwok]

My dread is the infamous "verify in field." It never says who should verify, and as a manufacturer, that's never supposed to be us. Honestly, a good 30% of my markup review headaches would probably be gone if, every time such a note was added, it said who is responsible and had an indication of when they planned to do so (or were required to). That would give me a much better idea of whether or not it should be examined further at this time (if markups indicate we'll only get such field-verification a week before ship date, effort needs to be made to supply a product that could be field-cut to work in a variety of conditions; if this isn't possible, it'd be nice to know so we can push for more information or find a different way to deal with things).

Also, I've seen, in he past five years, maybe two sets of markup drawings where it was immediately obvious which level / company had done them. If everyone could either initial their notes, use a distinct color scheme, whatever, that would greatly simplify many things.

Ah, the infamous "Cut to fit on site and weld" -type note.

[CAtDiva]

My dread is the infamous "verify in field." It never says who should verify, and as a manufacturer, that's never supposed to be us. Honestly, a good 30% of my markup review headaches would probably be gone if, every time such a note was added, it said who is responsible and had an indication of when they planned to do so (or were required to). That would give me a much better idea of whether or not it should be examined further at this time (if markups indicate we'll only get such field-verification a week before ship date, effort needs to be made to supply a product that could be field-cut to work in a variety of conditions; if this isn't possible, it'd be nice to know so we can push for more information or find a different way to deal with things).

Also, I've seen, in he past five years, maybe two sets of markup drawings where it was immediately obvious which level / company had done them. If everyone could either initial their notes, use a distinct color scheme, whatever, that would greatly simplify many things.

When something needs to be verified in the field, it is the responsibility of field personnel to make that verification. As the architect, our responsibility is generally limited to design intent - we are not responsible for going out onto the jobsite to physically (particularly as our clients often don't want to pay for CA services in the first place). I agree that it's also not necessarily the manufacturer's responsibility (unless they are also the installing subcontractor). So the GC needs to make sure the verification is done - whether they delegate that on to someone else is out of the architect/engineer's hands.

[Paul Munford]

That depends on the result required?

Your result or my result?

My best result is to get my drawings passed by you with as little Red ink as possible!

I'd like to know what result you require?

[dkoch]

This goes out to Architects, Engineers and designers who review drawings from other companies - eg. Contractors.

What fills you full of joy when you open a set of drawings? What fills you full of dread!

Id really love to get your feedback on what you look for in a set of submittal drawings.

Thanks in advance for your time.

Paul

Comments from an architect:

1. The most joy comes from reviewing a submittal where it is obvious that the submitter has actually looked at our drawings and has incorporated the design intent into their own, more detailed drawings.

2. I dread submittals that consist of our drawings (in whole or in parts) sent back to us. I already know what we drew, and even in the best of circumstances, what we show is design intent, not shop-drawing level detail or development. Simply sending me what I issued to you is not a submittal; I expect to see your detailed knowledge of your specific product or fabrication as it applies to this project, and, when applicable, how your specific product works with the surrounding construction and what requirements, if any, your work needs from the surrounding construction.

3. I also dread submittals that show excruciatingly detailed internal construction, but give little or no indication of how that product or fabrication interacts with the surrounding construction. I have no objection to detailed internal construction - it may be very necessary on your end - but I want to see that you understand what the surrounding construction is (or how you need it to be) and how your product/fabrication integrates into it (including fastenings, joints/clearances/tolerances). I understand that some of that is not part of your contract - great, note it as such, but show it none-the-less. If the joint has to be bigger than what was shown in the design documents, show it and indicate why. I would rather deal with this in the submittal phase, than learn about it in the field, after it is already installed.

4. If there are questions about the design intent, or areas where the "typical" design intent does not apply or needs to be modified, clearly ask the questions and/or clearly indicate areas where you have made your best attempt to meet the design intent or where you need additional direction from us. My drawings are not always 100% perfect. The time/staff available for some projects does not allow every condition to be fully developed/detailed in the design documents. That said, it makes my review ever so much easier if areas where assumptions had to be made, where questions exist or additional direction is required are clearly marked as such. And while I have been known to grumble about questions that are clearly answered in the documents, I will gladly forgive quite a few of those if all questions are clearly identified so I can focus on those areas.

5. Another source of joy when reviewing submittals is when the submittal set is well organized and details and sections are appropriately cross-referenced not only within the submittal set but also back to my set. I really hate having to guess to what part of the project each item in the submittal applies, or what detail of mine was the supposed basis for a detail in the submittal. On smaller jobs, it may be possible to sort it out, but even there it takes more of my time that could be better spent reviewing the submittal. On larger jobs, it can be next to impossible to sort out, making the review difficult, adding to the red ink and increasing the odds that I will need to ask for a resubmission.

6. On larger projects, it is often necessary to break the submittal for a particular trade into several "chunks" that get sent in separately. I have no problem with that (in fact, I would prefer it to having the drawings held until all are done, and then sent in with a request to rush the review so production can get underway), but it is greatly appreciated if the first submittal can include some sort of indication of the overall scope of the entire submittal, with a clear delineation of what is being included in the first set. This saves me from guessing as to whether more will be submitted later, or if parts of the project were just missed. It also saves me from listing the missing bits and asking that they also be submitted.