Owner/Architecure/Sub Contractors... etc. behaviour/practices

[DoTheBIM]

Not sure where this should get posted as it pertains to Revit/AutoCAD/collaboration/legal/etc. Feel free to move it as needed.

We have a project where we are the sub contractor for for a sizeable wood framed building. There was an insane requirement to show a shop drawing of a sheer wall construction which was already clearly detailed/speced in the architectural set. So rather than try to understand why they need a duplicate of some elses work on our border, we went ahead and duplicated said detail among others. Prior to this we were graced with a full set of drawings in DWG format and PDF format... Besides all the the badly coordinated information accross drawings and within the same drawings... It was clear that this project was produced on AutoCAD or some other non/BIM like product. I went ahead and wblocked the architect's detail and modified a few things to make it fit and make sense... and linked it into Revit for our border. Done can move on to more constructive things to do. Well after 2 weeks we finally got back that it's not acceptable to replicate the existing drawings due to some legal speak reasons. Is this the norm out there in large building construction? You have to not only replicate something but draw it from scratch to get approval? I could have done this and made it look exactly like their drawing without knowing they'd have a problem with it and you would not be able to tell who drew what. And then we'd be arguing about who drew what. What a waste of time. I guess they want the same exact info in different line weights and different fonts... I don't have a clue. I don't understand what purpose this behavior serves. According to the legal speak it had something to do with legal protection of someone but I don't see it. What a waste I say. Bring on IPD.

[david_peterson]

Well we used to required the same thing.
The main reason for you to redraw it, is that it requires you to check for mistakes. If you can redraw it off the paper copy, for 1 you should be able to figure out how to build it. Also, if the first guy missed a dimension or cheated a dimension you'd catch it. Also, the First guy did all the work. He may not be getting paid for it.
Most of this comes from a liability stand point. We've now changed and charge the contractor a small (very small) fee for our drawings, and in turn make him sign a waiver that says (in a sense) my construction drawings are nothing more than a guide line for how to construct the building, and what we require to be in it. It also says that our drawings will contain errors and omissions and that we are not going to be liable for them. In other words "Here's the drawings, use them at your own risk".
There is also a legal statement that the drawings (cad or Bim) that we created belong to us and you can't use them, or distribute them with out our permission. Again, why should you get paid for creating them when all you did was copy them. (This is based on contract language, who is required to do what). I believe most of this was based on what would happen in the old hand drafting days, when changing a dimension instead of re-drawing something was the norm. Use the dimensions, don't use a scale.
Again, making shop produce shop drawings, will eliminate most of the errors and omissions that are typically in a set of drawings, by either the shop clouding a drawing asking for a dimension or an RFI type process. Now with the BIM model this gets even nastier.

[DoTheBIM]

Yuck. That's just messed up big time. Legal sure does get in the way of progress. Here I was wondering if a change of scenery to a larger firm would help. Maybe it would.... then I could leave all kinds of errors and ommissions and not be liable for them. At first glance we we're fairly impressed with the drawings untill we tried to design any of our wall panels from the dimensions/cad files and found dimensions missing, dimensions to nothing, dimensions that have text edited (what mess that causes), window/door tags messed up and on different drawings... etc. If we'd have to wait for 2 weeks every time we sent an RFI (which is a riduculous process in itself) we'd never hit a date that we said we would. I'm totally baffled by this experience (and I'm not even on the front line), although it is one of our first... so admittedly I guess we were sheltered from the norm a bit which just adds to the baffling. Even "our" customers/salesmen get totally frustrated with sending in changes to us. They want to call us on the phone voice their changes and have their plans in a day or two. They'd just give up building if they had to go through an RFI process yet. Do they teach all this "how to make a project longer/harder" stuff at college too?
Again, why should you get paid for creating them when all you did was copy them. Becuase we don't produce installation drawings. We produce shop drawings. That seems to be the problem I guess. What the architect/owner is calling shop drawings are really installation drawings. As well as the problem of the Architect thinking it was going to be stick built and they find out that it's panelized and we're requesting that they review our shop drawings that they requested we produce :?.... etc... what a mess, guess I'll keep my distance for now. Fortunately I can at this point. Wonder if the mechanical (not buildings)/civil or another field might be less CYA intensive.

[david_peterson]

Ahh, mechanical is the worst. I can't put a hole in my slab without it changing. I've never placed them correctly because they are so far behind us that they aren't finish designing until our steel in 1/2 up and the slabs are poured.
Not everything has to follow the formal RFI type process. When we get in shop drawings that aren't correct or aren't even close, I've rejected whole sets at times because they didn't pay attention to ANYTHING we gave them. 500 pieces of steel and not one had the correct connection. If you are the EOR and the building falls down, you're the first one to be sued, not the guy that fabricated it, not the guy that put it up, not the guy that torched a hole though your beam for a pipe and didn't tell you about it. You, The EOR. That's part of the reason. The firm that I work for (at least on the structural side) doesn't usually have many errors or omissions. Yes I do have them, there's no such thing as a perfect set of drawings. Most of are the errors are corrected directly on the shops, sent back and hopefully picked up by the detailier. In general we'll send back a response to an RFI with in 24 hrs. We don't generally make the shop or field guys wait.
I've also been on projects where we gave our drawings to the Fabricator, along with all our details (They signed he waiver). They copied the details and didn't follow them when it came to how things were connected. I spent 415+ hours marking up shop drawings with the exact same note every time. I was nice enough to only reject 4 rolls of them. Later I came to find out that the detailer never fixed the shops and pieces were fabricated & shpped incorrectly. Wrong size welds, missing bolts, wrong paint finish......you get the idea.
I guess my point is, some shops will ask for the drawings knowing that stuff is wrong and try to point that out and fix it based on what they feel you intended. Some shops won't give a **** what you put on the drawings, they fabricate and erect steel their way and they don't want to use your design. They ask for the loads and we won't give them out. We are slightly different than many other firms because we do design all of our own connections. We're willing to change and allow for some change, but the shop must then prove that it works. I've spent tons of time creating a great Bim model, I haven't found a shop yet that even wants it.

[cliff collins]

It would be wise to first consult with legal counsel, develop an IPD strategy with Owners and Contractors and then move into new roles and responsibilities--not the other way around.


cheers......

[david_peterson]

See attached image, and tell me why an engineer wasn't called.
In case you're wondering, that's not the little distribution rib, that's the center span of 20' long joist.

[cliff collins]

Yep--

That's why we are pushing for IPD and use of BIM with Structural and MEP early in design phases to catch this stuff during design, not when it's too late.

cheers.......

[david_peterson]

Yep--

That's why we are pushing for IPD and use of BIM with Structural and MEP early in design phases to catch this stuff during design, not when it's too late.

cheers.......
Well that all depends now doesn't it. Are you doing (ie on contract for) and IDP or a standard contract? I'd love to have a General Contractor, Fabricator can MEP Contractor all on board before I start, but the projects I work are a little hard to keep their attention for 3yrs before the hole is in the ground. Smaller projects yes, Large, highly designed, user specific buildings take to long, and have to many owner driven changes. I've see the "Tender" Drawing method from across the pond. Trust me, Big fan. But that type of design work is just starting to get legs on over here. Design build has been around for a while, but that's not quite the same.

[cliff collins]

From my previous post:

"It would be wise to first consult with legal counsel, develop an IPD strategy with Owners and Contractors and then move into new roles and responsibilities--not the other way around."

i.e. you bet, IPD radically changes the whole contractual structure and profit center.
New AIA Documents are available, attorneys can use those, ammend those, or create custom contracts which are project specific.

Brave New World. Hold onto your hat. But don't get left behind, either!

cheers............

[DoTheBIM]

I meant mechanical as in drawing widgets. But yes there's always 2 points of view... I see yours and don't dispute it, but there's got to be something else that time can be wasted on rather than CYA ****. Interesting though that 2 complete different ways of looking at something can be so similar overall. I can tell you've had your fair share of idiocies as have we. I wasn't trying to imply that shops should get perfect plans but some level of quick check (and pride) should have caught dimensions that don't line up with anything... I'm not talking one or two dims on an e-size sheet, I'm talking a whole quarter of an e-size sheet blow up detail and none of the dims pointed to anything, single windows tagged as doubles (vice versa), interferences of windows with cabinEts "ILLUSTRATED" on the details clearly showing that the countertop is above the window sill.... I just can't fathom how something like that gets released for construction. I bet the counter top gets built and installed above the window, or worse we have to reframe and install smaller windows, becuase we never got a response back when we questioned it and clearly note the problem on our plans. Ah well. Thanks for entertaining my rant. I don't have much hope for IPD when plans are released knowing that there are errors/ommisions when the mindset for years has been "someone will fix it later"... Although I wouldn't mind being involve in an IPD project to see how it fuctions and evolves.

[david_peterson]

I'm on that same page, I'd love to do one, but you need to have one heck of a good sales pitch IMHO. As for the drawings you've received, just like the Space Shuttle, 200,000 moving parts, made by the lowest bidder.
Our typical problems come more from either owner driven changes late in the game and our MEP guys waiting until after they release CD's before they really start their design. Not sure if this is typical practice for them, but it seems to be from where I stand. They'd rather create a massive CB that replaces just about every sheet than try to keep up and design it side by side. They just sit, throw a dart at the wall and wait for everything to stop changing. Problem is (even it was an IPD project) by the time they get down to brass tacks and finalize their design, Rebar shops have been done, holes have been dug, concrete has been place and steel starts to show up on site. If Joe contractor hasn't been told it's going to happen this way, the change orders fly and the client gets mad. If Joe knows it's going to happen and accepts it, he can plan for it. The better the communication is on a project, no matter how you deliver it, the better.
Before I mentioned the way things seem to work across the pond. You issue a tender drawing (think design development) while under contract from the owner. Then the owner hires a contractor, the contractor hires you back and tells you how he wants to build it. You finish the design and shops for the contractor to send to fabrication and the contractor takes responsibility. Or at least that's the way it seems to have worked on my last 2 projects over there. This way the contractor gets what he wants, the engineer doesn't have to worry about checking shops, the owner gets what they want, and the EOR is on actively working on the project to fix any issues that come up, but the Contractor not the Arch holds the prime at that point so if he screws something up, it's his issue to fix and can't really pin it back on the EOR or the Arch. Joe Contractor actually has to review the drawings. Which on every project I've done in the state, they seem to just have the either the reception person, or the mail clerk stamp the cover sheet and say they got it.