Re: multiple bid packages
Rather than your concept, personnally, I'd add another parameter to the sheets for "Bid Package, and sort by that in the Drawing List. I'd save/archive a PDF/DWF set at each issuance for record, and then keep on in the same model.
Aaron Maller could probably give some serious pointers on the linked file apprach, but I've explained my personal approach to this project.
Re: multiple bid packages
We have done several multiple bid package projects and we do it as Scott suggests. In this process, you have seperate sheets and views for each bid package.
One thing to remember is that if you modify model items from BP1 in the BP2 package, you are also modifying the BP1 drawings and at some time, these should be reflected as revisions (bulletins) in the BP1 package.
Re: multiple bid packages
I'm not sure this method will work for me...
When we put out multiple bid packages, each package has its own addendum and revisions. So Package 1, addendum 1
Package 2, addendum 1
If all the bid packages are in the same file, then the revisions won't work correctly because as soon as I issue revision 1, I won't have the option to use revision 1 for the second or third bid package.
As soon as I need to make a change to an earlier bid package I'd have to go back and recreate my drawing list (which sheets are excluded, which revision is on the sheet).
This, I think is just the downside of doing multiple bid packages, and why as architects, we don't like doing them. Coordinating each package is a nightmare.
So while saving out to PDF for each package works for the first release of the package, I'm not quite understanding how it'll help when I need to make revisions to different bid packages, or how it will keep my project packages separate, but organized and coordinated.
I should also mention that we make a separate coversheet for each Package.
Re: multiple bid packages
There are a lot of questions that come in to play before you pick on which method you want to go with, so heres a few things:
1. Are all the "packages" going to be the "same" drawings, just updated, or entirely different sets of drawings?
2. Graphically- What do you want the other (earlier) packages to look like, when you issue a later package?
Heres a few things on the various solutions, i apologize in advance if im brief, im jammed up today:
You can use Phases (v1) successfully, and you can use Links (v2) successfully. You can also use neither, and just have different titleblocks, as Scott suggests (v3). (Those are not in order of preference). Revisions wont matter at all, assuming you use Revision Numbers by Sheet. If you use "Revision 1" you just wont call it "Revision 1," youll call it "Stl Pge- Rev 1", and it will be number 1 on the corrects sheets. After that gets issues, youll have :"Bldg Pge- Rev 1" and it will be number 1 on ITS sheets. So revisions can come out of the equation. Things you DONT want to use for this: Worksets, Design Options, Model Groups. They dont have filtering capabilities in EVERY drawing youll need, each... And theyre just not the best tools for the job.
(v1)- Phases- Scotts approach of just using different titleblocks, and modeling everything in one phase, works... As long as you dont need particular things MISSING from the earlier package drawings. (Like, for some reason... if you needed Elevations to show complex stepped footing / design elements, without the building). Then you have two choices: V3 with Filters to turn off the later packages, or Revit Phasing. I tend to NOT use Phasing for things like this (i use them for overall phasing of construction), but i also tend not to work in mutiple bid packages. You CAN use them for this, itll work. Comes with the added benefit of being in one file. The downside to Filters is it means being meticulous about putting in data in to a parameter, for EVERY object in a particular phase, and then setting up the filters, which is easy. If it were me and i had to pick between those two, id go with Phases. In any of these cases, youll have to number your sheets accordingly, since you cant use the same number twice (in two packages).
(v2). You can use Links, and they WILL work, but im not sure youll get the best ROI in this situation. Keynotes dont read across files. You can now (2011) tag everything (except rooms) in the Linked files, although i still personally endorse the old By Linked View method instead. (It makes more sense to me, to be annotating and modeling in the same model, workflow wise, for the designers). But, the Linking itself adds very little to this process, except for letting you keep different sheets with the same numbers in different models. It adds the complexity of dealing with annotating across the linked files (ASSUMING you need intelligent notes (keynotes) touching different packages, like a foundation note in the building model, for instance). Other than that, the links will give you whatever flexibility you need to control things graphically (with view templates and/or linked views), but then you have to decide if theyre all phased together, or if you want to use Links AND Phases, or just Links.
The question of links for THIS use also presupposes that there isnt a need for Links elsewhere... say because of the size of the project. If its 500k SF, id break it up in to geographic links anyway, which makes links for "construction sequencing" much less appealing.
My knee jerk reaction, not knowing more about the project specifics, is not to use links as a method for controlling the documents in bid packages. I would double-letter-discipline-designator the sheets, (like from the NCS: AE, AJ, etc) to deal with the sheet numbers, and id go with Scotts method, AND possibly Phasing. If it were me, in this case id probably use Phasing. It makes setting the drawings and views up, easier. (I also recommend renaming the Phases. We have nothing called "New Construction" in ours, thats confusing, when placed next to Phase Filters.
I also agree with what Scott mentioned: Its imperitive that the model get backed up and DFC'd everytime sheets get issued from either package. Things happen, mistakes get made. Something will vanish that youll need for a package revision downstream, no matter which method you use.
Re: multiple bid packages
Quote:
Originally Posted by
twiceroadsfool
..., i apologize in advance if im brief,... .
THAT was "brief"!?!?!? LOL!!!
Re: multiple bid packages
I'm trying to work through this. Thanks for the tips. Now, what do you do when you have the same sheet in more than one bid package, i.e. a site plan, or foundation plan. Or in other words, what do you do when you have the same sheet number for different bid packages? Another good example is the Cover sheet. It is the same sheet number in multiple packages.
Re: multiple bid packages
As i said, you either learn to prefix them, or you go with one of the routes that puts the documentation in different files.
I prefix them, and put them in the same file, in a case just like this one. You may need to revise a cover sheet, or something, so its not worth the workarounds to try using one sheet for many. Just eat the difference and make them different sheets, with a 2 digit discipline designator.
Re: multiple bid packages
Quote:
Originally Posted by
twiceroadsfool
As i said, you either learn to prefix them, or you go with one of the routes that puts the documentation in different files.
I prefix them, and put them in the same file, in a case just like this one. You may need to revise a cover sheet, or something, so its not worth the workarounds to try using one sheet for many. Just eat the difference and make them different sheets, with a 2 digit discipline designator.
We already use the two letter sheet designation. So either I'm using them incorrectly, or we could use them differently to handle this scenario.
For example, we have our architectural site plans as AS101. But we'd use this sheet number if it were in the site package or the building package. Or we have our roof plan as AE103, for both the structural steel package and the building package. However, we may not show all the architectural details in the structural steel package, and therefore the sheets will be showing more information or less information, but referencing the same model.
Maybe this is getting more into office policies and less about Revit, but it'd still be good to have an idea how to handle this.
Re: multiple bid packages
Well as far as office policy is considered (or the job policy), what will happen to the VERSION of AE103 in the Structural Steel package, if it needs to be revised after the Building package goes out? Will it then have all of the details from the Building package? Or is it still a completely different sheet, and you just want it to have the same number?
If its really the SAME sheet, evolving, then fine... Have it be the same sheet, with one sheet number, and whatever. But that means it doesnt go back to the earlier version ever.
If its a different sheet.... Make it a different sheet. Find a way to add another prefix, or suffix, or something. I didnt realize you already use both digits... Adding a prefix will make for awfully long sheet numbers in the callout heads.
I gues sin consideration of that, you may look at the alternatives listed above. As i said, i personally would use Phases, given all the information outlined above. But, i also have an extra letter available, so i wouldnt bother trying to make the sheets the same number. If i had to, id switch the strategy to Links.
