Standard revision sequence

[fjtdogeno]

Hi Guys i don't know if this is the forum that i can raise my problem. Anyway just to ask if anyone have the international guidlines for revision numbering system. The current standard of my company right now with regards to the subject is like this.

Schematic Design - revision sequence is NUMERICAL
Design Development - revision sequence is NUMERICAL
Tender Package - revision sequence is ALPHABETICAL
Construction Drawings - revision sequence is ALPHABETICAL

What my point is that the first 3 items mentioned above the revision sequence must be alphabetical and the last one (Construction Drawings) should numerical. Is anyone here can suggest? But much better if i can have the international guidlines for this that someone can share.

Thanks,
Benjie

[BlackBox]

This is a bit confusing to me:

The current standard of my company right now with regards to the subject is like this.

Schematic Design - revision sequence is NUMERICAL
Design Development - revision sequence is NUMERICAL
Tender Package - revision sequence is ALPHABETICAL
Construction Drawings - revision sequence is ALPHABETICAL

What my point is that the first 3 items mentioned above the revision sequence must be alphabetical and the last one (Construction Drawings) should numerical.

FWIW - we use addendums (numerically) for all plan changes during pre-construction plan modifications, however, once the project goes to construction we remove all addendum notation, and issue revisions (alphabetically) as needed.

Edit - The addendums are only issued after the plans go out for bid, but before going out for construction.

HTH

[fjtdogeno]

This is a bit confusing to me:



FWIW - we use addendums (numerically) for all plan changes during pre-construction plan modifications, however, once the project goes to construction we remove all addendum notation, and issue revisions (alphabetically) as needed.

Edit - The addendums are only issued after the plans go out for bid, but before going out for construction.

HTH

Yes its really cofusing and i agree with you, thats why i am proposing to change our QMS related to the revision process but its really hard to push through the changes since i dont have any prove or international guidelines for this as this QMS is alreaddy approved by the top management.

cheers

[cadtag]

Hi Guys i don't know if this is the forum that i can raise my problem. Anyway just to ask if anyone have the international guidlines for revision numbering system. The current standard of my company right now with regards to the subject is like this.

Schematic Design - revision sequence is NUMERICAL
Design Development - revision sequence is NUMERICAL
Tender Package - revision sequence is ALPHABETICAL
Construction Drawings - revision sequence is ALPHABETICAL

What my point is that the first 3 items mentioned above the revision sequence must be alphabetical and the last one (Construction Drawings) should numerical. Is anyone here can suggest? But much better if i can have the international guidlines for this that someone can share.

Thanks,
Benjie

To me, that looks like three different phases - pre-bid design, covers the first two, and is primarily internal (possibly with agency,or other outside organization, review)

tender package, from release for bidding to contract acceptance and signing,

and post-contract construction document revisions.

You may want to look at what your jurisdiction(s) considers to be a revision. IIRC FDOT only has "Revisions" after the contract has been let and the contractor has a signed contract.

Generally, in this shop pre-tender design changes are treated with alpha revision IDs, when that is tracked. For many jobs it's simpler to take a snapshot at each interim submittal, be it 60 percent, agency review, or constructability review. Frankly, i don't think it's any agency or reviewer's business whether that cheet has been updated twice, of 83 times.... that's internal business and not theirs, so i tend to avoid pre-bid revision ids.

Bid documents are also archived as a snapshot, along with a PDF version. From that point on, changes are tracked with ADDENDUM numbers during the bid process, and every bidder has the complete train of addenda, whether drawing edits or revised specs. Those are legal documents, and _must_ be tracked and a trail maintained to prove that all bidders did receive the updated drawings & specs. Revision id numbers are per-sheet, and referer to the Addendum issue that contains that sheet (or portion thereof)

When the contract is signed, those edits are wrapped up into a "CONFORMED" set, and archived (both dwg & PDF).

Post contract edits are driven by (a) RFIs, Request for Intormation, or Change Order, or infrequently, and Engineer's Work Change Directive. Generally, we have not re-started the numerical revision number sequence,

International standards are I think going to be impossible to find.. just too many jurisdictional differences. I do think it's worth while to separate pre-bid changes from post-bid, by using alpha revision indicators until 'release for tender', resetting the revision counter to (nil), and then using numeric revision indicators for addenda and post contract changes to the construction documents.

[david_peterson]

The way we do thing is simple IMHO.
Anything that gets issued prior to going for bid gets a alphabetical letter, no clouds, no triangles, just a letter to designate the difference between pre-bid packages (ie CBR's, SD's, DD's, client reviews.....)
When we issue a bid set all letters are removed and the drawings are Issued for Bid.
Between issue for bid and issue for construction, we assign a number associated with that addendum number and cloud and tag ANY changes. This would include changes due to bidding questions, or value engineering or any other error or omission that we may have spotted prior to a bids being awarded.
As soon as bids are awarded, we strip off all clouds and tags and issue the drawings for construction.
Any changes that take place during the construction phase get a number, cloud and a tag. This could be for ASI, CB, ECN, DCN, CO, CD (change directive).
Usually we wait till our shop drawings for that portion (floor by floor) are done before we issue one of these. As changes happen we send out revised drawings as they are being built. So when the project is complete, we generally don't have to make any additional changes as we've already address what the "As-Built" condition should be.
This is our process for the most part. However each project always seems to be a little different. Sometime (usually at the owner or contractors request) we don't remove tags and such from the addendum phase, we just keep rolling with a new number and leave the addendum changes tagged and listed.
Then again we're different, I've only sent out "Tender" drawings once and that was for a project on the other side of the pond.

[cadtag]

issued for bid = issued for tender


it's now a legal document, and changes can have consequences that get the shysters involved

that aside, it sounds like a good system. dunno if there's anything that's an ISO standard, but the OP could do a lot worse than follow your process.

[beebegs]

Ya know? I thought the design period is Alphabetical then when issued initially for construction start with zero(0) or numerical.

[david_peterson]

Ya know? I thought the design period is Alphabetical then when issued initially for construction start with zero(0) or numerical.

Traditionally that's what we've done. With Revit, since you can't do a true Rev0 we just issue it without anything except for the "Issued for Construction" in the project phase.
Letters before contract awarded, numbers after.