AISC Code of Standard practice, Section 3.2, which addresses "architectural, electrical and mechanical plans may be used as a supplement to the structural steel plans to define detail configurations and construction information, provided all requirements for the quantities and locations of structural steel are noted on the structural steel plans..." Section 3.1 states "...the fabricator must be able to rely upon the completenes of the contract documents." If you have a situation where an architect expects you to vary steel elevations for floors finishes (i.e. 3 inches lower steel from a marble and mudset to a finish concrete floor) and does not show deck bearing angles for varying bottom of deck elevations on any contract documents, who is liable for the added cost of these steel members? To what extent would detailing these deck bearing angles be outside the normal practice of scrubbing steel docuements?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
AISC Code of Standard practice, Sec
- Thread starter Togel
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
Watermelon
Structural
I've never heard the term "scrubbing" applied to shop drawings, and I don't know what you mean by "SEOR".
Sounds to me like you're a fabricator and you missed a bunch of steel in your bid; steel that was not shown in the drawings. Be sure it was not shown or even hinted at elsewhere in the drawings. "Hinting" is often sufficient for you to lose your case.
While reworking (scrubbing) of shop drawings is a frequent occurrence, it should never be regarded as standard procedure. If the detailer has correctly and completely interpreted the design drawings, I'd say he is entitled to compensation if the designer wants other things added.
If the deck bearing angles were not indicated anywhere on the contract drawings, then I'd say the fabricator is entitled to compensation for the additional material.
Hopefully you can reach some kind of compromise between yourself, the designers and the owner.
Next time take a closer look at the drawings before bidding. If the drawings are confusing and poorly done, don't reward the designer with a good price. If you think they will need deck angles, and they haven't shown them, note it in your bid. Say "Deck angles, if required, are not included." It's always a good idea to tell your customer what is not included. I hate surprises.
Sounds to me like you're a fabricator and you missed a bunch of steel in your bid; steel that was not shown in the drawings. Be sure it was not shown or even hinted at elsewhere in the drawings. "Hinting" is often sufficient for you to lose your case.
While reworking (scrubbing) of shop drawings is a frequent occurrence, it should never be regarded as standard procedure. If the detailer has correctly and completely interpreted the design drawings, I'd say he is entitled to compensation if the designer wants other things added.
If the deck bearing angles were not indicated anywhere on the contract drawings, then I'd say the fabricator is entitled to compensation for the additional material.
Hopefully you can reach some kind of compromise between yourself, the designers and the owner.
Next time take a closer look at the drawings before bidding. If the drawings are confusing and poorly done, don't reward the designer with a good price. If you think they will need deck angles, and they haven't shown them, note it in your bid. Say "Deck angles, if required, are not included." It's always a good idea to tell your customer what is not included. I hate surprises.
Watermelon
Structural
Okay, from another thread I see SEOR means structural engineer of record. I hate acronyms too.
- Thread starter
- #6
SEOR is the structural engineer of record. Another extremely common term.
I agree with some of your thoughts, however, the "hints" you are making reference to are often the grey area. The unfortunate part of this industry related to this issue is that it is becoming standard practice not to detail top of steel elevations and steel dimensions in Contract Drawings. This is, of course, an attempt to eliminate responsibility of errors and fixes for items that simply do not work in the field. Nobody likes to give Owner's bad news (surprises) and that includes even the contractors (wise ones understand money and business is lost through change orders).
The other careful term you have addressed is "missing items in the bid". I do not believe that this is a correct interpretation of this situation. Missing infers overlooking a item which Contract Documents have represented even in the form of a "hint". How can it be percieved that an item was "missed" if it can not be understood where it occurs, how many times it occurs, how it attaches, what it is made of, etc.? This is a specific issue for which I was searching someone with a specific experiance of this nature.
I know you are not privy to the documents in question, however, bidding on them is not equal to uncovering all the possible misses in the drawings themselves. "Taking closer look" is achieved through experience and not over simplification. Another aspect of this is that a designer is not rewarded a lower price for good documents. Bidding is a competative process where a contractor tries to cover all possible angles of cost and adds a mark up. Should a contractor overbid because he thinks the designer has done a lousy job? What would the Owner have to say about that? How about qualifying the bid as you stated? Dear Owner, here is the price, and keep in mind, this is a "what I could see on your drawings price" and not a "constructable" price. These approach is never acceptable. There is always risk in this busniess and all parties have their share. The market today seems to be about trying to unload their share on others. Construction Management is the result. Construction costs much more now and the claims and change orders are still there.
I agree with some of your thoughts, however, the "hints" you are making reference to are often the grey area. The unfortunate part of this industry related to this issue is that it is becoming standard practice not to detail top of steel elevations and steel dimensions in Contract Drawings. This is, of course, an attempt to eliminate responsibility of errors and fixes for items that simply do not work in the field. Nobody likes to give Owner's bad news (surprises) and that includes even the contractors (wise ones understand money and business is lost through change orders).
The other careful term you have addressed is "missing items in the bid". I do not believe that this is a correct interpretation of this situation. Missing infers overlooking a item which Contract Documents have represented even in the form of a "hint". How can it be percieved that an item was "missed" if it can not be understood where it occurs, how many times it occurs, how it attaches, what it is made of, etc.? This is a specific issue for which I was searching someone with a specific experiance of this nature.
I know you are not privy to the documents in question, however, bidding on them is not equal to uncovering all the possible misses in the drawings themselves. "Taking closer look" is achieved through experience and not over simplification. Another aspect of this is that a designer is not rewarded a lower price for good documents. Bidding is a competative process where a contractor tries to cover all possible angles of cost and adds a mark up. Should a contractor overbid because he thinks the designer has done a lousy job? What would the Owner have to say about that? How about qualifying the bid as you stated? Dear Owner, here is the price, and keep in mind, this is a "what I could see on your drawings price" and not a "constructable" price. These approach is never acceptable. There is always risk in this busniess and all parties have their share. The market today seems to be about trying to unload their share on others. Construction Management is the result. Construction costs much more now and the claims and change orders are still there.
Togel,
I have had this issue come up on many projects. AISC is fairly plain about what information should be provided to the Fabricator/Detailer to allow for correct interpretation of the Design Documents. Many design drawings are vague or pertinent information is missing, based on the amount of information required, and the time frame allowed this is no surprise.
If the amount of extra work is great enough I submit a CO request with full detailed explanation of what the documentation (design/specs) was lacking and request compensation. The large majority of the time we receive extra's for this work. Most Architects and EOR are open minded about this matter, but an in your face attitude will quickly close up the purse strings.
I have personally done shops for (6) years and some jobs are just easier than others. The "grey areas" Watermelon refers to will always be there. (caveat: myopinion)
Good Luck,
Robert
I have had this issue come up on many projects. AISC is fairly plain about what information should be provided to the Fabricator/Detailer to allow for correct interpretation of the Design Documents. Many design drawings are vague or pertinent information is missing, based on the amount of information required, and the time frame allowed this is no surprise.
If the amount of extra work is great enough I submit a CO request with full detailed explanation of what the documentation (design/specs) was lacking and request compensation. The large majority of the time we receive extra's for this work. Most Architects and EOR are open minded about this matter, but an in your face attitude will quickly close up the purse strings.
I have personally done shops for (6) years and some jobs are just easier than others. The "grey areas" Watermelon refers to will always be there. (caveat: myopinion)
Good Luck,
Robert
Watermelon
Structural
Hi Togel:
I mean no offence, but "extremely common" is a relative term. Where you live, kangaroos might be referred to as extremely common. Where I live camels might be extremely common. We are, after all, on the internet.
I received about one year ago, a mailing from the American Institute of Structural Steel Detailers. (I hope I have the name correct.) I threw it in the garbage, so I can't refer to it at the moment. The crux of the document was a plea to structural engineers to produce better drawings. I was so upset by the document I couldn't bear to keep it. Like you, I have seen far too many "fuzzy" drawings. Where I live "fuzzy" is a common term. Far too common.
In my work, I get to see the product from many different design offices. As a structural engineer it pains me when I see fuzzy drawings. If the structural engineer can't be bothered to show the deck support angles, why should the fabricator be obligated to supply them?
I have been in your shoes. When I said "missed some steel" it was a bad choice of words. Of course you cannot miss steel that is not shown. The reality is many designers are not painstaking when it comes to their drawings.
You ask: "should the contractor overbid because he thinks the designer has done a lousy job?" The answer goes either way, depending on your situation.
When I was younger, when business was slow, the fabricator I worked for used to prey upon designers who produced fuzzy drawings. He knew there would be plenty of extras. So he bid low knowing there would be a lot of extras. Not a nice way to make a living, but it put bread on the table. (I will never return to those days.)
When you are busy, and don't really need the work, then (and this is just my opinion) you should give the fuzzy designer a much higher price. Where I live this is "extremely common". If he later says, "Oh, I need a deck angle here and one over there.", then you can smile and say "No problem, what color would you like?"
Rpoche gives good advice: submit a detailed explanation, and a quotation. Don't do the work until the matter is resolved.
You say it is becoming standard practice for designers not to provide top of steel elevations and dimensions. That may be true, but it is not a practice I would ever be a part of.
You suggest that a designer is not rewarded for producing good documents. I disagree. If you're not giving better pricing to better drawings, maybe you should consider that.
Now I'm rambling.
The sad truth is the owner will NEVER know how much more it is costing him because of fuzzy drawings. The only way to understand the cost would be to have 2 separate designers produce drawings completely separate from each other. One designer is known for his fastidious, painstaking work. The other is renowned for his use of a spray-painter. Then get the contractors to price each set.
I mean no offence, but "extremely common" is a relative term. Where you live, kangaroos might be referred to as extremely common. Where I live camels might be extremely common. We are, after all, on the internet.
I received about one year ago, a mailing from the American Institute of Structural Steel Detailers. (I hope I have the name correct.) I threw it in the garbage, so I can't refer to it at the moment. The crux of the document was a plea to structural engineers to produce better drawings. I was so upset by the document I couldn't bear to keep it. Like you, I have seen far too many "fuzzy" drawings. Where I live "fuzzy" is a common term. Far too common.
In my work, I get to see the product from many different design offices. As a structural engineer it pains me when I see fuzzy drawings. If the structural engineer can't be bothered to show the deck support angles, why should the fabricator be obligated to supply them?
I have been in your shoes. When I said "missed some steel" it was a bad choice of words. Of course you cannot miss steel that is not shown. The reality is many designers are not painstaking when it comes to their drawings.
You ask: "should the contractor overbid because he thinks the designer has done a lousy job?" The answer goes either way, depending on your situation.
When I was younger, when business was slow, the fabricator I worked for used to prey upon designers who produced fuzzy drawings. He knew there would be plenty of extras. So he bid low knowing there would be a lot of extras. Not a nice way to make a living, but it put bread on the table. (I will never return to those days.)
When you are busy, and don't really need the work, then (and this is just my opinion) you should give the fuzzy designer a much higher price. Where I live this is "extremely common". If he later says, "Oh, I need a deck angle here and one over there.", then you can smile and say "No problem, what color would you like?"
Rpoche gives good advice: submit a detailed explanation, and a quotation. Don't do the work until the matter is resolved.
You say it is becoming standard practice for designers not to provide top of steel elevations and dimensions. That may be true, but it is not a practice I would ever be a part of.
You suggest that a designer is not rewarded for producing good documents. I disagree. If you're not giving better pricing to better drawings, maybe you should consider that.
Now I'm rambling.
The sad truth is the owner will NEVER know how much more it is costing him because of fuzzy drawings. The only way to understand the cost would be to have 2 separate designers produce drawings completely separate from each other. One designer is known for his fastidious, painstaking work. The other is renowned for his use of a spray-painter. Then get the contractors to price each set.
- Thread starter
- #9
Quite the interesting conversation I have started. The contractor in question is handling his request in this manner, formally representing the merit of his request and substantiating the quantity of it. In my opinion, he has merit.
I guess that I came off a little salty with my "extremely common" phrase, but I did it just to find out who I was talking to. It worked.
This isn't truly AISC but here goes. The change order hungry contractor, he still exists, but he wages a different battle these days. Change order contractors will barrage you with relentless paperwork. The continuous demand for additional back up used to serve as a filter for some of the unwanted change order requests, but the contractor has now adapted and began to treat each project as a potential claim to come. That is the evil contractor I know today. I prefer the contractor of old who asked "what color?" I still think Owner's spent less in those days, however, an Owner needed to get to know the contractor. Today he doesn't because he can simply hire a firm to do it for him. A construction manager, in my eyes, brings no value unless: you know the contractor will cheat or screw up. If you know this, why did you hire this guy? Why did you take the low bidder?
Designers are a different animal. I really don't see most structural engineers as the key problem. From my experience, they are all eager to give the needed information to complete the work. The problem lies with the architect. It is funny how some architects have financial say in a project and others don't. Less and less of them do these days. I can't decide if this is a good trend or not. Architect's have proven over the past that most of them cannot settle a claim with someone who is "clearly wrong" in their opinion. Maybe the good designers are just losing the bid war to the bads ones. Who knows? Problem is, now the valueless CM holds all the cards. Good, because they are almost neutral, but bad, because they tend to lose grasp when trying to manage the cost of construction. There has to be an easier formula for success. Treating every construction project as pretrial is exhaustive and counterproductive. Contractual theory needs to catch up with the times.
I guess that I came off a little salty with my "extremely common" phrase, but I did it just to find out who I was talking to. It worked.
This isn't truly AISC but here goes. The change order hungry contractor, he still exists, but he wages a different battle these days. Change order contractors will barrage you with relentless paperwork. The continuous demand for additional back up used to serve as a filter for some of the unwanted change order requests, but the contractor has now adapted and began to treat each project as a potential claim to come. That is the evil contractor I know today. I prefer the contractor of old who asked "what color?" I still think Owner's spent less in those days, however, an Owner needed to get to know the contractor. Today he doesn't because he can simply hire a firm to do it for him. A construction manager, in my eyes, brings no value unless: you know the contractor will cheat or screw up. If you know this, why did you hire this guy? Why did you take the low bidder?
Designers are a different animal. I really don't see most structural engineers as the key problem. From my experience, they are all eager to give the needed information to complete the work. The problem lies with the architect. It is funny how some architects have financial say in a project and others don't. Less and less of them do these days. I can't decide if this is a good trend or not. Architect's have proven over the past that most of them cannot settle a claim with someone who is "clearly wrong" in their opinion. Maybe the good designers are just losing the bid war to the bads ones. Who knows? Problem is, now the valueless CM holds all the cards. Good, because they are almost neutral, but bad, because they tend to lose grasp when trying to manage the cost of construction. There has to be an easier formula for success. Treating every construction project as pretrial is exhaustive and counterproductive. Contractual theory needs to catch up with the times.
Watermelon
Structural
Prince Charles made a statement a few years ago concerning architects. He said architects had done more damage to the face of England than all the German bombs of WWII. He was slammed by all kinds of journalists, but I am one who agrees with his view.
In many years of practice, I haven't met one architect I'd refer you to.
In many years of practice, I haven't met one architect I'd refer you to.
- Thread starter
- #11
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
