Being Charged as a Subcontractor for Electronic Files 1

[gbuell]

My company designs and manufactures greenhouses, and we often end up subcontracting with architects or general contractors to design and provide a greenhouse that attaches to a larger building project. We've just gotten a new contract, and we asked for some CAD files from the architect in order for us to overlay our structure onto for preliminary design and drawing. They've come back and asked for a fee of $100 per sheet. We checked the spec and there is a section in the beginning that lays out fees for providing electronic drawing files to subcontractors. We do have PDFs that we can work with, but obviously it's easier to overlay and coordinate stuff with CAD files. We've never run into this sort of fee from an architect before, and we've worked with several. Is this standard? Seems very strange to us, a big hindrance to communication and coordination.

 

[Jboggs]

First I've ever heard of that, but I understand their motivation. You signed the contract. That means you agreed to the terms. Consider this a learning experience, bite the bullet and fulfill your end of the deal. That's the best way to get to the point where you can negotiate this condition on the next job.

One comment - if you purchase a sheet, I would assume that means you are also entitled to recieve all future revisions and updates of that sheet at no charge, unless those changes are your fault. But that is an assumption worth confirming with the architect.

 

[KENAT]

Not in the construction/infrastructure side of things but...

Some of our subs are reluctant to share CAD data with us for IP reasons. I'd be happy to pay them a few extra $ to get it!

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Or you could buy PDF2Cad or something similar and possibly "steal" their drawings and bring them into CAD. What does your contract say??

 

[IRstuff]

You got snaked. They knew subs would require drawings and decided to bury a rebate program in their spec.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[DRWeig]

Yah, I would be kicking myself right now if I'd signed that without noticing.

Thanks for pointing out a disturbing possible trend to look out for. I'll be on guard.

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

 

[beej67]

I tend to agree with IRStuff. Never heard of that before.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[gbuell]

We don't actually NEED the AutoCAD files, I can recreate the few details I need by looking at the PDFs we have, but of course that takes more drafting time. Probably less than $100 per sheet worth though. If we had to do a lot more integration, it would probably be worth it to pay for the files. Also, we haven't actually returned the signed contract yet, but we "have the job", and I want to prepare some AutoCAD sketches for a kickoff meeting tomorrow. We'll bring it up in the meeting (hopefully diplomatically! I won't get to be there.)

 

[gbuell]

Also, I don't think it really has anything to do with IP theft. They are also asking us to sign an NDA-type form for the files, which we're quite willing to do. And there is a specific stipulation in the spec that the fee does NOT cover future drawing revisions.

 

[sundale]

I bet the sort of architect that crafts that kind of verbiage for their own subs has a "paid when paid" clause too...

 

[MacGyverS2000]

If you still have the original contract, you could cross out the portion you deem hurtful, initial it, and then return it.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[jgailla]

That's crap. I wouldn't want to work with the guy again.

 

[fel3]

Every multi-discipline/multi-firm design team I have ever worked on freely shared ALL electronic drawings as needed. After all, we were all on the same team working to achieve the same goal. Most of the time, the architect set up a website specifically to facilitate sharing of drawings and other information. In the age of REVIT, the MEPs often worked in the SAME cad files as the architect.

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[pierdesign]

Charging for electronic files is a common practice in Architecture / Engineering / Design consultancies. There are numerous reasons:

Some principals see it as another legitimite revenue earner.

Fee estimation by pricing deliverables is a common practice, therefore the more deliverables you have the higher your fee; in an effort to provide a lowest price possible principals exclude electronic files but add your infamous line regarding extra cost per.

Many principals are overly concerned with accountability and believe releasing electronic files is too dangerous, even afraid of the cut-paste or their individual style convention change by some moron who doesn't care about line, color, etc.

Many are concerned about being ripped off: "What's to stop them from cancelling the job and just updating the design themselves" is a common fear in consultancies. This is probably the most common concern I've heard at consultancies, even with extreme, foul language virulence by certain principals.

Also, third party rights ownership is a concern, not obvious, but legally important. Consultancies are concerned that the design they do is to be used as per the contract and not later resold, modified and built, or some such configuration. The terms and conditions will often spell out third party rights. Consultancies often see releasing electronic files as breaching any third party rights claim in their contract.

 

[IRstuff]

"What's to stop them from cancelling the job and just updating the design themselves"
"third party rights ownership is a concern"

And $100 per sheet covers all that? If it's supposed to cover the revenue that they might have gotten, then the process winds up double dipping on labor costs, where half the labor costs are disguised as material cost for the sheets. If they're giving up ownership for $100 per sheet, that seems silly.

But, if their customer paid for creation of those drawings, then they ought not have full ownership rights anyway.

TTFN
faq731-376

 

[StoneCold]

As the owners representative, we always stipulate that the drawings belong to us, and we will be provided with the CAD drawings at the end of the project to do with as we please. Their has been some complaints about "certified drawings" and liability. We added a clause to our contracts that stipulates that the only certified drawings are ones that are printed and stamped by the designer, all other drawnings are just for review. It has been a sticking point in several contract negotiations, but our view was that the CAD file is really what is valuable for the reasons mentioned by gbuel.

Regards
StoneCold

 

[GerryBertier]

All of the Architects I've worked for have always charged a minimal fee for CAD files. It does take a decent amount of time to "clean" the CAD files of proprietry info.

I'm actually favor not sending out CAD structural drawings unless I'm use to working with the sub. When I send CAD files out, I feel like we are skipping a step in coordination and the traditional shop drawing process. No longer does the sub have to coordinate his details with other specialities and "think through" the work he is about to do. COPY and PASTE my details and he's done. No thought required. Also, I'm getting paid to produce PDF files for the Construction Documents, not CAD files. More time and a higher fee would be required for perfect to scale CAD files.