What Does Stamping Drawings "Reviewed With Comments" Mean to You?

[FinnB]

I am working on an oversea project in Africa that includes a number of Pre-Engineered Metal Buildings being fabricated by a steel building supplier based in Africa. The fabricator is using an American PEMB system from one of the US's leading PEMB companies. Someone on EngTips previously referred to the type of building being used as a "tin can" such is the thinness of the steel sections flanges and webs.

My understanding was that as the Consulting Engineer (EoR) we only had to review drawings to the extent that we stamped drawings "Reviewed with Comments". The project is currently being constructed and it is becoming evident that the PEMB supplier has made some minor changes to the building, for example moving doors and columns by small distances in order to make the building suit the PEMB system.

The PEMB drawings DID show these small alterations on their shop drawings. These alterations now make the PEMB slightly different from the architectural contract drawings. The majority of the small changes the PEMB supplier made were caught in the review and a solution agreed. The thing is a few small changes were not picked up in our review.

What is bugging me is that the finger is being pointed at us (EoR) for missing in our review the changes the PEMB company made. The PEMB supplier at no point highlighted the changes and only made the changes to suit themselves and their system.

My understanding of what "Reviewed with Comments" means is that the Engineer of Record (Consulting Engineer) takes a general look at the drawings and tries to pick up any errors or changes the fabricator has made on his shop drawing. Main dimensions of the structural frame, door/window locations and mezzanine etc are checked. Ultimately I see it that we only provide comments and if the fabricator makes errors that we do not pick up it is still his responsibilty to ensure his building is as per the contract drawings.

What is your understanding of "Reviewed with Comments"? Is it different than mine?

 

[ToadJones]

I have only ever used that term when checking shop drawings....it is one of the options on our approval stamp, never when PE stamping a drawing. I would want all the comments picked-up way before I PE stamped the drawings.

 

[FinnB]

ToadJones - the drawings I am referring are steel fabrication shop drawimgs.

What does it mean in you office when you stamp drawimgs "Reviewed with Comments"?

 

[ToadJones]

We stamp shop drawings

1 Approved
2 Approved with comments
3 Resubmit

1 and 3 are obvious...

Usually I use #2 for minor errors that I think the detailer should revise for the record drawing but is not a critical design problem and we don't want to waste time having the drawing resubmitted and then reviewing the minor change again.

 

[OHIOMatt]

Our stamp reads states that the drawings have been checked for general conformance only. We check sizes, connections, ect. If we see dimensional errors we mark them with and add a note that not all dimensions have been checked and that the GC is responsible for dimensional coordination.

In a project as you are describing, we send the drawings to the architect for them to review minor issues like moved doors etc. that do not effect the building performance.

Shop drawings could be a usefull tool to ensure project quality and coordination. Unfortunatley they all too often have become a tool for a contractor (most likely no performing any of the work, just managing subs) to pass coordination to someone else.

 

[ToadJones]

I concur with OHIO...our stamp also reads "general conformance"...in fact, most approval stamps i have seen are nearly identical.

 

[FinnB]

OHIOMatt/ToadJones

On the project I am working on there is no Architect as the buildings are fairly basic sheds. The buildings range up to 300ft in length with 100ft span portal frames. We the engineers set out the building dimensionally so an architect was not deemed to be required.

Do I take it that General Conformance means the engineer checking the drawing is not taking responsibility for every error on the shop drawing even if the checking engineer has missed some of the errors in his review?

Would you consider "Reviewed with Comments" as having the same meaning as a "General Conformance Review."

 

[ToadJones]

I check detail drawings for general conformance with the engineering design and whatever standards of ours apply.
I do not check every single dimension or fit of members.

If the drawings are done in-house, I will check every little detail on the structural fabrication drawings to try to eliminate future erection problems.

I don't think you should be held responsible for any mistake a detailer might make....you'd be review shop drawings longer than you'd be designing.

 

[Lion06]

I typically check grid dimesions, member sizes, connections, make sure they have erection details that show how non-typical stuff will be put together in the field (this is where a lot of field welding gets shown),anc top of steel elevations.

A lot of times this is where they'll change up a specific detail. I just make sure that it works structurally and has the same design intent (i.e. it doesn't change the way something else is working further down the line).

Steel shops would only be stamped "Approved", "Approved as Noted", "Revise and Resubmit", or "Rejected".

I typically always make a note for the architect to verify all dimensions and elevations. If I happen to catch something I'll make a note, though.

If you're the prime contract, then the coordination is probably your job. If not, it's someone else's.

 

[JAE]

What is bugging me is that the finger is being pointed at us (EoR) for missing in our review the changes the PEMB company made.

This is your main statement in your original post.

There are TWO issues here. As EOR your review should be focused primarily on the safety and welfare of the public. So minor changes in where a door is located shouldn't matter a bit with regard to this aspect. Instead, you would focus on the loads used in the design, connection detail quality and appropriateness, and material properties.

The second issue is one of whether the shop drawings meet the intent of the contract drawings with respect to building layout, looks and geometry. This is not an EOR issue but rather a client satisfaction issue. If the client wanted the door 3 feet from the corner and instead got one 4 feet from the corner, the question then is - what did your agreement with the client require of you in these reviews and how much do you want to bend over to keep your client happy.

One issue is engineering quality/safety/ethics.

The other is marketing/client satisfaction.

 

[a2mfk]

Agree with pretty much everyone here. Nobody reviews every dimension in a shop drawing, why do your drawings in the first place then? Its not the point of the shop drawing process. Any dimensional or other changes deemed "necessary" in the USA are customarily clouded by the fabricator on the shop drawings. This is what they should have done, if not through an RFI before they did it on the shops. Ultimately, the fabricator is responsible for supplying EXACTLY what is on the EOR permit set, unless otherwise agreed to explicitly by the EOR.

If its a no harm, no foul situation, then you all can move on. If the owner is really upset, the PEMB needs to correct the situation and supply what you had on your drawings...

What you are experiencing is a common thing here in the USA when working with PEMB manufacturers, like drinking ice water too fast. Some good, some bad, some indifferent, but that side of the business is a lot different than mainstream structural engineering in that it is generally controlled by contractors, fabricators, owners, etc. who want a very inexpensive building per square foot and want it done yesterday. They also over-promise to the owner and under-deliver, and on the construction admin side of things they take their phone of the hook. Once they drop off the pieces to their erector set and toss you the directions they never want to hear from you again. Its like if IKEA did steel buildings....

 

[JedClampett]

That's a low blow comparing PEMB Suppliers to IKEA
....to IKEA.

 

[ToadJones]

Haha

 

[firai]

Many point out that the customary practice here is to stamp the shop drawings with a generic "reviewed for general conformance only". However, the way I understand the situation is that the wording legally toothless at least in the states. Ultimately it depends on your contractual responsibilities for the owner. Without further contractual clarification regarding the role of your review, if the detailers included the changes and you let it slip by, then you share at least some liability. If I remember correctly this was also addressed in one of the Legal Q&A articles in Structural Engineering magazine (I don't remember which issue it was in, sorry).

New York, NY

 

[FinnB]

Thanks for the replies guys. It seems to me that what "Reviewed/Approved with Comments" / "General Conformance Review" actually means is open to some interpretation and is a bit of a grey area. I would say that what goes for common practice in the industry in respect to responsibility for checking drawings would almost certainly be viewed differently legally. If a collapse or serious incident took place to a building I assume a judge would allocate blame to everyone involved in the project i.e. the PEMB supplier, the contractor, architect, engineer and client.


firai - it would be nice to get a definitive answer on what actual responsibility goes with the checking drawings and what "General Conformance" means in a contractual and legal dispute.

If anybody has any documentation on this I would be very interested in reading it.

Personally I have worked my whole career in the UK and Ireland and had never seen a PEMB before I started working on this current project. I do, however, have a lot of experience with prefabricated buildings, mainly precast concrete, where as a consulting engineer I have either worked for the client or been consultant to the precast manufacturer.

In my part of the world my experience is "Reviewed with Comments" means a general check to establish if the prefab building drawings conform to the intention of the design team. We try to pick up every error in our drawing check but we do not spend days checking a few drawings, it's normally a few hours, max a day, for a single level of walls and floor. I base these times on checking a floor area of around 10000 sqft of a standard apartment block, hotel etc.


a2mfk - Your post summed up my experience so far with PEMB. It's good to know I am not the only one having some difficulties with suppliers.

JAE: Your point on client satisfaction makes sense and how the client perceives who is responsible for the error is pretty important. Personally my gut feeling is to start getting tough with the PEMB supplier but I also have a feeling I will be talking to myself. The problem is some clients would automatically assume that the engineer is fully checking the shop drawings before manufacture. If things are not pinned down and formalised in terms of responsibilities at the beginning of the project it is easy for the client to make his own assumptions about what responsibility is associated with a shop drawing review. Well into the job it is not easy to start arguing with the client about what responsibilities are associated with a drawing check.

 

[Ron]

FinnB..I also agree with the other comments. One other aspect to check is your contract documents. Depending on the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, the shop drawings can have different meanings and influence. If you are working under one of the major document sets, then handling and effect of shop drawing submittals is covered.

In general, shop drawings are to be a reflection of the subcontractor's understanding of the engineer's intent. They are generally reviewed in the same context...in the manner JAE and a2mfk pointed out. Unfortunately, since you have no architect, you have taken on that role, so perhaps your review was required to pick up issues you wouldn't normally associate with a structural review. As stated, that's contractual and you'll have to check that aspect.

a2....IKEA would be pi$$ed.

 

[csd72]

I agree with those above that refer to the engineers check as being based on structural issues that effect safety.

But the problem is that these practices are for usual buildings where there is an architect on board for the project. As your firm did the only layout drawings then it could probably be deemed reasonable that the client expect you to make the dimensional checks also.

Personnally, whenever there is an issue like this I respond with 'lets sort the problem out first and it will probably not be as big a problem as it appears, we can worry about who is to blame after the job is done'. And usually it is much less of an issue than first thought.

 

[graybeach]

I also agree with JAE. If your client needed to have the door in a certain place and you were the only one reviewing the drawings, you should have picked this up.

IMO "Reviewed with Comments" are total weasel words. I see this more and more from consultants. If it is your job to approve shop drawings, for heaven sakes "approve" them. If you have minor comments, then "approve with comments". "Reviewed with Comments" doesn't really say anything. Because of this, we have started to layout the required shop drawing stamp language up front when we hire consultants.

Maybe if your company's stamp had said "Approved with Comments" instead of "Reviewed with Comments" you would have been more careful.

Don't beat yourself up too much. No babies died, and you learned a good lesson.

 

[JAE]

FinnB - you mentioned above about any documentation. Here in the US the review of shop drawings is generally "codified" by AISC in their Code of Standard Practice found here:

AISC Code of Standard Practice

Specifically Section 4.

 

[ron9876]

It seems to me that the contract between owner and contractor typically say "per plans and specs". The contractor then would have a legal obligation to meet the drawings unless there is an alternate which is "approved".

We have legal language on our stamp that spells out what we reviewed and what we didn't and says that the contractor is still responsible to comply with the drawings. Similar language on our drawings. We review shop drawings for general compliance with the design intent only. At least that is all that we will admit to.

Of course then the lawyers show up and everyone with insurance loses.