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?

 

[csd72]

Yes, best to resolve the issue as quickly as possible before people start talkng about lawyers.

 

[FinnB]

Thanks for the reference JAE. I had a brief look throught the document and the clause below covers drawing approvals. It would seem to me from reading this that the checking engineer is taking responsiblity for everything on the the fabricators drawings except for cutting dimensions and erection information. This would certainly go beyond what I would considered a "review with comments".


"4.4.1. Approval of the shop and erection drawings, approval subject to corrections noted and similar approvals shall constitute the following:

(a) Confirmation that the fabricator has correctly interpreted the contract documents in the preparation of those submittals;

(b) Confirmation that the owner’s designated representative for design has reviewed and approved the connection details shown on the shop and erection drawings and submitted in accordance with Section 3.1.2, if applicable; and,

(c) Release by the owner’s designated representatives for design and construction for the fabricator to begin fabrication using the approved submittals.

Such approval shall not relieve the fabricator of the responsibility for either the accuracy of the detailed dimensions in the shop and erection drawings or the general fit-up of parts that are to be assembled in the field.The fabricator shall determine the fabrication schedule that is necessary to meet the requirements of the contract."

 

[spats]

There is nothing "weasely" about "Reviewed With Comments". "Approved" takes on an entirely new meaning when you're talking about professional liability. Just ask a lawyer about it. I actually use "No Exceptions Taken", "Make Corrections Noted", and "Revise And Resubmit". My shop drawing review stamp also states "Drawing review is for general arrangement only and does not relieve the supplier or subcontractor from his responsibility for quantities, dimensions, and compliance with the drawings and specifications".

 

[Brad805]

Finn, I also agree with the others that the intent of the review process is for general conformance; however, we do check the dimensions carefully because of this type of problem in the past. Codes are great, but most of the time the people we work for do not have a clue about these and their expectations differs greatly. The truth is, GC's do not check the drawings, the foundation subtrade does not check, and there always seems to be too many different people involved at the PEMB suppliers end too. You are in the pointing finger stage. Get involved and it will get sorted out. If you dig your heals in too deep and start writing letters, it is bound to end up more of a hassle than just helping to fix whatever the problems are. This is one situation where lawyers being expensive is a good thing.

I bet you have foundation upstands? Door bucks are always a problem to coordinate. Try to avoid them. Most of the time, the GC will field drill a few new bolts without to much debate, but when he has to get out the concrete saw or pay for field welding, then life gets more difficult.

Brad

 

[dik]

This is the ‘check list’ from the Shop Drawing review stamp for one of my current projects.

Not Suitable, Resubmit before Fabrication
Modify as Noted, Resubmit before Fabrication
Modify as Noted, Commence Fabrication & Resubmit
Suitable, Start Fabrication, Resubmit Certified Reproducible
Other as Indicated on Transmittal
Final, No Further Resubmittal

It is used for a large design-build project and it has been ‘foisted’ on our office by ‘others’.

I had great difficulty with this, in particular, since there is no intention for shop drawing review by the Contractor. As a member of the design-build team, the contractor was of the opinion that I was acting for the Contractor. As a solution (not a happy fuzzy one) there is a memo of understanding limiting review and responsibility. Further, I will only check the first item or one of the last two items.

For most projects, I specifically state in the General Notes:

SHOP DRAWINGS AND SAMPLES

REFER TO GENERAL NOTES FOR PARTS OF THE WORK THAT REQUIRE SHOP DRAWINGS. ALLOW 3 WEEKS FOR SHOP DRAWING REVIEW FOR EACH COMPONENT U/N

SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS WELL IN ADVANCE OF DELIVERY
CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW AND SCHEDULE FOR THREE WEEKS FOR [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER] TO REVIEW EACH SUBMITTED SHOP DRAWINGS
ELEVATIONS AND DIMENSIONS USED SHALL BE THE SAME AS USED ON THE DRAWINGS U/N

SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL SHOW ALL MATERIALS AND DESIGN, FABRICATION, CONSTRUCTION, FASTENING, AND FINISHING DETAILS AS REQD
LOCATION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION AND CONTROL JOINTS SHALL BE SHOWN ON SHOP DRAWINGS

SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS TO THE [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER]

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT 1 SET OF SHOP DRAWINGS IN DIGITAL FORMAT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR THE [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER]'S REVIEW. U/N, SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR THE FOLLOWING WORK U/N:
Provide a List (Not included for brevity)

PRIOR TO REVIEW BY OUR OFFICE, SHOP DRAWINGS MUST BE REVIEWED AND COORDINATED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THEY MUST BEAR A REVIEW STAMP, DATE AND SIGNATURE SIGNIFYING HIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HIS RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE:
-DIMENSIONS WHICH SHALL BE CONFIRMED AND CORRELATED WITH JOB SITE CONDITIONS,
-INFORMATION THAT PERTAINS SOLELY TO FABRICATION PROCESSES, MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES AND PROCEDURES OF CONSTRUCTION,
-SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK,
-COORDINATION OF THE WORK WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER TRADES, AND
-SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK

SHOP DRAWINGS NOT BEARING A REVIEW STAMP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE WILL BE RETURNED MARKED 'NOT REVIEWED'

SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS THEY ARE PREPARED. UNLESS PRIOR ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE, DUE TO SCHEDULING DEMANDS, ETC. THE [CONSULTANT | ENGINEER] CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAYS CAUSED BY THE RECEIPT A LARGE NUMBER OF SHOP DRAWINGS IN A SHORT TIME PERIOD

The following is similar to our office standard Shop Drawing review stamp and is representative of many:

“Review by the undersigned is for the sole purpose of ascertaining conformance with the general design concept. No approval is given, nor is any responsibility assumed by the undersigned for the work inherent in the documents, for accuracy of dimensions, or for conformity with the specifications, data sheets or other documents. Conformance with these items remains the responsibility of the consultant, vendor, supplier, or contractor submitting the documents.”

Reviewed
Reviewed as Noted / Modified
Revise and Resubmit
Not Reviewed

 

[JennyNakamura]

You should look at the general conditions portion of the project specifications. There is usually something in there that any changes to the construction drawings by the GC or any of his subs shall be submitted for approval in writing and that "shop drawings do not constitute in writing." We even note this on our general structural notes on our drawings. After noticing the first couple of changes, you should have sent the shop drawings back and asked the GC to cloud every single such change on the shop drawings for your review AND approval. The responsibility is the GC's, and if you look deep enough into the project specs, you will/should find something to substantiate that position. If not, time to think about revising the CYA provisions on your boilerplate specs and drawing notes.

 

[FinnB]

Hi Brad, I'm learning a lot about how some PEMB's suppliers operate! They are very much suiting themselves on this job.

Unfortunately the client sees it that the PEMB supplier and the engineer should get the building right and as such are not that concerned about excuses for errors. Their view on checking is that if the consulting engineer checks a fab drawing then the engineer takes on the responsibility for any errors. It isn't fair in my opinion but that's the way it is.

Of course we have contract documents/specifications that spell out the responsibilities of the PEMB supplier but it reality these carry very little weight with the client who just wants the job done with a minimum of problems or arguing between the different parties. At the moment I am just sorting out the problems, which in reality are not that difficult to fix. Still though it is annoying to fix problems that I don't see as being of our making.

 

[FinnB]

dik........thanks for your response. It is similar to what we have in our specification. What you have there explicitly spells out very clearly the contractors responsibility. There are some good notes in it that I may add to our spec.

I had a conversation today with a very senior engineer who has 40 years experienced in structural engineering. His view was that any document recerawing must by thoroughly checked. A thoughough check should be done even if the contact states the review is only to ensure the prefabricators drawing are in general conformance with the design intent of the engineer.

The senior engineer I spoke to, who does a lot of court expert witness work, told me that judges do not automatically acccept what is written in contract documents and specification as being legally binding. He told me about a recent case where a roof blew off in the wind. The roof was a specialist sub conrator design and constrution. The EOR had clearly stated in documents that the contractor was fully responsible for all aspects of the roof design and construction. Unfortunately for the EOR the judge did'nt see it that way. In the mind of the judge the EOR had received drawings and he was negligent for not fully checking all sub-contractor drawings and documents. In the end the EOR had to take a portion of the financial hit for the roof structural failure.

I am certainly going to be more careful and do much more thourough checks in thfuture. Taking a view that a check is only to ensure the shop drawings are in general conformance with the design intention may leave an EOR open to a legal challenge.

 

[Lion06]

Finn-
The situation that you describe is a delegated design. The design is being farmed out, but the EOR has an obligation to check everything. They should be sending shops and calcs that meet design criteria that are spelled out in your contract documents and specs. You can't farm out part of the design and then stick your head in the sand.

I think that's different than a coordination item, such as a door that moved, that doesn't impact the overall structural safety.

 

[dik]

I use fairly comprehensive drawing notes, coordinated with the specs. I've encountered many projects that in 30 years time, you can often find drawings, but not often the specifications. On a typical project, there may be 4 or 5 complete sheets of drawing notes.

I've been on some 'large' projects, where the owner, acting as contract administrator has accidentally failed to issue specifications with the project.

Dik

 

[vthomidis]

I would aggree with brad805 and csd72.

Just try to sort things out and don't make fuss about responsibilities , liabilities etc. etc. - that would only complicate things.

From what you said it is obvious that the discrepancies evidenced
are minor.Solution should be quite easy and harmless.

By the way, since an architect is not involved who was it that pointed out those changes ?

As far as the scepticism on PEMB buildings, my 17 year of experience in a contracting company dealing with the project management and erection of PEMB buildings has not left me with much negative feedback or results.

I would say that the PEMB system is intented for a rather specific market mainly where large no storey and free span surfaces are required...

 

[FinnB]

Lion06......In the scenario I described, the roof lifting off in the wind, the consulting engineer (or EOR in the US) had checked the subcontractor design and drawings. The problem was the check he carried out was only to ensure the contrator design was in general conformance with the design intent for the building. The reason the roof failed was because some simple wood screws were complete inadequate to resist the applied forces.

How many people check everything down to the screws when they review shop drawings?

I am working in Ireland and we pretty much have the same procedures as the UK. We don't really have PEMB's here and if they are used they would most likely be imported. In the industry here the stamp "Reviewed with Comments" means pretty much all the responsibility is on the subcontractor to ensure the he delivers a building which is as per the Architects/Consulting Engineers drawings. We used to fully approve steel drawings for fabrication but that type of review ceased to be given more than 15 years ago.

The point I was making is that the construction industry may have it's own understanding of what a certain type of review means and have contracts, specifications and drawings to back that up but in a leagal challenge the judge may take a different view entirely. A judge may not view industry procedures and docs as being legally binding.