I work for a large EPC firm for context. For our clients, we will transmit any documents that are normally long term maintained (P&IDs, general arrangements, etc.) in PDF and DWG. Its a generally expected requirement due to how these facilities work. Drawings that are purely for construction like piping isometrics or details, we do not send those in native formats.

We've had some requests from contractors to send PCFs (neutral piping files) of the piping for their system to more easily produce but in the end, clients have rarely been willing to pay for the time associated with that, as it is not included in our standard budgets. Our projects are a mix of T&M and lump sum, but a request like "generate PCFs for all piping isometrics" would be a T&M request because it's essentially asking to reprint the entire project.

I think most of the time, we have not provided this extra information because our contract does not require it and the contractor/fabricator's contract did not state that their price was based on having those available.

pittguy12 - I have been out of the commercial and industrial design markets for a few years, so I haven't gotten one of these requests in a while. I do have a policy in place in case it comes, though: No. Unless it's a design build project where special circumstances are negotiated up front, I have a note on my drawings saying that contract drawings are not to be used for shop drawing production and that CAD/BIM files are not available for use by the contractor. An exception I have not encountered by be a design-bid-build where the owner or architect are trying to go for a BIM only document set, but those are vanishingly rare around here. I think the local university did it for the new engineering building as a proof of concept - pretty slick. A big contractor's tool box that, when you opened it, was actually a computer with a 3' wide screen with the Revit and Navisworks models. But I digress.

I think charging for it would be a mistake. You'd have to talk with your lawyer and/or insurance agent, but it seems to me that by charging for them you're implying their sufficiency for use for creating shop drawings. So now, if your draftsman forced a dimension at the last minute to make a deadline, you're hosed because the shop drawings will be based on the model/cad file where the line is drawn and not what you dimensioned.

An important part of shop drawing generation, as I was taught, is that it's proof that the contractor is fully reading and understanding the design drawings form the architect and engineers. If they're just copying our work, there's no check to see if they are actually doing their job and understanding until you're in the field with a stack of steel that doesn't fit together.

...and for liability reasons.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Generally we do not charge for CAD files but if we were in a situation where we had very low fees I would certainly consider doing so. It may not cost you anything to send the files but there is value for the client and liability for the consultant, both of which in a capitalist economy warrant compensation.

That seems like a great way to alienate customers if not get sued. You're already charging the customer to create the 2d & 3d, charging them a second time could easily be argued as double-billing. I dont doubt that detached residential customers wouldnt notice the extra charge but industrial, commercial, and other business customers usually have experienced purchasing and legal depts to contend with. You're also facing the issue that to withhold data, you'd have to claim ownership of the IP which is rare and usually pointless for customer-specific work stateside.

Legal issues aside, customers want to quickly/easily/cheaply fab/build and integrate outsourced design into their facility's master model. If you're unwilling or unable to share both 2d and 3d then you're the odd PITA that's forcing customers and suppliers to redo work needlessly (costs time, $$$, and quality), which hurts your reputation. Many companies allow outsourced engineers (limited) access to their systems so that you're designing the structures, plumbing, etc using their facility's master models (and often their software licenses), minimizing work on their part, mistakes, and issues translating into their native format.

Sharing both 2d and 3d with suppliers and customers has long been standard, best practice. There's no issues with minor discrepancies bc one is always designated master - generally 2d, but I have had a few Asian customers use 3d. Sharing both helps communicate your design intent and allows the trades to work faster and raise concerns before something small like a stackup error or print misinterpretation becomes bad parts or a work stoppage.

Quote (CWB1)

you'd have to claim ownership of the IP which is rare and usually pointless for customer-specific work stateside.

In your industry, perhaps, but the OP is a structural engineer. For architects and engineers in building design, retention of IP is the norm.

We do have an agreement in place. The gist of it is that while we are sending the electronic files, the paper copies are the record copies and discrepancies are on the contractor/user to figure out. Not surprising to anyone who has been doing this for more than 5 minutes, as soon as their is a conflict we get blamed that the electronic file didn't match the paper drawings.

The issue is that for my state, and most states, for that agreement to be binding then some exchange of value needs to take place. We usually just put $1 but never collect it obviously. The question is really whether that $1 should be made to be something more substantial and enforced.

CWB1 - Good points but like phamENG pointed out, under the AIA contracts we are often part of, we retain rights to the electronic files. And, as others have noted, this is not a situation where we are working for a specific client or even in a Design-Build scenario where, yes, then there would be a direct line to them using our files. These are often open-bid projects where they have bid the project without knowledge or agreement of being able to get our files...but then expect to get them to save themselves time. I'm not seeing how we could be sued for not providing them; they are ours.

But it has to be worth a decent bit of their time to recreate them. The four big uses are: 1) for surveyors to plug into their system, 2) for excavators to set up their GPS, 3) for reinforcing shop drawings to overlay their details on our background, 4) for steel shop drawings to use the IFC to get a jump on their Tekla(or sim) models.

Quote:

under the AIA contracts we are often part of, we retain rights to the electronic files.

I'd be curious to hear an IP attorney's take on that. Contracts do not grant IP rights nor can they be used to force the necessary release for most business/corporate customers. Most businesses today have an overarching supplier agreement which goes into effect automatically upon your initial solicitation/response to cover the entire project including pre-award discussions. They establish basic processes including IP release/ownership and as I've been told repeatedly, cannot be superseded. Its pretty rare for a company to release IP but when they do its a just release form shared upfront with the NDA, not a contract item. IOW, when working business-business the outsourced designer typically owns nothing.

Regardless, you're trying to charge the customer multiple times for the same work, once for your design and again for their suppliers to access it. I've never dealt with double-billing but had occasionally a supplier's junior engineer will refuse to share analysis. Kicking it up the chain always results in an apology and acknowledgement that we paid for the work so therefore we're entitled to access. Even if you owned the IP, I dont see how you can justify doing work for a paying customer but refusing to share details upon request.

Quote (CWB1 (Mechanical))

you're trying to charge the customer multiple times for the same work, once for your design and again for their suppliers to access it

This is just not true (in the civil/building field). Customer has the drawings that contain the design, whether paper or pdf. Customer paid for a design, customer received the design.

The request after the design has been issued is now not for the design, the request is to save someone (who is not you) work and time, at the expense of your own work and time. It's hardly double dipping to ask to be compensated for your efforts that are beyond the contract.

Please note that is a "v" (as in Violin) not a "y".

CWB1, your feedback is appreciated, but it's clear that you do not work in the Architecture/Engineering/Construction industry for buildings. Our contracts are typically for professional services to perform the structural design of a building and produce a set of stamped construction drawings (i.e., blueprints), which is our deliverable and is typically pdf files these days of course. CAD files are usually either not addressed by the service agreement (i.e., contracts), or specifically excluded from the service agreement by savvy practitioners that have been down that road a few times. We are not hired to produce CAD files, we are hired to design a building and produce a set of stamped construction drawings. Once we have done that, we are not obligated to hand over cad files. What if I drafted everything by hand? Would I be obligated to then redraw everything in CAD if for example a rebar detailer asked for my CAD files? I rarely get asked for CAD files, but when I am asked, I either refuse, or I have a separate release/agreement that the recipient must agree to, which basically says that CAD files are being provided for convenience only and that has a bunch of legal ease about liability for use of the files. I charge an "administrative fee" for the time and effort to assemble and prepare the files for transfer. This is by no means double billing, because like I said, we were never contracted in the first place to provide CAD files.

Of course, others' mileage may vary, and other clients may try to force contracts that require production of CAD files, specific CAD software packages, release of all IP, etc. The larger and more powerful the client, of course the more likely they are to do such things.

Regarding IP, unless their is a contract in place to the contrary, of course we own the IP. How can the design of a one off "thing" of any kind, in this case a building, not be proprietary?