Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: AISC Code of Standard Practice

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
    <<  I find it baffling why the Steel Fabricator and hence the
General Contractor should not be responsible for deviations from the
Construction Documents.
I find it equally baffling why the EOR and the architect should not be held responsible for the ambiquities, errors and omissions so prevalent in todays contract (construction) documents that are put on the streets as a bid package soliciting a fixed lump sum price.
On one job in which I am involved if one were to strictly adhere to the "Construction Documents" there would be columns in the middle of doorways, roof joist loads on 28 ga. partitions that stop at ceiling level and roof beams that bear on 4 inch cmu walls.  Shop drawing review by the professionals involved was a joke.  In spite of a full 30 days for review and "clarification" I doubt that they were perused carefully enough to even ascertain whether their respective names were spelled right or not. As an example when a beam is shown as one size on a framing plan and a section "cut" refers to quite another size beam any reputable detailer or fabricator will ask the EOR to verify the intended size.  When requests for such vital information are ignored in the review process it makes the term "Construction Documents" somewhat of an oxymoron.  As a result of the many deviations from the "Construction Documents" this job is being built much as a farmer would build a chicken coop.  They build a while, measure what has been built and then ask, "What you want done next?"  The boys in the shop have jokingly renamed the project Disneyland.
So much for the Contractor doing "his work in compliance with the Contract Documents" !!  And so much for "problems <being> found . . . . . in the shop drawing review."
And thanks for allowing me to vent a bit about my pet peeve, shop drawing review and the lack thereof.
Jimmy  C.......(hisself)