To: "INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Subject: Re: AISC Code of Standard Practice
From: Mark Gilligan <MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 00:15:08 -0400
Jimmy C.......(hisself) wrote:
"And thanks for allowing me to vent a bit about my pet peeve, shop drawing
review and the lack thereof".
You are welcome.
I bet the fabricator and the general contractor will be submitting a
substantial claim for extras which will likely result in a claim by the
owner against the engineer. I will also admit that in general the
fabricators have there act more together than the engineers. On the other
hand I have seen some fabricators that were in over their heads.
It is easy to tell stories of the Contractor/Engineer from hell but that is
not only not productive but it also makes it difficult to deal with real
You may not see it but many owners are less tolerant of construction extras
than they used to be and are unwilling to accept even the inevitable change
orders that occur on well documented jobs. Refer to the article "Owners
Redefine Designers Role" in the May 15,2000 ENR.
I recognize the reality that if I screw up I am most likely going to pay
one way or the other. I am generally in a position to control my mistakes
and I work to minimize them. Just as the contractor doesn't like to
suffer because of the designers mistakes, I do not want to suffer because
of the contractors mistakes. We are talking fairness.
Remember the Contractor and the subs can decide not to bid on a particular
job but I have to work with whoever submits the lowest price.
If the fabricator makes a mistake on the shop drawings, that is not caught
by the designers and as a result the owner has to pay to fix it, the
engineer might find himself paying to fix the fabricators mistake since
owners don't want to accept any change orders. Remember I have to pay for
my mistakes. Why should I pay for mistakes of others?
But the point is not that one party or the other screws up but rather, why
should the rules be different for the steel fabricator as opposed to the
concrete sub? Why should the concrete sub-contractor have to pay to fix
his mistakes but not the steel fabricator?
Message text written by INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
<< 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.