From: "Mark E. Deardorff" <MarkD(--nospam--at)DandDEng.com>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 22:05:14 -0700
There is a difference though. A difference between unjust enrichment of the
owner and extras resulting from inaccuracies of the design professional.
Until our jobs are permitted (we are in California) we incude the verbiage,
"not for construction or bid" on the title block. Given the schedules
insisted upon by owners we are unwilling to allow a "bid" until we say the
f***ing plans are ready. Design in today's world is based upon critical path
where the critical path is the plan review agency. It is not uncommon to
submit to the authorities at 85% when only 95% would do for "bid". We
exclude these submittal sets from the ultimate "bid" sets. If they want to
"bid" the job, they do so at their own risk.
By the way, I only give to the owner if my "mistakes" resulted in costs that
would not otherwise have been incurred. Irrespective of the "bid", if it is
necessary to make the building stand up, then, BY GOD, I will not pay for
I guess it goes back to the old saw, "How can you tell a contractor (or
owner, in some cases) is lying? His lips are moving!"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Gilligan [mailto:MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2000 9:15 PM
> To: INTERNET:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: Re: AISC Code of Standard Practice
> 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?
> Mark Gilligan