Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Interesting Disclaimer

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Thanks, Scott.

I agree completely.


David L. Fisher SE PE
Fisher + partners
372 West Ontario
Chicago 60610
 
312.573.1701
312.573.1726 fax
 
312.622.0409 mobile
 
www.fpse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:29 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Interesting Disclaimer

Coming from an AE/SE point of view, I don't believe it is to try to hold a
contractor (fabricator) "liable" for the completeness of the design.
Rather it is meant to insure that the contractor does their "due
diligence" in reviewing the drawings before producing show drawings.
After all, shop drawings are meant to put into practical, production level
detail the design intent.  So, the concern that some engineers would have
is that by using the framing plans as erection plans (or other similar
things) that maybe the contractor is not taking a "close enough" look at
things, which could result in a higher potential for problems.

And there is also the business side of things.  From a client's point of
view, it is a potentially win as s/he will only pay once for the creation
of framing/erection plans.  But, from the engineer's point of view, they
would bear all the costs (and potential liability) of producing plans with
the contractor/fabricator bearing little or none (and still potentially
nominally getting money for production of erection plans or the like
depending on what was included in the bid [i.e. when you use the
engineer's framing plans as erection plans, do you reduce your bid/price
to the owner to reflect the fact that you are not spending time and effort
to create erection plans from scratch since you are NOT now doing so?  Or
do you pay the engineer for doing some of the work that in theory was part
of your scope of work in your bid?]).

And frankly, as even engineers make mistakes (yeah, I know, I am shocked
too), just having a contractor copy the framing plans for something like
erection plans removes a step in the process that could potentially catch
mistakes in the framing plans, etc.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Thu, 20 May 2004, JLand(--nospam--at)affiliatedmetal.com wrote:

> >From a fabricator's viewpoint, it is just another way for an SE to shirk
his fiduciary responsibility. We should not be liable for the completeness
of design, nor should they be responsible if we cut a beam too short.
> We like using AE/SE dwgs for E dwgs. It saves  time on the entire project
, it costs the owner less money in detailing, and it cuts down on the
likelihood of mistakes when transferring marks.
>
> JIM LAND
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Bill Polhemus
>   To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
>   Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 6:47 PM
>   Subject: Interesting Disclaimer
>
>
>   I do some construction support engineering for a contractor friend of
mine from time to time. He gave me a set of drawings for structural
rehabilitation of a parking garage today, and I've been looking over them.
>
>   I tend to be a real stickler for precision in my specifications and my
drawings notes, and try to keep up with "jargon" to make sure I'm clear
about what I'm asking. Not to say that I'm "perfect" in this by any
stretch--I'm continually trying to improve my processes--but I pride myself
on being clear and succinct.
>
>   So it's interesting when I see drawings from another engineer who
doesn't seem to share my opinion in this regard. For the most part I think
many S.E.s crib together a set of general notes for their drawings, and then
leave them alone for ten or twelve years. So you get a lot of anachronisms,
citing of "obsolete" codes and standards, etc.
>
>   I came upon an interesting disclaimer on the set I have been reviewing;
it's the last note on the sheet of general notes.
>
>   It reads:
>
>   "The use of REPRODUCTIONS of these contract drawings by any contractor,
subcontractor, erector, fabricator or material supplier in lieu of
preparation of shop drawings signifies his acceptance of all information
shown hereon as correct, and obligates himself to any job expense, real or
implied, arising due to any errors that may occur hereon."
>
>   Okay, so if I'm reading this right, if I'm a contractor, subcontractor,
erector, fabricator or material supplier connected with this construction,
and use this engineer's drawings, and there is an error therein that causes
a loss of time or material, that's just my tough luck because I didn't check
his drawings?
>
>   Any comments?

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********