Charge for Files? 11

[ml13]

We get calls from fire protection companies asking us to send them our CAD files. We have had some discussions on whether we should bill them for this service, typically a nominal fee of $200 or so, depending on how many files, etc. Invariably, we get resistance from them when they hear we want to charge a fee.

This leads me to wonder how many others out there are charging fees for drawing files. Do you charge and why or why not?

Thanks.

 

[tomlj75]

I do a little work for small contractors in the area who build residential dwellings I sell them the first copy on paper with a disk any other info they need I give them, but they are specific as to what they need so they only get the certain layerthat they need. (most of the contractors don't have autocad)

 

[JStephen]

Structuresguy, have you ever worked with the same contractor twice? If not, that should tell you something. But if so, you can bet that owner #2 paid for whatever out-of-the-ordinary expenses that the contractor encounted in dealing with you on the first go-around. No, the contractor won't pay back what you save him on drawings on that one building. But he will for sure know to include that cost (plus some profit) every time he deals with you thereafter. If you are finding yourself in constant disputes over change orders or other issues, then you can bet that the contractors are making allowances for that kind of thing the next time they deal with you as well.

Part of the increased cost will be in people actually increasing their bid prices. Part of the cost will be that certain contractors simply won't bid your work anymore. So the average price you pay for work will go up.

I disagree with your assertion that the contractor never helps the engineer. Yes, there are some engineers with a bad attitude that I wouldn't be willing to do much for. And there are some engineers where you just can't tell them anything. But generally contracting (and engineering) requires a certain amount of cooperative spirit among the parties involved, before, during, and after the construction work. And most of the consulting engineers that I deal with are pretty reasonable people.

 

[ml13]

If you truly want to help the owner, copy the client (in our case, usually the architect) and the general contractor to supply a proposed credit to the owner for providing electronic files to the subcontractor, minus the nominal fee for preparing them. The owner gets his money, the engineer gets compensated, and the subcontractor gets a more accurate final product for the same cost.

This approach has the added effect of exposing the motive for the subcontractor's request. One who is doing it for the good of the project, it seems to me, will gladly accept. The one who is looking to make a lazy buck, probably won't. At least that's been my experience.

 

[Grizzman]

Elaborating on JStephen's response.
If you're not willing to allow sub-contractors to use your CAD drawings you should have it spelled out specifically in your specs so the subs can add in the additional fees associated with the cost of reproducing your drawings and to prevent delays when you later send back their drawings with instructions to redraw them.
Also, you should be prepared to reimburse the sub who points out any errors in your drawings or finds any issues specifically left out. I'm not saying they will, just they have the right to. It's a two way street. If you're going to bill me for using your drawings, don't ask why I send you a bill for designing the connections of your steel or for repairing errors and omissions from your drawings.
Look at it this way. If you asked another engineering firm to review your drawing for errors, do you think they would do it for free? Why should the subs? See where the cooperation breaks down. And then it is the owner who pays. He pays through delays in completion.
I agree the sub should sign a release and should remove any specific data not relavent to his field.(i.e. erection drawings should not have metal stud designations on their drawings) but forcing him to reproduce what has already been done is time consuming and counter productive.

 

[DTGT2002]

This is a disturbing discussion, if not alarming.

The manner and mindset in which design documnets and construction documents are very different in my mind.

Arguably, the concepts and execution of the past where projects came to a full design state, and where then issued for construction with the appropriate time for shop drawings to be produced and reviewed have changed with todays timelines and design methods. However, as an engineer within a construction firm, I wouldn't dream of trying to go around the production of shop drawings by reusing the contract documents in a shop drawing.

In my experience, contract drawings are used to convey the thoughts and general details and requirements of a design. They are not assumed to be a scalable set of plans used for construction, as least not in a commercial construction environment.

There are countless "invisible" errors in herent in a modern rush to print design. Does this mean the design is inadequate, NO! The printed dimensions and associated sections typically convey the requirements needed to execute the design once properly interpreted. Forced dimensions, non orthogonal "parallel lines" and a multitude of other problems can mask errors such that they look excellent on the screen and on paper, but can lead to dimensions errors large enough to affect production when executed.

Not all contractors are trying to steal off your plate or insult your drawings with a review. When an error I find saves my company time, it saves us money, the contractor money, the owner money and the engineer money.

Now if I could bill for the mistakes I have found, or for the good intentions gone wrong with regard to constructability, I would have retired as an intern.

For the most part, I don't really want the electronic drawings. It brings way to much liability into my own office as once that electronic file leaves the engineer, I really can't hold him responsible for differences with his drawings. I suppose a read only version could at least be a benchmark for what was issued, but transferring electronic files for items of a structural or life safety nature is irresponsible in my mind, when the files are used to replace production of proper shop drawings.

As for sharing files for coordination purposes, I am willing to do it as asked my the owner and general contractor, but only with full release and hold harmless agreements. If I pay a full-time draftsman to produce shop drawings, why should I give them away?

There may be fields and areas where the Structural drawings are the final word and no review of constructability is required, but I've not seen it that way.

Additionally, if a subcontractor cannot complete the requirements expected in a typical specification, how did said sub qualify to bid?

Is this a regional thing? I am in the southeast. I expect to create shop drawings on every job we work on.

Any more perspectives?

Daniel

 

[JStephen]

Daniel, I think the perspective here obviously changes depending on the kind and nature of the drawings that are typically done. In my field, contract or design drawings are seldom of use in preparation of shop drawings. The only time I've requested CAD files from consultants was to create site plans in our shop drawings- which are included "for information only". But in those cases, the consultants didn't make a big deal out of it, it was just a matter of getting hold of the right draftsman to email the file over. I didn't have to sign any waiver, just explained what I needed the thing for.

I can see how in the layout of a sprinkler system, it would be very convenient to have CAD drawings that had all the structural/ electrical, etc., laid out on them- everything that you either attached to or had to dodge around. If those drawings existed (and assuming they were reasonably complete, coherent, correct, to scale, etc.), then that would bring about the set of circumstances that has been discussed above.

It seems to me that the trend is toward this idea of shared drawings, rather than away from it. At least the CAD companies seem proud of their products that enable a foreman on the jobsite to pull up a detail from a structural drawing. They do have CAD viewers specifically for this purpose.

Here in the last few years, I have worked on a number of bids where all the documentation was given in electronic form. In some cases, it is CAD drawings directly, in other cases, .pdf files. The most recent such case was for the US Navy.

You asked the question, "If I pay a draftsman to produce shop drawings, why should I give them away?" The catch in this case is that the consulting engineer has already been paid by the owner to produce those drawings. Certainly the consultant can pocket more money by charging whatever the market will bear. But is that action in the best interests of the client?

A similar circumstance comes up in the furnishing of soils reports, or working documents for construction. Why not charge the contractor hundreds or thousands of dollars for these, as well? The usual practice is to furnish these items free, or at the cost of reproduction. I think most owners would recognize that whatever overcharges they were to put on those items would simply get added to their project costs in the future.

Let's change the circumstances a bit for comparison. Suppose you are the contractor on a job, you draw up your shop drawings, and hand them over to the consultant. He then tells you, "It will cost you $5,000 for me to review your shop drawings." What's wrong with the picture? The consultant makes money on the deal, plus the owner also pays him to review the same shop drawings. The contractor has already bid and is stuck with his bid, so it doesn't cost the owner anything extra. Yet, it's obvious that there is a problem, and the net result would simply be to drive prices up for any other future clients of that engineer.

 

[DTGT2002]

The charging of the fee to review shop drawings "should" be a violation of any reasonable contract and is contrary to the understood principles of the industry, at least the principles I know and have always seen in print.

So yes, that puts the engineer in a bad position.

Getting back to the topic, where we decide to release cad files, we typically do not charge for the services, however, the drawings are released to non-structural trades who in all likelihood could obtain the structural drawings, but often consider our formwork drawings a more current and real set of construction documents.

Often times the attitude and pecieved intent of the contractor asking for the files will dictate whether or not the files are shared. Additionally, the contractual obligations must be met, but I have not read a contract that states electronic files become the property of the owner/contractor.

I certainly don't disagree that good communication and collaboration should be vital goals of any engineering venture, but how far beyond one's contractual obligation should one go to be a team player?

I have worked on jobs where once we released some files, we were hounded about when the next level would be sent, can we go ahead and make a revision a few floors up and so on. AND I have also had general contractors decide we should act as there personal drafting team where that is completely inappropriate. This can be a very grey area and very subjective, but where do you draw the line?

Daniel

 

[MikeE55]

My company charges $50 per file for electronic transfer, which I find doesn't cover the cost it takes to complete the transfer. We use MicroStation and reference files, and these have to be compiled and converted to AutoCad before we make the transfer.

 

[JTMcC]

structuresguy says-"why should the engineer help the contractor make his profit, the contractor certainly never helps the engineer"

I can see how approaching a job with that attitude, might become a self fufilling prophecy. We prefere to work in an enviroment with a little more mutual respect. And that makes for repeat work for everyone.

JTMcC.

 

[DRC1]

First of all, Producing shop drawngs is typically not a direct expense for contractors (it is for designers because it is billable)it is an administrative expense that goes to overhead. Typically by providing the cadd drawings all you are doing is allowing some 35 year old designer to actually spend a little extra time on the weekend with his family. The contractor doesn't pay any more or less overhead, the designer simply has more time to focus on his work rather than repeating what sombody already else did. JStephen brings up an interesting point about other reports. One of the reasons these reports are provided is that if a contractor request information that the owner or his consultants have, and he is not provided with the information and later is impacted by not having this information, he will have a claim against the owner. PDF files do not provide the same information as cadd files. I don't think there has been this specific case yet, but I am sure it won't be long. Finally if the designer bills the owner for the cost of developing the drawings, and then the engineer charges significantly more than the cost of reproduction, isn't that akin to double billing, and if the contractor pays significantly more than just the cost of reproduction, has he bought any rights to those drawings?