client's approval of fabrication drawings 12

[etrobal]

gentlemen,

prior to the start of the fabrication or manufacturing of separators, tanks, through conduit valves, hot well pumps, for power plants and other mechanical items, we require the fabricator to submit detailed fabrication drawings, for our approval.

in the course of our approval, we stamp the drawings with: "APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF ITS RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THIS CONTRACT."

in case of a fatal flaw, we were advised that this notation does not hold water in an international court of justice, or court of arbitration.

how can we revise this to indicate that we hold the designer/manufacturer/fabricator responsible for any fatal flaws.

note that in all our biddings, where available, we require ASME stamps, API monograms or its equivalent, if available, in JIS, DIN, ISO or any acceptable equivalent international standard.

basis of design is also provided to the bidders as B31.1, B31.3, ASME VIII, as the case maybe, as reference to our requirements.

it goes without saying that tests required by the standards must be performed.

many thanks in advance.
positive or negative comments are most welcome. it balances my outlook on the problem at hand.

 

[ColonelSanders83]

I ran accross this issue before. In our case the vendor wanted us to approve their fabrication drawings for production. Turns out they took the drawing we gave them of what we wanted and proceeded to make thier own drawing from it. In doing so they made a few mistakes, had we approved what they sent us for production we would not have gotten what we wanted.

The bigger isssue was the approval itself, as there was no requirement for us to give approval we simply refused. This way we were not liable for mistakes made by a vendor.

Our responce was something like this. "We will not issue approval of your drawings, processes, and design. You shall meeet the specifications and standards invoked contractually in the purchase order. The resposibility to meet the documents is yours. And by the way, we noticed the drawing you submitted is incorrect, you may want fix that before machining it".

Had we wanted responsibility we would have simply made it ourselves. Its my opinion that approval of anything done by a vendor during the design-build process is a liability for the approver. The only approval that should take place is final acceptance. I have no problem performing inspections along the way to hedge risk, but the big problem with approvals is that you will likley be asked to approve something on which you are not an expert (if you were an expert, why are you using a vendor?) therby increasing the risk of not getting what you wanted and then having no legal recourse later because you approved it.

Just my two cents worth.

A question properly stated is a problem half solved.

Always remember, free advice is worth exactly what you pay for it!

http://www.ap-dynamics.ab.ca/

 

[Cockroach]

There is a very simple answer.

Depending on with state you operate from, hire a consultant engineer to review and stamp the prints intended to be manufactured. This essentially ensures that the PE has reviewed and made a decision that the prints are technically sound.

Then get a manufacturer to build the equipment to print. You need to have quality control review and select material. The "MTR" will confirm proper mechanical and chemical properties from the mill, which becomes part of the report. Get Quality Assurance to perform in manufacture inspections so that production is to specifications as detailed by the print. Have a third independent party perform detailed ISO reviews on the systems in use by the manufacturer and get a handle on the qualifications of personnel performing the trade. So now you have the design prints tied into material quality and conformance to the ISO standard by qualified personnel.

Finally have this third party or general contractor review from start to finish, all aspects of the project on behalf of you, the client. He must furnish detailed reports on progress on a regular basis and perform onsite inspections to your level of satisfaction.

Now suppose nothing goes wrong. Then you're good. On the contrast, if the equipment fails you can persue legal action against the manufacturer for craftsmanship or mechantability. Suppose this checks out, the manufacturer was 100% to print. Then you can go after the engineer for stamping the prints incorrectly as either unprofessional conduct or unskilled practice. Acts of God fall under the first, for the practitioner in engieering may have been skilled but never provided you with a level of service equal to a group of peers under the same conditions and situation.

This is how the industry works. Good luck with it.

Kenneth J Hueston, PEng
Principal
Sturni-Hueston Engineering Inc
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

 

[Cockroach]

Typed in a hurry, there are some spelling mistakes. My apologies in advance.

Kenneth J Hueston, PEng
Principal
Sturni-Hueston Engineering Inc
Edmonton, Alberta Canada