Contract Issues - Structural Steel Connection Design in the Midwest 3

[Loui1]

I am located in the midwest (New Madrid Fault Zone).....An area that is relatively new to serious seismic design. On several projects we have fallen into the scope of the AISC seismic provisions. Because our industry here is set up in a way that is not conducive for the EOR to design lateral force resisting system connections, the connection design responsibility is forwarded on to the fabricator. Bottom line, the EOR is not given enough time and/or fee to do connection design. It it becoming more and more common that fabricators are coming back during the project demanding more money (hundreds of thousands of dollars) because the connections geomectrically dont work, they didnt budget large connections, or they just make up excuses to cover their losses.

We have tried several ways to make it clear to the fabricators that the connections will be larger than normal, and that the seismic provisions are to be followed. But it still ends up that the fabricator claims that he/she cannot properly bid the connections because it takes the technical experience of an engineer to do so.

Has anyone else run into this problem and how have you remedied it? Anything to put on the contract documents? Any good published information out there? I assume this problem extends over to the east coast.

 

[JStephen]

"When the fabricator's engineer turns around and tells them the connection cant work exactly as the detail shows it, they proceed with a change order."

"In addition, you should clearly note that the fabricator is responsible for the design and procurement of a registered engineer to undertake the connection design and that no additional fees will be entertained in the design of same."

"It is not the intent of this method that the Steel Detailer practice engineering."

I find the contrast between the first two statements and the last illuminating- the Code of Standard Practice assuming that the any connection design by the fabricator will be so cook-booked that it doesn't even constitute engineering to do it, while the design engineers are assuming it will require a registered structural engineer to complete.

My idea: If you're farming out the connection design, include a line item in the bid for "PE-design of all connections"- it might be illuminating to all concerned. Of course, it sounds like they have to do a lot of this work prior to the bid, but it still might make it a lot easier to justify your cost.

 

[Loui1]

We dont commit any of the % UDL fouls or anything like that, and the seismic provisions are understood. It's purely a contractural issue from the standpoint that the fabricator will try to claim the drawings are ambigous when he underbid the job....because hedidnt consult his connection engineer while estimating. No matter how big of print you put on the drawings it seems like someone will miss the connections and underbid...which usually results in a lawsuit in the end to recoup their losses. I suppose I was looking for some magical note that will shut their lawsuit down...

 

[JAE]

Loui1 -

We used to have a client who was a large grocery store chain. They had their own construction management group and many times did their own architectural design for their smaller projects. I recall once that an architect on their staff had struggled with a detail for a grease trap or something. It was a small feature in their design, but fairly intricate.

They would detail it, only to find that the construction group within their company couldn't, or wouldn't build it as he wished. So he detailed it further, showing more data. Still no luck. They'd screw it up.

After a series of three or four further refined details, with no luck in getting the thing constructed properly, he finally did a whole series of details on one big sheet, including an isometric. In the middle of the sheet he added a large note in a box:

[blue]"If you can't build this properly based upon these details, you're an absolute idiot."[/blue]

He claims it finally got built right -

 

[Loui1]

Its a funny story and I see the point, kinda, but honestly if the story is true, IMHO is quite unprofessional and I'd be wary working for a firm that allowed stamped drawings to go out with things like that.

 

[JAE]

This was an internal plan - i.e. - the owner's in-house architect used the note on a plan that was used by the owner's in-house construction group.