How to budget submittal review 2

[StrEng007]

I'm interested to see how other professionals are budgeting the time and expense for reviewing submittals.

For me, I have two types of submittals:

1. Deferred submittals, which are actually the parts of project that are delegated to a third party engineer. Examples of these items would include:
a. Wood truss design drawings (TDD) (for metal plate connected trusses)
b. Wood truss calculations
c. Wood truss layout drawings (not required to be sealed by engineer performing work)
d. Steel joist/girder drawings

2. Submittals that are inherent to the scope of work. Examples of these items would include:
a. Structural steel shop drawings
b. Steel deck shop drawings
c. Reinforcing steel placement drawings.

What is the proper way to budget these items upfront? Unless using a high dollar fixed fee, I've found that a fixed budget typically runs out pretty fast. On the other hand, a lot of contract owners don't agree to an hourly budget. Some contract owners also don't want to pay for these items as they believe it's the engineers responsibility to get it done within the contract price.

 

[phamENG]

1) It depends - why are you deferring them?

For things like wood trusses and steel joists, you don't have a choice. That's how the world works. They are specially manufactured products that must be uniquely designed by the manufacturer for the job. The trouble with wood trusses is divining what they'll want to do before they do it. But in any case, I htink these two fall more into your second category.​

If you're deferring steel connections or cold formed steel framing because you're trying to save some money or don't feel comfortable, then that's on you. Reviewing those packages should probably be in your fee since it's very much part of the EOR's scope. So in some ways it's more like the EOR subbed them out. (I know you didn't bring these up, but I thought they were relevant to the topic.)​

2. Shop Drawings...also depends. I prefer to charge hourly. But when an owner really refuses, I do two things: Figure out what submittals I'm expecting and how much time each would take to review if it were perfect. Increase that by at least 25%. That's their fee. BUT...I also stipulate that they get one review and one review only. If it's rejected for any reason other than an error on my end, the next review will be billed hourly. I also inform them that I will not accept a submittal that does not have a QC stamp from the contractor stating that they have already reviewed it and believe it is correct.

My initial stance when offering a proposal is hourly CA and hourly Special Inspections. No exceptions. I'll fight very hard for that as I've watched too many promising margins evaporate in construction due to a poorly organized contractor, bad weather (instead of 1 concrete pour we they have to split it up into 6), and other unforeseeable issues.

 

[StrEng007]

It depends - why are you deferring them?

The items I defer fall into that special category that you're talking about. Typically these are metal plate connected roof trusses, floor trusses, open web steel joists, and any pre-cast performance based items like Double-Ts or hollow-core. The only time I defer light gauge is for truss work or facade build out/non-structural items (think eyebrows and such).

I also inform them that I will not accept a submittal that does not have a QC stamp from the contractor stating that they have already reviewed it and believe it is correct.

I think this is key. I've began to reject things outright based on this. It causes a lot of problems sometimes.

I'll fight very hard for that as I've watched too many promising margins evaporate in construction due to a poorly organized contractor

Exactly what I'm trying to navigate. Thanks for the suggestions.

 

[canwesteng]

Steel connections are no more part of the EOR scope than wood trusses. It's well laid out in the AISC Code of Standard practice as an option.

 

[phamENG]

As an option, yes. And there are cases where it makes sense. There are certainly specialty and proprietary connections. But my point is, if there's something you can design, it should be included in your fee unless you have a frank discussion with your client about the pros and cons of the method and the way the cost gets moved around and they agree. But that's just me. I know I'm in the minority on delegated design philosophy, especially on the East Coast.

 

[canwesteng]

On a small job, it makes sense sure, since there are a few connections and it saves the fab shop some effort and it gets rid of the review cycles. But unless you also have a tekla license just for detailing, you're just burning hours on connection design that can be automated in the software, that they want to use to spit out piece drawings anyway.

 

[Aesur]

I wish we could get hourly CA but it's few and far between for that. Most often I try to consider a few things, % of design fee, typically aim for 15 to 20%, hours required for reviewing shops and potential RFI's and who the client is. Often I find it hard to make a profit on CA and settle for not losing money on it and I hear the same from most local engineers.

I have recently started adding 2 reviews of shop drawings included, additional are hourly add services. This was added because there are a few shops that were over 800 pages that were submitted over 8 times because the owner and jurisdiction wouldn't accept anything but approved without comments. I also have noticed that many shops are being outsourced now and this is resulting in a lower quality with a lot more coordination required due to lack of understanding or thinking by the person doing the shop drawings. Even had one ask if we could provide a Revit model at LOD 500 to show all the pieces for them to do their shops for a project that was done in AutoCAD.

We are also starting to see a lot more RFI's that are really VE's or contractor errors that they are trying to sneak through as VE and contractor errors are specifically excluded from CA. This has resulted in the hard conversations that go something like this: "be a team player". Unfortunately some were life safety and I ended up having to give them a fix for free, but this added them to a list of higher CA fee's and a more stringent contract wording.

 

[lexpatrie]

Bill hourly.....

I think this is key. I've began to reject things outright based on this. It causes a lot of problems sometimes.

This is the way. Without pain on the far end of the process, change (more correctly stated, improvement) will never occur.

I will amend, if you all can tolerate it, if I had that "one review only" language I would specifically clarify that drawings received without the contractor's review stamp will NOT be reviewed, but will be rejected and returned. (This is to clarify that you aren't going to "gouge" them for the hour you burn opening the drawings and realizing they aren't stamped by the contractor, and rejecting the submittal formally. You could potentially include a budget for shop drawing review in the contract, i.e. 4 hours, plus the remainder being hourly, because as an engineer you can't turn in a terrible job that's constrained by a set number of hours. You could even explain why (for the benefit of any future "interpreter" of your contract) so your reasoning and the intent is clear. This is to address the wildly varying quality of various submittals, and the need for you, as Engineer of Record, to perform work to the standard of care for similar firms doing similar work in your area. I.e. if there is a massive issue with the drawings, you can't clock out at the 2 hour mark, ethically you are on the hook for the full review.

Another item:
Nobody said a two week review was "standard" but a lot of people expect it much faster than that. Some provision on the drawings that the contractor needs to provide a submittal schedule permitting adequate review time (minimum two weeks due to staffing, sick days, vacations, other projects), and that if the review will take longer they will be notified. Further the drawings need to be submitted in a logical sequence (which isn't defined that well in the contract, oh well).

On delegated steel connection design - having been on practically ALL sides of the fence here, I'll speak. Although nobody asked. ( I suppose being the fabricator would be the side of the fence I've not been on).

From the top:
As EOR -
- a) you are under no particular requirement to design the connections (I mean globally, apparently there's one state you can't delegate connection designs, and it's not California, it's Louisiana). Your drawings need to be sufficiently complete and provide all the necessary information (loads, load cases, ASD/LRFD, for example) for the connection design engineer to do their work, ideally with work points that are in the correct location (versus some dumb location on a diagonal brace, for example), a work point should be in a sensible location, and as delegated connection design engineer, I've done RFIs to ensure that the EOR knows I'm asking to move the work point to someplace NOT stupid. Be aware the formalization of these "rules" was a reaction to the delegated design on the Kansas City Hyatt, or curiously arrived closely in time after that disaster, which involved unclear delegation of a design, as well as a design change nobody thought about deeply, as well as a "we looked at everything" blanket statement from the EOR on the previous issues with the project in the roof area.....

- b) It needs to be extremely clear you aren't doing the connections and anything shown is either requirements for the connection design to be completed (i.e. minimum 3 bolts for a W16 table or something similar).

- c) Ideally, the client knows connection design is not in the services you provide, but coordination and shop drawing review on the needed delegated design elements to provide a full and complete LFRS will be provided (even if at hourly), ( I suggest reading the Florida rules on delegated design).

- d) actually ACTUALLY read the code of standard practice on the subject. There are quite a few things that are the EOR's responsibility in that document that I see EOR's expecting "me" "we" connection design engineers to provide. I won't name them because I want you to actually read the document.

- e) there's an AISC seminar on transfer forces, this is good to watch if anybody knows where it went or the timeframe for it. Please speak up.

- f) please DON'T be the guy who says "design for 55% of the shear capacity of the section from Table xx." That is so painfully old practice it just wounds my soul to see it on drawings. There are ways to set up RAM to output end reactions you can transcribe (or even export into CAD/REVIT I figure), please explore this.

- g) some connection engineers are really "small firms". Or not firms. Just bear in mind you may have a one person shop pick up the work. Not really any specific advice there, just saying. Some effort on making your drawings less wonky, a bit clearer for the connection designer, would be lovely. Give it some thought, clearer drawings are not a bad thing, across the board.

- h) There are checks out there, particularly for HSS wall thickness, it would be really good for you to know about. When you design a 300' long walkway truss out of HSS for the first time ever, put in some extra effort getting familiar with things as much as you can. Or AVOID something you're not reasonably proficient with.

- i) for cantilever roof framing, or other "beam on top of column" please look at the depth of the elements framing in perpendicularly, I don't want a W16 over the top of a column, going 6" past the column, and some dumb W21 coming into the side that needs to be cut, coped, reinforced, and farted around with when a W21 over the top would just bloody work fine.

As DDE/Specialty engineer -
- a) Changing section depth or member sizes is a no-no.
- b) see d) above
- c) see e) above
- d) don't be afraid to send an RFI, even though you are on the far far side of the project working (most likely) for the fabricator. (i.e. note a) above, and note i) above for the EORs.

As both:
- a) You will quickly realize how bloody hard it is to be a DDE, but your next EOR set of drawings will be far far far better for the next DDE.

Alright gotta run. Sorry this is so short (hah).

Regards,
Brian

 

[canwesteng]

It's pretty easy to hit 50% shear capacity with clip angles. Sure, this is a bit silly on residential/commercial, but any industrial type project they are going to want the capacity down the road as equipment moves around or floors are redone.

 

[jerseyshore]

It varies for us, but for small to medium jobs, we usually provide a flat fee (say around 10%) for shop drawing review and label it as such in the proposal. It hasn't come up in a while, but if we have to review something multiple times (not our fault) we'll charge hourly.

As usual I agree with pham that wood trusses and bar joists fall into your 2nd list. Going into a project you know those will be submittals/ shops that need review so we try to capture that up front.

If somewhere down the line they swap out your TJI's for wood trusses, then it's an extra/ hourly bill for review.

But people like to know prices up front so if we can ballpark what shops and submittals we'll be getting later on we price it in as a separate line item.

 

[StrEng007]

Thanks everyone for your input. Very helpful.