Is it standard industry practice to sign and seal incomplete drawings to avoid change requests? 1

[Calrissian45]

A colleague claims that it is standard industry practice to sign and seal incomplete construction drawings (approximately 90% complete) and issue them for bid as a means to avoid future change requests. He even left the status on the drawings that indicates they are 90% complete and not for construction. I have never heard of this practice and it goes against my understanding that signing and sealing drawings indicates they are complete and ready for construction so I'm questioning his claim that it is an industry standard. Has anyone else heard of this practice?

 

[phamENG]

EP - good idea. I still do a lot in 2D CAD, so I'm stuck with Bluebeam on those for now. I'll have to add that to my Revit TB.

In retrospect I probably painted our AHJs in a bad light there. They aren't that rigid, and they realize they may force changes or designs may change in construction. We had an issue a few years ago with a lot of design teams rushing 50% sets in so they could get 'reviewed' and try to short circuit the process when the drawings were finally done. So as long as the design is 'done' and what you show is safe and buildable, you're good. But if you send back a set later with a revision bubble around every sheet, they won't treat you very nicely. Inspectors have also cracked down on wanting to see field revisions at least acknowledged by the city reviewer.

 

[EnergyProfessional]

phamENG: Here in WI there is a "foundation only" review to allow the owner to start earthwork and foundation before the remainder of the building is designed and reviewed. We have winter here, so that may be why they allow that option to allow construction to start before winter. I'm not a structural engineer, so I'm never in the situation to take advantage of that. Obviously if you design, permit and build the foundation you need to know a lot about the building structure already. but HVAC, plumbing, egress etc. Still can be unknown for the most part. Obviously that foundation plan needs to be stamped. But this also sounds like an emergency option and good practice would be to submit a complete design.

 

[alchemon]

PharmENG, I could see where that would create issues. The Issue for Permitting set has been useful to me in the past as there are generally review comments that have to be addressed in pricing. Typically minor in nature, but I have also had rogue code reviewers who have asked for things outside of what the code book says (or interprets things differently, etc.). Better to get those items addressed before Issue for Bid if possible, as otherwise you'll be paying change order prices vs. bid prices .

 

[alchemon]

EnergyProfessional: I have worked on jobs that have permitted/designed foundations early. It does take some additional coordination, planning, and MEP design but can be done (well). I'd say that most large fast track projects are moving towards getting foundation packages out early ahead of the rest of the building. That does sometimes mean that changes are required after additional information trickles in, but those are generally minor adjustments and typically are dwarfed by the cost to the owner of having the building being delayed. For example, for an industrial plant, each day that the new plant is delayed can be millions of dollars.

 

[JStructsteel]

I sign drawings that are for bid only, or for plans review. Knowing that they are complete, but could change due to bid, or a review. If someone wants a review set prior to either of those, I dont sign.

 

[GC_Hopi]

for an industrial plant, each day that the new plant is delayed can be millions of dollars.

I always find this statement funny for new builds. Since it really just comes down the Owner picking a day and saying hence forth the plant is open and I am losing money. Yes, there are nuances with the just in time supply chain everyone uses, opportunity cost, interest, etc. but it really is arbitrary.

 

[CWB1]

I have seen enough issues and a few lawsuits over draft prints that I refuse to send them out unreleased unless directed by both the customer and management, no way I'd ever send a stamped and unreleased print under any circumstance. The giant watermark really doesn't do dink to protect anybody against a good lawyer, much the same as NDAs.

Yes, there are nuances with the just in time supply chain everyone uses, opportunity cost, interest, etc. but it really is arbitrary.

How arbitrary it is depends on the plant and company. Losing profit bc you're not selling widgets is very different from being penalized by a customer for not delivering parts of their widget on time. The first upsets the bean counter, the second digs your grave.