Release of CAD files? 2

[Aesur]

I have been seeing more and more requests for our CAD files over the past year from sub-contractors and contractors. Typically we have the client sign our CAD release form with the standard liability clauses, etc. and send out the files.

I am considering starting to charge for these files as we put in the time and effort to create the CAD files and this is saving time and money for others, why shouldn't we get a piece of the savings (I am tired of structural engineers taking on more and more scope without just compensation)? The way I see it is our scopes are to provide sealed construction documents in PDF format, this includes the plans and calculations, our scope does not include giving out CAD files for subs to use. Maybe at the very least charge for the time it takes to clean up the CAD files, ie purging, etc.. to keep our proprietary tools/scripts in house. What are your opinions?

 

[STrctPono]

...from subs and contractors

For me, it is necessary to share CAD files with subs (i.e. subconsultants in the Engineering discipline that are collaborating with me on a design). Contractors (i.e. the individuals that won a construction bid and have no affiliated contract with me) are a different story. Most of the time I tell them to kick rocks. If it's a particularly complicated layout or we have a past good relationship with them (even for design-bid projects) I may still share with them if they sign a consent form.

 

[Aesur]

Thanks for the response @STrctPono, I realize that I wasn't clear that by subs I meant sub-contractors (will edit my post above), I 100% agree it's necessary to share with other disciplines during design and do so often.

 

[phamENG]

Aesur - as long as your contract doesn't offer up the CAD files (better yet if it specifically excludes them), then go for it. I like the idea.

 

[human909]

I'm all for efficiency in this world. Why withhold information and create issues of double handling and reduce the ability to cross reference and check for errors?

I am happy to give anybody and everybody CAD files or whatever format they wish**. If you don't believe you are being compensated appropriately then that really is a discussion about contracts and rates.

**Obviously with the appropriate terms, conditions and relinquishment of responsibility etc...

 

[Aesur]

@human909, I agree with efficiency, however I dislike sending my CAD plans to a sub contractor who then turns around and produces their steel shop drawings or i-joist shop drawings by literally copy/pasting my details and plans. It is my opinion that when they do that they don't know the job as well as they should and what is the point of even having shop drawings at that point? As for the cost, as STrctPono said, my contract is with the architect, not the contractor nor sub-contractor. The architect nor the owner is going to agree to pay me more because I am providing my CAD files to the contractor and sub-contractor to make their lives easier and I highly doubt the contractor/sub is giving the owner a discount for not having to do the work they are required to do in shop drawings. I am thinking of charging the contractor the fee, not the architect/owner.

 

[Tomfh]

We have encountered problems with subbies using our plans and models for fabrication setout (despite us telling them not to), and when it doesn’t go together right on site, it’s because “the engineers model was wrong”.

It can be hard to get people to grasp that structural models and details are not fabrication documents.

 

[human909]

@human909, I agree with efficiency, however I dislike sending my CAD plans to a sub contractor who then turns around and produces their steel shop drawings or i-joist shop drawings by literally copy/pasting my details and plans. It is my opinion that when they do that they don't know the job as well as they should and what is the point of even having shop drawings at that point?

Why would you care how the shop drawings are achieved as longs as they get there. A steel detailer can produce terrible show drawings with or without being supplied a CAD drawing.

The architect nor the owner is going to agree to pay me more because I am providing my CAD files to the contractor and sub-contractor to make their lives easier and I highly doubt the contractor/sub is giving the owner a discount for not having to do the work they are required to do in shop drawings..

Well it sound like a grossly inefficient system if everything incentivises you to NOT help the contractors and subcontractors. Surely there comes a time when you have a conversation your client to improve the situation.

I'm a key playing in running a project at the moment. We have many items contracted, the key players being an architects, civil and traffic engineers as well as mechanical electrical etc.... It is design and build. I expect everybody to provide CAD files as required and they do so. When I design up a steel structure I'll readily export it in 3D to provide to steel detailers for the production of workshop drawings. It costs me nothing and gains me an immense amount of goodwill and cost savings.

For sure we are working in different areas. But if your contract structures are promoting gross inefficiencies then nobody wins including yourself.

I think some of this difference comes down to me being somewhat sheltered from the cut-throat competitive fee engineering that many here have discussed in the recent thread.

We have encountered problems with subbies using our plans and models for fabrication setout (despite us telling them not to), and when it doesn’t go together right on site, it’s because “the engineers model was wrong”.

It can be hard to get people to grasp that structural models and details are not fabrication documents.

Yep. That is a danger. Normally avoided by limited dimensioning on strucuturals and BIG "fine print" on any released CADs.

 

[Tomfh]

Normally avoided by limited dimensioning on strucuturals and BIG "fine print" on any released CADs.

It’s hard when they ignore the fine print and take the dimensions straight out of the model.

 

[Stenbrook]

I see this problem from both sides of the coin as the EOR on projects and also as the light gauge specialty engineer. When we request CAD files from the EOR and Arch we utilize the files to produce our shop drawings by overlaying the structural framing with the architectural walls. This is very helpful when it comes to determining where the walls actually line up with the structure as many engineers don't show any walls on their plans at all. The CAD files help us be more efficient in drawing up the plans and more accurate than if we were to redraw the entire structure. This helps avoid issues in the field as well as we can better identify conflicts. There is definitely good reasons to share with other contractors as well for coordination purposes.

With that being said, when you charge for plans, what are you trying to accomplish? If you are against sharing plans because they might get copied or misused, then don't share them. Charging for them doesn't solve that problem. If you are concerned about the 15 minutes it takes to purge a few files, you could charge for that small amount of time or you could just assume you will have to do it on every project and build it into your fee. In my experience, most of the time a contractor has to pay for the CAD files from the EOR or Arch, they transfer that cost back to the owner which means that essentially, the owner has to pay for the drawings again.

Additionally, if you are going to charge for the files, it comes off as not really being a team player with the contractors and may make them less likely to help you out should an issue arise later on in the project. I like to help the contractor out whenever I can with minimal effort so that if a mistake is made on our side, they are happy to help us out to solve the problem and move forward.

 

[Brad805]

I believe in sharing models when I have an understanding of the parties involved, but I would not pay for an unknown consultants data. I have been provided many models/CAD over the years and the quality of the data varies dramatically. One client used to take dimensions from CAD files they were provided, but over time they had to revise their policy to use only dimensions printed on the drawing. Detailer data is always much better in my experience since they have a lot more to lose when dimensions are incorrect.

 

[phamENG]

Stenbrook - that's an ideal scenario, and if I knew the contractor and subs were going to do it right I wouldn't have a problem with it. Have them sign the form, and off go the drawings. If there's a mistake lurking in them that QC missed or that doesn't impact the content of the drawings as issued, the detailer will catch it, and either report it or fix it in the shop drawings. But more and more, errors are just copied over and nobody catches them until fit up and it doesn't fit. So I think Aesur is trying to prevent those types from getting the CAD files - the ones who are just doing it as a shortcut and not adding value to the project.

 

[dik]

It's a matter of locating the file, removing the titleblock from paperspace, purging, and saving the file as a different drawing... 2 minutes, top.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Stenbrook]

phamENG - that's what I'm saying though, if we are trying to prevent the people who are going to use the drawings incorrectly from getting the CAD files, charging a little money for it won't accomplish this in my mind. It is only going to make the owner (which is our end client) pay more money for something that is totally unnecessary. If they sign the CAD release form, then they should know what they can and cannot use the CAD files for and they should accept any liability by ignoring it.

 

[GC_Hopi]

It appears that there are two items that are being debated.

1) How the engineer should recoup the cost of coordinating with the contractor. I think the engineer should be able to recoup their cost but the mechanism is challenging.
2) The liability issues of using BIM to coordinate with the contractor. Here is some info on the second, Legal Considerations Associated with Building Information Modeling.

 

[drawoh]

Aesur,

I have released drawings and CAD models to vendors, however, I am mechanical, not structural. I need to manage proprietary information and possibly an official secrets act somewhere. I assume that fabrication shops are not secure facilities. The owners may sign your NDA in good faith, but do they do security training for their employees? Almost certainly not.

You need to think in terms of security when you prepare documentation. As far as I am concerned, fabrication drawing are public. If some piece of information must never go out your door, it must not be placed on public documents and files. My problem is that I like to label features on my SolidWorks models, and some sheet metal shops want the model. Write notes on your drawings carefully. Release PDFs, DXFs, and STF files if you can.

How much proprietary information goes onto structural drawings?

--
JHG

 

[Aesur]

Why would you care how the shop drawings are achieved as longs as they get there. A steel detailer can produce terrible show drawings with or without being supplied a CAD drawing.

The main concern here is as Tomfh said, we have no control of how the sub-contractor actually uses our drawings and if there is something that doesn't quite match up to the architects or other plans as far as dimensions are concerned the blame is placed solely on the engineer and not the contractor who should be verifying this information. In an ideal world we would have time to update the CAD plans/Revit Model to match the architects perfectly however as I'm sure many can tell you, it's almost impossible with the constant short deadlines and last minute changes that often times the EOR isn't even made aware of.

I'm a key playing in running a project at the moment. We have many items contracted, the key players being an architects, civil and traffic engineers as well as mechanical electrical etc.... It is design and build. I expect everybody to provide CAD files as required and they do so. When I design up a steel structure I'll readily export it in 3D to provide to steel detailers for the production of workshop drawings. It costs me nothing and gains me an immense amount of goodwill and cost savings.

Welcome to the world of Design-Bid-Build, the vast majority of buildings in my area and I would be willing to bet the US in general is design-bid-build, in this setup the owner wants as cheap of design fees as possible and shops around trying to get disciplines to undercut each other a good bit. It's highly competitive. This is typically because in the design-bid-build setup the owner pays for the design out of pocket and then gets investors and bids it out to contractors; whereas in Design-Build the design fees are built into the contractors costs and project loans which is "easier to hide the design costs" resulting in better fees and better coordination. In the design-bid-build scenario there is little to no incentive to work with the contractor on VE options, contractor errors, etc. without just compensation for your time.

It sounds like you may work in the horizontal design of structures, ie bridges? I have heard those go much smoother with MUCH better fees.

Stenbrook - that's an ideal scenario, and if I knew the contractor and subs were going to do it right I wouldn't have a problem with it. Have them sign the form, and off go the drawings. If there's a mistake lurking in them that QC missed or that doesn't impact the content of the drawings as issued, the detailer will catch it, and either report it or fix it in the shop drawings. But more and more, errors are just copied over and nobody catches them until fit up and it doesn't fit. So I think Aesur is trying to prevent those types from getting the CAD files - the ones who are just doing it as a shortcut and not adding value to the project.

Yes, this is exactly what I am trying to prevent. However there is also the constant pressure of contractors trying to push off their work onto the engineers without just compensation to fix their mistakes in the field, etc. I see providing CAD files for them as just yet another area they are working to push their (or their subs) work off onto us but yet they still charge their normal prices that include producing the shop drawings from the construction documents (ie sealed set) instead of our CAD files. Our job is to provide the owner with a safe engineered efficient design, not save the contractor money by doing their job for them. If the contractor was too give the owner a credit back for their time saved on creating shop drawings, etc.. then this would be a different story, however if all we are doing is continuing the pattern of doing their job to save them money then shouldn't we see a cut of the extra profit?

@dik - between the emails, purging the files, saving, CAD release forms, etc.. this takes anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour depending on project size. I am not sure what your hourly rates are, but that is a good chunk of change and time our of our day when there are only 8 "work hours" in a day (not that I have worked less than 8 hours a day in years). Ideally we should be working toward creating efficiencies to get our work/life balance back and make decent money, not adding more work to our plates to make someone else a profit just to have them blame us if there is an error on the drawing that they copied on the shop drawings.

@drawoh - The only proprietary items we have in CAD are the custom scripts/tools we developed and use to simply drawing creation. These are removed through purging quite easily. The information the drawings can be easily copied from the PDF's and in fact if you look at many structural details you will see patterns that they are mostly all the same. The CAD release form is more of a form saying what they can and can't use the drawings for, stating that the contractor shall use the sealed contract drawings and stating that the contractor agrees to indemnify us for any issues arising from the use of the CAD drawings. Mostly legal jargon to help protect the engineer.

 

[dik]

Used to be very little... but, I often use proprietary products with an 'or an engineer approved equal' I like to use products that I have confidence that work well and often have 'no equal'.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

My projects are small, I guess... and normally in a single file with paperspace for the individual drawing. Blocks are embedded and not by reference. There may be 20 S??? drawings, in the single file with paperspace. Finding the file may take a minute or two... I have a 'Clients' folder with maybe 20 clients, All my work for the last 30 or so years is on my harddrive. If I have the project reference I can readily find the project. I can load a 50meg *.dwg file in seconds... and as long to remove the titleblock. I use standard drawing sheets with a defined 'block', with references, for all size sheets. A single stroke and it's gone. Drawing Number, title, etc. is gone too, but the drawing information is there. It really only takes a couple of minutes from beginning to end.


I don't know how I can improve on mine, but, would appreciate any help. Even my title block, all variables are by reference and I start by copying the title block to the project file and input all data that will not change with each drawing... leaving the drawing number and drawing title blank or for smaller projects edit it once it is inserted. kTakes a little more disk space... but I have lots of that.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Aesur]

@dik, We have debated using a single CAD file versus multiple and found that using multiple increases productivity on our side because we can have multiple drafters/engineers working on the project drawings at the same time. This is where the time starts adding up for us when it comes to CAD release.