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?

 

[dik]

Very likely... but there's only me here... and it works well with small projects... also have a kazillion standard details filed in a masterformat fashion.

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

-Dik

 

[Brad805]

drawoh, this has little to do with intellectual property. You work in a different world, and your files are usually something you build from. I have downloaded endless mech models from McMaster Carr and grabcad for projects and they are fantastic. We work with many silly people with unrealistic timelines. We recently had a set of EOR dwgs that contained a +- symbol for the joist spacing.

Releasing CAD files anymore is not that important. If you share rasterized .pdf files it takes nothing to convert to .dxf. Below is joist layout imported into our tekla model from their pdf files.

 

[dik]

My *.pdf to cad translator often takes care of redacting, too... I guess it depends on how it was created.

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

-Dik

 

[mikealpha88]

CAD is essential for subcontractors creating shop drawings or stouts on site. We have been sharing Cad files by cleaning out everything.

Now a days there are several PDF tools like bluebeam for which you do not need CAD files to measure or set-up.

 

[human909]

Like I alluded to in my first post it would seem many engineers here are working in worlds where ass covering rules and with little incentive for cooperation. I can understand the bureaucratic inefficiencies that can lead to that. But it is far from ideal and it isn't what I'm used to.

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.

Precisely.

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'd be turning around and showing them precisely where that can shove their blame. Especially if you have clear notation on your release of CAD files as discussed.

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.

I work for a mechanical engineering company that does plenty of design and build projects. Both green field and existing installations. The recent project I mentioned we engaged a major international engineering firm for most of our general works engineering. By default they preferred to deal in PDF and no CADs, presumably for the aforementioned reasons. But they did happily release their CADs with appropriate fine print.

Of course, we all work in a diverse range of sectors and countries. Maybe in some places the engineers get blamed if things don't line up. In my neck of the woods I rarely see that happen.

 

[Tomfh]

I'd be turning around and showing them precisely where that can shove their blame. Especially if you have clear notation on your release of CAD files as discussed.

It’s still a bad situation. If things have gone wrong, they’ve gone wrong, and project politics can see you cop it regardless.

 

[Enable]

I'll actually take the side of those saying NOT to release the CAD files to contractors to which you are not under contract, but for a slightly different reason. Engineers rarely provide usable prints for the actual build (useable in the sense of tolerances, dimensions, erection issues thought through, etc). I don't fault them for that, in my mind to think about the build isn't their job it's mine. But if I rely on them as a contractor, usually I will be in a world of hurt because while a 1/8" difference in the DWG set is immaterial it sure as hell is not in the field with large ass members up on a crane.

So for me if you provide the file I almost wish you didn't because...I am going to use it. I just am. It's human nature to try and economize and having an already completed set of prints is just so tantalizing that it's hard to resist! Especially when you are in the thick of busy season. But I pay for it...always. And I say that as someone who tries to be diligent about my double checks. Most contractors are less so inclined and therefore will catch even less errors leading to more screwups on site; now that's not your problem exactly but everyone does benefit when a project goes smoother than not.

Also, notes don't save you if things go really bad because your insurance company is still being brought into the fray. Hence there goes your deductible + premium increases. Also, by not providing the CAD files it forces the contractor to perform more accurate site measurements and by doing so to think through the implications of their own job.



CWB (W47.1) Div 1 Fabricator
Temporary Works Design

https://www.enable-inc.com/