Reuse of Drawings 6

[dik]

I have a young engineer that is working on some solar panels, and the documents will be reused. I've advised her that I usually charge 100% for first project and 50% for the second use and 33% for the third and subsequent use, if no significant changes (what I usually do). She was going to use a fixed fee for all uses of the documents.

I've also suggested that she include the following in her drawing notes:

THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR PREVIOUSLY AGREED WORK. THE ENGINEER MUST BE INFORMED OF THE WORK, IN WRITING, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT. ALL OTHER USE OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CONSTITUTES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. THE WORK IS NON-NEGOTIABLE AND CANNOT BE USED BY THIRD PARTIES, UNLESS AGREED TO IN WRITING BY THE ENGINEER

and, that she should discuss this with her insurance agent.

Any Comments?

Thanks, Dik

 

[Ingenuity]

dik:

That appears to be a very prudent note to add to the drawings, and nice of you to mentor this young engineer, based upon your real-world experience.

Reminds me of a very recent project (in the last 12 months) in my local area where modifications were required to one level of an existing duct/ventilation shaft to a multi story office building. A local EOR and architect designed/detailed new concrete partial slab infill and work was carried out. Client/Owner was a large bank.

Then the bank decided to tenant improve 2 floors above, and modify/partially infill the duct shaft to these two floors too, however the EOR and architect (different team from the previous floor) for the new 2 level modification scope did NOT include the duct shaft modifications - the bank informed them that they will tell the new 2 level contractor to "...just copy what we did on the floor below...". I questioned this decision and asked if the original EOR for the duct shaft modification was informed and compensated for the added scope/liability...crickets.

 

[dik]

the bank informed them that they will tell the new 2 level contractor to "...just copy what we did on the floor below...". I questioned this decision and asked if the original EOR for the duct shaft modification was informed and compensated for the added scope/liability...

Quite improper; I'm not sure whether the original engineer would be liable if he were not informed of the change... and the bank could be the one on the hook...

Dik

 

[Nor Cal SE]

This also reminds me of a scenario where I had an out-of-control contractor. Though I was agreeable to numerous revisions he requested, apparently he grew tired of me forbidding certain revisions that would've compromised the structure. At one point he asked me to provide a general list of all revisions he couldn't make, as a means of claiming "passive consent" for anything else that he would then do. As if it was my job to tell him all the possible things in this world that he can't do!

 

[dik]

As if it was my job to tell him all the possible things in this world that he can't do!

Used to have a math teacher in Grade 7 that said, "A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer."

Dik

 

[JStephen]

My suggestion- if you reuse the drawings (assuming CAD drawings), change up the title block, re-print, reseal each time. Then on the title block, give the specific project information and a note that "These drawings are valid for this location/application only" or wording to that effect.

Note that Sentence 1 requires your approval, but Sentence 2 just requires your notification, not your approval. "Use" of a drawing wouldn't be copyright infringement, would it?
Copying it would be, but you can use and re-use the same drawing without ever copying it.

 

[Agent666]

I would suggest the same as JStephen suggested, issuing the documents as a unique project is the only way to truly control when and where the design is used and getting paid for it if that is the concern. Basically it allows you to also vet its use for a given situation/location/ground conditions etc.

It avoids the solution being used by others with little engineering input where it might not be appropriate, with you only finding out about it later on and being asked to retrospectively design/stamp/rectify it. All it takes is one inappropriate use and profit and your time takes a big hit.

It could be the exact same generic drawings with specific title block and project information, but with some signoff on engineering review or similar being factored into the process. Make it contingent on client/architect/etc supplying all the relevant information for the review (produce checklists, etc so responsibilities are clear), so you are not coordinating and chasing people which quickly eats up your time.

Have a fee structure agreed in the contract for additional work that might require modifications to the standardised design if they don't meet the original assumptions for the design (i.e. poor ground or similar restrictions).

 

[dik]

JS and Agent:

That's the challenge... we want a single document that can be used numerous times for numerous projects that doesn't require a change to the titleblock for each issue.

Dik

 

[dik]

Modified:
THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR PREVIOUSLY AGREED WORK. THE ENGINEER MUST BE INFORMED OF THE WORK, IN WRITING, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT. ALL OTHER USE OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS VOIDS THE ENGINEERING SEAL, AND CONSTITUTES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. THE WORK IS NON-NEGOTIABLE AND CANNOT BE USED BY THIRD PARTIES, UNLESS AGREED TO IN WRITING BY THE ENGINEER

Dik

 

[Settingsun]

That's the challenge... we want a single document that can be used numerous times for numerous projects that doesn't require a change to the titleblock for each issue.

What is the reason for this? I've seen this handled a couple of ways but whether they work in your situation depends on your specific reasons.

How do you give your 'agreement' for re-use? Presumably in writing. Can you have a note on the drawing that refers to this written authorisation document to 'activate' the drawing for a new site?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd suggest running your wording past one. It sounds like it might have holes as JStephen pointed out, plus potentially giving your original client (who is not a third party) free rein.

 

[EngineeringEric]

If you want to be paid for each time the design is used, then i think you may have to have a delivery each time. Why not have a titleblock that refers to one location and then you change that, or it refers to address stated in the accompanying sealed report... then you have to modify the address in a standard report each time. If they are paying you 33% of OG fee, spanning 15 mins seems acceptable.

If the drawings are so location vague, make the drawings have something that says their 'applicability to all sites shall be verified by the engineer of record prior to construction in a written response.'

 

[dik]

Steveh: she will... that was one of my original comments to her.

The two statements noted by JStevens are complimentary not exclusive, and are OK. The reason is to allow standard details to be used for all applicable work, without specifically stipulating the project.

Dik

 

[kmart30]

You need to make sure your drawings are specific for that specific area/address/floor/ect. ect. or else the plan reviewer and/or inspector will more than likely never catch it. Contractors/owners will go to the edge until someone tells them they cant (usually the city) then they will play dumb and call you afterwards.

 

[dik]

Kmart... there is nothing in the titleblock to identify the project. All general and specific reference is stipulated in the drawing notes. It is a matter of the client notifying the engineer of the project and then the validity of the drawings 'kicks in'. If the client or anyone else proceeds without authorisation, they do so at their peril.

Dik

 

[Agent666]

Then that's potentially your peril to, whether you like it or not you are involved at that point and its a risk to you I would have thought? Any legal action would surely drag the engineer in.

There's always going to be the type of people that are like 'so if I contact this guy, I have to pay for this, but what if I don't and use similar details anyway whats the issue'.

I guess like others are eluding to, I'm failing to see where the impetus is for them always contacting and paying you as you are leaving it as a decision for them to make (without knowing the exact nature of the product or service being offered, its hard to say if this works or not).

I think what most replies are potentially getitng at, is to just make sure the entire process relies on more than a note on the drawing to ensure you are contacted and paid for your work. I.e. if there is someone like a project manager managing the whole process ensuring you are contacted/paid and who is using it, and you aren't reliant on the end user contacting you directly if they see fit (you are always at the mercy of the 'who reads the notes anyway' types....). Or by putting a 'roadblock' in place like you having to issue/provide a certified drawing and stamp it for each use (even with no project specific elements), rather than having it prestamped and free to be copied/passed on? Might depend on the usage you are expecting this design to get, if its 100 uses a month its a different prospect than 2 uses a month.

These days you can get pretty savvy with automating parts of the drawings to make each one specific to a usage (as easy as pressing a button and then printing), even if its just some reference number so you can track the origin of specific documents if things get handed on to others and you are not subsequently contacted.

 

[dik]

"Then that's potentially your peril to, whether you like it or not you are involved at that point and its a risk to you I would have thought? Any legal action would surely drag the engineer in."

Aware of that, but that would likely happen anyway... no way to avoid it, even, for regular projects.

"There's always going to be the type of people that are like 'so if I contact this guy, I have to pay for this, but what if I don't and use similar details anyway whats the issue'."

All other unauthorised use is void and copyright infringement. If they use different details, again, at their peril.

"I guess like others are eluding to, I'm failing to see where the impetus is for them always contacting and paying you as you are leaving it as a decision for them to make (without knowing the exact nature of the product or service being offered, its hard to say if this works or not)."

That's the reason I posted it here to see what any concerns are.

"if its 100 uses a month its a different prospect than 2 uses a month."

I don't know the frequency... it's apparently a 'start up' project by someone that makes and installs solar panels.

"These days you can get pretty savvy with automating parts of the drawings to make each one specific to a usage (as easy as pressing a button and then printing), even if its just some reference number so you can track the origin of specific documents if things get handed on to others and you are not subsequently contacted."

That's a better approach... through the CAD forum, I've obtained and modified a script that generates the filename from the project name and paperspace TAB name. It's a matter of giving the project a different filename, and the drawing name number in the titleblock is automatically changed. The note on the drawings will stay.

Thanks

Dik

 

[dik]

Example Drawings:

https://files.engineering.com/getfi...a-4ed1-8988-eaf79073356e&file=12345__S-01.pdf

https://files.engineering.com/getfi...0-477d-9049-1c37fa4b7640&file=67890__S-01.pdf

https://files.engineering.com/getfi...c-acbf-4deb-b264-c2365aaacb48&file=12345_.dwg

https://files.engineering.com/getfi...b-37aa-4bdb-ad65-803436b27833&file=67890_.dwg

https://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=94530047-9279-4d9e-9a72-66253082ec82&file=EB.dwg

You have to double click on the filename and double click on the attribute in the attribute editor to change default, else right click on the attribute in the attribute editor and refresh for changes to occur when you change project numbers.

The Diesel script is:

$(substr,$(getvar,dwgname),1,$(-,$(strlen,$(getvar,dwgname)),4))$(getvar,ctab)

You can enter a '-' or '_' or ' - ' before the $ to enter a character between the filename and the tabname (no quotation marks).

Dik

 

[Sparweb]

I've advised her that I usually charge 100% for first project and 50% for the second use and 33% for the third and subsequent use, if no significant changes (what I usually do). She was going to use a fixed fee for all uses of the documents.

Everybody jumped on the usage words on your drawing. I stopped reading at your fee structure. You get paid 33 per cent??

Is your work any less valuable to your customer the 3rd or 33rd time you deliver it to them, than the first time you provide them with a design? How did this come about? If you supply a customer with drawings for 20 projects do you get paid 5% of the first fee?

The cost to do your work varies from job to job, but cost is NOT equal to the price, and that is NOT equal to the value of the service to the customer. Three separate calculations, and three different results. You and the customer are happiest when the price exceeds your cost and is less than the value they place on the work. Once a price has been set, you are taking money out of your pocket every time you reduce that price, and making the customer only marginally happier. The value of your drawing to them does not diminish every time you supply it (if they are have any integrity).

Sorry to rant on Adam Smith all over your thread. I am sure you do valuable work, dik, so reading that you discount the value by 67% really set me off. You accept 100% more liability for anything that goes wrong every Nth time you issue the drawing, and increase the odds that something can go wrong by +N, and the cost to fix it could wipe out profits from many other re-issues, especially if you accept a pittance for each. Some of your subsequent responses to other questions hint that the customer is barely able (or unwilling) to pay your discounted fee. This is starting to sound like a customer that would be "better served by your competitors" so to speak.

Rant over.

There is a chance that you were paid >3X more than your costs on the first issue. I really hope that was the case. But it sets up your customer to expect that they can de-value your work in the future, so either way it's not good.

No one believes the theory except the one who developed it. Everyone believes the experiment except the one who ran it.
STF

 

[dik]

Other than for simple warehouses, the real cost is in the preparation of the original documents. I lay things out so they can be readily stretched, and, standard details are normally used. Duplication never happens with 'major' work. Most is a simple sign structure or something of that ilk. My fee structure is quite profitable for 'lots of duplication' and normally just a matter of doing a quick check of the foundation conditions. A $1500 stiffened slab foundation... comes in at $750 for the second project, for about 15 minutes work, and $500 for all others. I'm happy.

The engineer was going to charge a fixed fee for indefinite uses... I was trying to set up notes so it was just a matter of a phone call to authorise the next use. The project would be logged into a spreadsheet, and, now with a project number, thanks to the Beast Agent.

Sparweb... I only go to 1/3; I don't keep diminishing the fee beyond 1/3.

Dik

 

[Agent666]

SparWeb, if you are not doing any real additional work for each reissue, then its almost 100% profit each time as far as I see it, and its just a matter of coming up with a cost that is tolerated in the marketplace as far as I can tell. Customer in these scenarios doesn't see the value if you charge them for the full design each time for something that has an element of mass production/reuse of a standard design. As a customer I like to think at least someone is doing something (or has done something) for my money.

As a crude example, how expensive would the car you drive or your toaster be if you had to pay the full development costs each time you bought one, knowing that it was mass produced there is an expectation that costs are spread out over a minimum number of units.