Revising Drawings for Construction

[Jestergold]

I am currently working for the CM on a massive project in which many RFI's have come from the Contractor and many RFC's have come from the CM team. We have had some problems coordinating revised drawings that are issued to the Contractor. We are trying to push the Designer to revise and re-issue drawings that have several revisions made by RFI/RFC, but there is quite a bit of argument as to what constitutes a revision. Does any one know if there is a published "best practice" when it comes to how to deal with this? I am hoping it will settle the differences in opinion.

Thanks.

 

[KENAT]

"bit of argument as to what constitutes a revision"

In the mechanical world this is more or less defined between ASME Y14.100 & ASME Y14.35M.

However, I don't know about in your field, maybe there's a similar standard(s).

KENAT,

Have you reminded yourself of faq731-376 recently, or taken a look at

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GregLamberson]

Jestergold

Unfortunately these issues should have been addressed in the contract. The fact they were not does leave a gap. It soundsl ike you have a system in place for capturing and processing the RFI's and RFC's. You will probably want to negotiate a procedure with them that covers the implementation of the agreed changes covering all aspects of processing the RFI's, changes, deviations, etc.

It does not make sense for every change to generate a revised drawing - that is one extreme. Nor does it make sense that none do - the other extreme. Somewhere in the middle is where you need to get to. For example, some changes will be captured by the contractor as as-builts. But that is something you will need to work out with your design contractor.


Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[DRC1]

f you are revising something on the drawing, you have revised the drawing, and a revised drawing should be issued. If you are haing trouble with the contractor being ahead of the drawing revisions, then your contractor is ahead of the design. get the designer on track or tell the contractor to wait. This is a sign of a serious problem.
Been there done that don't need to go back.

 

[ktaylo20]

Try looking through applicable specs (state or local govn.) or even for circular letters from the funding party online that may address your issue. I'm more familiar with roadway projects than any other industry, and oftentimes I can find instructions or procedures for making such changes online through the applicable DOT's webpage. Typically, if there is a incidental change in the field, the As-Built Plans are suffice for documentation, but larger alterations in the work sometimes require more formal processes for approval.
You may have already tried this, or maybe I might be WAY off track about your problem. Sounds like a typical concern though.

 

[GregLamberson]

ktaylo20

The contractor Jestergold is dealing with is not interested in what it says on the DOT website or anywhere else other than the contract they signed. If it's not in it, they don't have to do it or they will get paid extra for doing it.


Greg Lamberson, BS, MBA
Consultant - Upstream Energy
Website:

http://www.oil-gas-consulting.com

 

[Jestergold]

You are all correct in your assumptions. This contract is run by four parties. Owner, Designer, Construction Manager, General Contractor. Every one's contract is between the Owner and the individual party. While I can push the Designer to re-issue drawings, it comes down to budget and what the owner has put in the Contract with the Designer. This makes it a bit messy.

In any case, in the past few days, a new player has been introduced to the team. He is very responsive to my requests for new drawings, or at least a new way to transmit them to the Contractor. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that he is more pro-active than who I was battling before.

 

[PilotPM]

Don’t know the players, or the politics, but it sounds like a little profit by change order going on here, and I can’t tell it that is just opportunistic, abusive, or justified. Here are a few thoughts I’ve always used to lead the engineering and design team. During engineering/design, revise by agreed upon completion of a phase or major effort, all drawings, all trades, so each can see each others and formally coordinate. After bidding, revise if it is ambiguous, only. If the wording is awkward, or the drawing detail is difficult to read, but the result is correct and unambiguous, leave it alone. If is it design build (Or design bid but with many unknowns that will require clarification later) and many clarifications and/or changes are anticipated, get a rhythm going, such as: Collect all changes, close out the list weekly, one week (or two) to make changes, coordinate across all trades, and issue thereafter, with a rolling collection and revision pace, so, no response is ever more than the collection + correction period old, and changes come out same day every week. Otherwise, you struggle with when to revise, and also generate additional coordination problems trying to be responsive. Revising drawings by issuing sketches offers the opportunity for too much ambiguity and appears unmanageable to me. Think about it. How can you be sure while looking at a drawing that some portion isn’t pre-empted with a sketch? Contracting is hard enough. Why make the contractor manage that? Personally, as engineer of record, I would never do it. Regarding the abuse issue, it might be helpful to review changes to establish they are clarifications, as opposed to scope changes, with all parties including the owner, present. The trivial questions will stop, and, if the engineer gets embarrassed by the owner, so be it, but at least the project keeps moving.

 

[EEJaime]

For the most part, in the kinds of projects that we are involved in which deal with public entities as the Owner, with either a General Contractor or a Construction Management firm, we as consultants have a responsibility as part of our Construction Administration duties to document and track all changes to the construction documents. For the most part we do not issue "Instruction Bulletins", Revision drawings, etc..., except when the changes require clarification for the contractor. We require the contractor to provide complete as built information for any revisions resulting from an RFI or RFC, (which are the same thing in my estimation).

When we respond to an RFI, we generally include any sketches that may be necessary to clarify the direction. These are archived and the master CADD files are updated as we go.

If the design team involved in your project failed to include sufficient fees to cover decent Construction Administration efforts, this will be a long project. The Contractor is not responsible for the design, you don't want him to alter the Construction Documents that have your stamp on them.

Completing a construction project these days truly takes a team effort, while we've been involved in many "partnering" construction projects that turned out to be more confrontational than even traditional Design-Bid-Build projects, with a GC, we have had success with many of the larger Contractors in our ares.

Best of Luck,
EEJaime