EG
Civil/Environmental
- Mar 5, 2002
- 20
Hi All,
We are looking for any feedback or references that helps delineate or define the limits of civil 'scope' for site improvements as they interface with a building. Here are 2 examples:
1. For a sidewalk either connecting to a building entrance or a perimeter walk, we will typically reference compaction requirements and subgrade prep, specify concrete handling and placement, and detail the grades. However, there may be conflicts as you approach the foundation zone with respect to backfill material and compaction effort; and,
2. Utilities: We have a project that involves a grease interceptor located in a parking lot outside the building. We typically will coordinate the location of the GI with the M/E/P and provide conveyance downstream from the GI. The M/E/P typically provides the GI plan info including piping upstream (from the building to the GI).
Lastly, we provide construction observation for the scope of work on OUR plans. Recently, we have a situation where the plumber installed schedule 40 (M/E/P plans) to the GI and then the site excavator transitioned out of the GI with SDR 35 (our plans). We alerted both the general contractor and the local water district (out of courtesy) that SDR 35 is preferred underground (site). The water district claims we (civil) should have stopped the work and required the contractor to remove the sch 40 piping and replace it with sdr 35 since it was 'site' piping. We responded that we have no authority over other discipline's plans, only our own. What a poop storm that started!
The question about limits of professional scope has since arisen and I am interested in hearing other's opinions or references on how to better define where the hand-off between civil and M/E/P or civil and architect should occur. Thanks.
We are looking for any feedback or references that helps delineate or define the limits of civil 'scope' for site improvements as they interface with a building. Here are 2 examples:
1. For a sidewalk either connecting to a building entrance or a perimeter walk, we will typically reference compaction requirements and subgrade prep, specify concrete handling and placement, and detail the grades. However, there may be conflicts as you approach the foundation zone with respect to backfill material and compaction effort; and,
2. Utilities: We have a project that involves a grease interceptor located in a parking lot outside the building. We typically will coordinate the location of the GI with the M/E/P and provide conveyance downstream from the GI. The M/E/P typically provides the GI plan info including piping upstream (from the building to the GI).
Lastly, we provide construction observation for the scope of work on OUR plans. Recently, we have a situation where the plumber installed schedule 40 (M/E/P plans) to the GI and then the site excavator transitioned out of the GI with SDR 35 (our plans). We alerted both the general contractor and the local water district (out of courtesy) that SDR 35 is preferred underground (site). The water district claims we (civil) should have stopped the work and required the contractor to remove the sch 40 piping and replace it with sdr 35 since it was 'site' piping. We responded that we have no authority over other discipline's plans, only our own. What a poop storm that started!
The question about limits of professional scope has since arisen and I am interested in hearing other's opinions or references on how to better define where the hand-off between civil and M/E/P or civil and architect should occur. Thanks.