Who provides leveling nuts or shims? 6

[shaneelliss]

I am involved in a project that has a concrete contractor and a steel erector as two separate contracts. Neither contract specifies who is to provide leveling nuts or shims. In my mind the answer is obvious that the steel erector is to provide the leveling nuts or shims because they have a choice on how to set the level and don't have to use one over the other (shims or nuts). The concrete contractor provided the anchor rods and one nut, which is what the drawings require. The drawings also show 1.5" grout space between concrete and baseplate. The steel erector is saying that they can't install the columns until the concrete contractor provides him with leveling nuts. I tried looking in the code of standard practice, but don't see anything there. Is there a standard that says the erector is to provide these? Or is it the concrete contractor's responsibility? Or is it the responsibility of the owner to make sure that the contract specifies one way or the other?

 

[cvg]

you have bigger problems than just a few missing nuts...

 

[TLHS]

The CISC Code of Standard Practice says that the fabricator or erector needs to supply wedges, shims or levelling screws. No idea in the US.

 

[MikeHalloran]

If I were the judge, I'd say whoever did the drawings should be supplying the leveling nuts, or some other means to lift the baseplates up against the retaining nuts while the grout cures.

If the problem ever gets anywhere near a judge, you'll wish you had just gone to Grainger and bought the damn nuts with your own money.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[JLNJ]

I don't see it in the Code of Standard Practice either.

Ask your erector what his plan was to set and level the columns. If there are no shims or leveling plates or extra nuts shown on the documents, what did he base his bid upon? Other than a gotcha.

 

[TLHS]

Honestly, if this is turning into one of those ridiculously pointless pride fights that sometimes pop up, I'd likely recommend that the owner accept a change from the erector (or authorize spending out of their contingency) for whatever hilariously small amount of money it would take to supply nuts.

The amount of time you're going to charge arbitrating this is going to be more than the cost of the nuts and if this sets you back at all in schedule it's probably not worth it.

While issuing the change you can straight up tell the owner and contractor that you believe that it's already their responsibility but are doing this for pragmatic reasons.

However, if it isn't clear in the documents, it's also a good lesson learned for the future.

 

[shaneelliss]

Thanks for the responses. I would never let this get as far a litigation, I would have gone and bought the nuts myself if it came to that, but I was just curious if there was a standard for that sort of thing. After several back-and-forths with the erector, they have agreed to provide the nuts, though they still feel that it shouldn't be their responsibility.

This is probably something that should be specified more clearly on the contract documents in the future I guess.

 

[MikeHalloran]

It should also be in your drawing checklist.

Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[hokie66]

There is probably not a universal convention, but my experience is that the steel fabricator provides all anchor bolts, including levelling nuts and levelling plates if required by the documents. The concrete contractor takes possession of the steel and builds it in. Then the erector does the rest, including providing shims if required, and usually grouting. But the general contractor or project manager needs to coordinate all of this, not the designer. Separate contracting without this coordination always leads to arguments.

 

[cvg]

star for hokie and to add, it sounds to me like either there is no general contractor, in which case the owner must take that role - or - there is a general and he should be the one eating the cost of the missing nuts. the bigger problem is that if the two subs are fighting over who forgot the nuts than expect more trouble in the future from them as the job continues. Sounds like a good time for a partnering meeting.

 

[wannabeSE]

I agree with Hokie66. Does the project specification reference AISC's Code of Standard Practice for Steel Bridges and Buildings? Section 2.1 says structural steel includes: anchor rods, leveling nuts and washers, and leveling plates. I suggest you download a pdf of the Code of Standard Practice for Steel Bridges and Buildings and search for the word "anchor"

 

[mihmb]

I would call both of them up and say. "I am sure if I look hard enough I am sure I can find somewhere that you did not meet project specs... Or can I see your documentation proving that you provided the exact ASTM/ACI spec on XXX (you choose, conc mix, w/c ratio, anchor bolt)." Or ask them if they want you to go check tolerances. Any of those will result in more time and cost to each of the contractors than a box of nuts.

 

[CELinOttawa]

mlhmb: Not the most ethical approach offered, but probably just about the most effective.

Now, once any small issue comes up with your design, please pick what you think it the likely reaction:

- Contrator helps you in good faith to maintain relationship.
- Contractor finds the closest bus (read: Owner) to push you in front of...
- Contractors back each other up against their new common enemy, ie: You.
- Contractors have it in for you and make you day just peachy on site.
- Contractors warn other contractors how hard you are to work with and this negatively impacts your image in your local market.

Hint: You can pick more than one correct answer, but you don't get to pick the one that appears to "not belong".

All kidding aside, I have used similar threats myself many times, but *always* when it was against a party who where not meeting a clear and unobjectionable contract/standard of practice requirement.

It is just too big a stick for a bucket of shims/bolts/whatever. And sorry if I've gone off on you, but I had one of my staff try to extort the right behaviour out of a contractor against my specific advice and it has come home to roost on us in a big way. I mention this because you are getting an unfare reaction from me based on my own recent experience... I assure you that all of the consequences listed are far easier to have happen than you think.

We need the contractor's good will. We need the owner's good will. We need all other allied professional's (Arch, Int. Designer, Costing, etc) good will.

 

[ztengguy]

Im with others, if not in the spec, or draiwngs, the erector bid it on means and methods correct? Without leveling nuts and shims, how were you going to do it?

 

[rb1957]

i'm with TLHS ...

this is a small detail that was overlooked in the contract paperwork 'cause both parties considered it was understood "of course, you're doing it" they both said.

intuitive (to me) the guy who spec's one side of the joint spec's the other side. At a minimum they should have told the other side "since we're not contracted to provide the other side hardware, you should procure nuts XYZ to fit our installation". For us we'll make the interface the fastener hole, carefully controlled in space and geometry (diameter and thickness), so whowever is providing the nut, also provides the bolt (to fit).

if it is a big deal from the cost persepective and it was overlooked in the contracts then i think that omission needs to be corrected ... change to contract to include the nuts, or buy them yourself.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[hokie66]

The thing which some are misinterpreting here is whether or not levelling nuts are required at all. In most cases, just as in the OP's job, the choice as to how to set columns is left to the contractor. The erector can do his work without the nuts, but he wants to do it his way, so he should just get on with it. Some engineers prohibit setting columns with the use of levelling nuts...what would this guy do then?

 

[dik]

It looks like the owner is taking on the role of Constructor... he should be greatful that he doesn't have a third sub-trade... the steel erector <G>.

I would insist that the steel fabricator provide the levelling nuts and shims; you are on pretty strong grounds in North America.

This is a call by the owner since he is taking on this role. He's put himself in a position where he many not only be responsible for coordinating the work, but he may be liable for safety issues.

Dik

 

[CELinOttawa]

Dik: Agreed. Note that in Ontario you can substitute "will be" for your "may be" regarding the Owner's liability as Constructor...

 

[hokie66]

The OP said the argument was between the concrete contractor and the steel erector.

 

[MikeHalloran]

It's ironic that at least three parties are arguing about nuts that do not appear on the drawings or in either of the relevant contracts, as if they're going to appear out of the ether.


A story about that, sort of:
For my second job, I had designed an assembly of which an o-ring was a relevant part. I caught a machinists' union member attempting to seat the associated parts with a hammer. We had words.

I had assumed that everyone knew that you greased an o-ring when you assembled it.
My adversary argued that grease was not indicated in the BOM, and not noted on the drawing; therefore he was assembling, or attempting to assemble, the parts, with a dry o-ring. ... which caused the assembly to not assemble as intended and not work as intended.

I was wrong.

Since then, my drawings have included a couple of microliters of grease for each o-ring, and a drop of Loctite for each threaded fastener where appropriate, so there would be no doubt about what has to be supplied. Who supplies the stuff is someone else's problem, but at least if it's on the drawing, the need is documented.


Here, in this instance, it appears that the involved parties have differing expectations about who is to supply what, and apparently a standards setting body has managed to confuse the issue, but in my world, I have to agree with that old machinist; if it ain't on the drawing, nobody is expected to supply it, and nobody is expected to install it.


On the other hand, my sons are lawyers, and you guys are just providing more work for them, so have at it...





Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA