less complete plans

subcritical · Nov 22, 2009

I’m a licensed civil working on creek restoration design in CA and have a few questions/concerns on producing less complete designs for construction. The company that employs me has recently worked on a few jobs where we produce 50-90% complete plans and then provide more detailed instruction to the contractor in the field (pseudo design-build). We have also provided less complete plans to owners who are their own contractors (parks agencies, large land owners, etc.) with no contracted role during the construction phase.

Is it ever acceptable to stamp less complete plans that will be used for construction? Can our liability be reasonably managed with contracting language indemnifying ourselves from the inherent risks of going into construction with knowingly incomplete plans? Is this pseudo design-build method (designer and contractor are contracted separately through the owner, but collaborating on the design details during the construction phase) being used by others?

Thanks.

zdas04 · Nov 22, 2009

I do it occasionally, but ONLY when I'm on site during construction. Then I usually fill in the gaps with a piece of chalk on the side of a piece of pipe (that is far too thick to seal). If they want a design without my attendence then they pay for the 100% design.

David

Ron · Nov 23, 2009

Risky!!

In the event of a problem, you will be brought in to defend your design. It's tough to defend an incomplete design. Further, in my opinion it requires a lot more field documentation of "you said, he said".

An incomplete design will get you invited to that dreaded post-construction party (that would be the one the lawyers host) a lot faster than a complete design.

mauricestoker · Nov 23, 2009

That's psuedo-design/build? Sounds exactly like the design-build approach. I've been to three post-construction parties and they have all cost more than the original work.

kelowna · Nov 23, 2009

I have been involved on several projects which had 'design progress packages', that is, design drawings at several stages of completion issued for review/approval.

In some cases those drawings have been stamped and in others they have not. I think this is a fairly new trend and many Engineering Associations have no clear guidelines. Also, the contract has required them to be stamped in some cases.

I would suggest you contact your association and ask them first if it is legal/allowed/ethical to stamp those drawings. If it is not, end of argument.

If it is, (which I think it is the case), I would suggest you mark the drawing very clearly, something like 'drawing issued for review/approval, X% design progress, NOT for construction'.

stanford94 · Nov 23, 2009

is this getting "hard bid" to the contractors? if so, there will be change orders to someone...

subcritical · Nov 23, 2009

stanford94. We've used "hard bids", contractors on a time and materials basis, and sometimes the owner has their own equipment and completes the work themselves. Change orders are an inevitable outcome of this approach, but the cost of a few extra logs, rocks, and grading tends to not exceed the cost (and delay) of putting together 100% complete plans on these small scale projects in most cases.

zdas04 · Nov 23, 2009

I think that is the point. You can put together 80% drawing for around 30-50% of the cost of 100% drawings. Thien if you add a narrative to describe the missing parts and watch to make sure that the 100% project gets built, it can have a really good outcome (at least I haven't been sued yet for this approach and several clients have invited me back).

David

PHovnanian · Nov 23, 2009

I've worked a few projects in which drawing releases were prepared to satisfy various stages of construction. Conduit to be installed in slabs and other similar information needed early in the schedule, for example. Notes were included to the effect that such drawings were to be used only for the applicable project stages.

I've never undertaken a project where the completed system was not fully specified on the final drawings. Showing up at a construction site with incomplete drawings and an 'understanding' that the details will be worked out on the spot is asking for the lawyers to get involved.

zdas04 · Nov 24, 2009

I work in Oil & Gas. I think the risks are considerably different from a building construction. I have a client that builds wellsites to ASME B31.3 and a "complete" drawing package is over 100 drawings. Another client uses ASME B31.8 for wellsites and there is no specified drawing content in that code and I've built many onshore wellsites with 1-2 drawings and fill in the missing details on-site during construction.

I think if I was building a high-rise or a family home, I would have a different attitude about complete drawings/specifications/calculations. Most foundations I do are precast slabs you toss on the ground without much work beyond getting it level.

David

brandoncdg · Dec 23, 2009

I wish I had some pictures of plans that were not 100% complete and then what got built. An example involved fully built houses on a max steep street with a bust in the sidewalk that doesn't work and the fix is tear one house down and lower the pad. I also would prefer that a contractor can read my plans and not have to ask me questions while building the thing. Try to leave the plans open to as little interpretation as possible.

CDG, Civil Engineering specializing in Hillside Grading in the Los Angeles area

http://www.CivilDevelopmentGroup.com

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

less complete plans

subcritical

Civil/Environmental

Recommended for you

zdas04

Mechanical

Ron

Structural

mauricestoker

Mechanical

kelowna

Structural

stanford94

Mechanical

subcritical

Civil/Environmental

zdas04

Mechanical

PHovnanian

Electrical

zdas04

Mechanical

brandoncdg

Civil/Environmental

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor