The purpose of the construction documents is to build a specific building. I have never seen a client that requires us to formulate our drawings in s certain manner for archival purposes. Thus I suggest we have no contractual obligation.
Having dealt with the contractual obligations how do you know the general notes contain all of the information that the owner will need in the future? In addition placing the information on the drawings makes it easier for the owner to hire another engineer in the future.
Contracts virtually always include a requirement to issue asbuilt drawings. Traditionally this was often a copy of the Contractor’s hand annotated record set provided by the Contractor with all the old school hand written notes and pasted over revisions. But with the advent of CAD, we the Architects usually provide it, and we are compensated for it.
But I can think of only one client who has ever asked for and compensated for an As-Built Specification book. when you actually do delete all of the "equals’ and clean it up.
That seems to be the role of the submittals, the Product Data sheets, Shop drawings; Maintenace manuals and so on.
I agree there is no contractual obligation but that fact does not preclude the potential for plans and or specs to have value to a client at some point in the future as archival information.
As Paul said plans are more likely to be available and as such more likely to be perceived as important as a piece of historical data. Making those plans more valuable to the owner in the future by providing some critical information on the plans could allow an Owner to hire another engineer. However it could also help to illustrate the value of the engineer your institution already has. It is possible that this is more likely to benefit the A/E when you are working with institutional clients as opposed to some other clients.
Jerome, I was born in Kew Gardens and raised in Hollis/St. Albans in Queens. (None of that probably means anything to you since you left at age 5!) I didn’t escape until I was 27 and then it was to California.
I did go back just to look in 1976; my neighborhood had changed, but the homes looked well-cared for. We didn’t stop, just drove by. I wouldn’t mind getting back there sometime, but I no longer have friends or even relatives in the area.
I wonder where the continuing evolution of BIM fits into this discussion. If ALL information was readily available to the client/owner post-construction and was maintained accurately then graphic representations (drawings) and written information (specifications) would all have value in his mind. And, yes, “as built” would have to be a given. Hmmm. Sounds like an added service for the A/E.
My job is to produce documents that get the building built and reduce the risk to my client. Putting information in general notes results in duplication which increases the likelihood of conflicts.
So why should I try to rationalize placing information in General Notes?
If the Owner values having documentation for the future it is very simple to place the project manual in the project files along with the drawings, as builts, and submittals.
When only the drawings are available it is because the Owner did not care enough to keep the other information. I have no problem helping the Owner to save the information but I have no interest in trying to compensate for the Client’s lack of interest in retaining documents. You can go crazy trying to invent obligations.
Far too often, when a building is complete and the client has moved in, the information in the construction documents is lost. Most owners keep the construction documents, but most eventually relegate them to a cardboard box in a dusty storage room. They may as well not exist.
That information still has value, but it is difficult to use and even more difficult to change. Later, when the owner decides it is time for a major remodel or addition, the construction documents are no longer accurate, because buildings begin changing as soon as they’re occupied. Absent a good set of record documents, the owner won’t know what products were used, because the specifications usually don’t say exactly what was used in the building. When specifications do include manufacturer and model, they usually list three or more, and even then, a different product may be used.
Smart owners will realize the value of the BIM model, and demand that it contain more information than just dimensions and notes. Properly prepared and maintained, the model will become the foundation for the owner’s daily operations. The information it contains will be viewable as traditional drawings and specifications, but it will contain much more than that. It will be a living model of the building, with complete data for each component: what it is, who manufactured it, who installed it, how to maintain and repair it, MSDS, and more. It will “know” how each piece of equipment and each system should operate, and it will be used by the building automation software. Unlike the paper documents it replaces, the model won’t be just stored, but used.
James, designers may see all this as an added service, but it won’t be long before it’s an expected part of basic services, at least for large owners.
Sheldon, I agree entirely. Your description of what the BIM can be for the owner post-occupancy is spot on. I also agree the ongoing maintenance of the building model can be something that extends the life of the service the A/E performs for its client. Most A/E firms I am aware of rely on “repeat business.” What better way can there be to keep an ongoing relationship with a valued client than to provide service that is on-going?
Well, I’ve gone pretty far off-topic on this thread but I’ll try to bring it around by restating Mark’s last: All members of the design team should endeavor to reduce conflict and maintain consistency in the documents in whatever form they take.
Of course, ongoing maintenance of the building model depends on receiving accurate information from the owner in a timely manner. And that means having conscientious and experienced people on the job. I’ve said for years, that systems are not panaceas, and BIM will not change that; it’s a tool, a powerful tool, but it still depends on people who know what they’re doing and who care enough to do their jobs well.
Please keep in mind that there are typically two BIM for a project, one for design and one for construction. No one currently would consider it a sane decision to construct from the design BIM; it’s not designed for that use and I doubt anyone would want the liability. The construction model, if modeled properly, should have record submittals embedded in it. In fact, the approved shop drawings should be the basis for much of the BIM. In conversations I’ve had recently, there have been statements made that the coordination drawings generated by the Contractor and their subs should be incorporated into the BIM and that either shop drawings or coordination drawings (or both) should be required for every Section in the Specifications so that they can be incorporated into the final construction BIM.
Despite what Code officials may think, the engineered shop drawings from the steel fabricator and erector are what really should be reviewed. Unless the structural engineer is designing each connection, the structural design is not complete when issued for code review. OSHPD has some quirks, like requiring sealed shop drawings as part of their review if that’s what the documents call for (steel, exterior skin, etc.) and, while that is a logistical hassle, it certainly makes sense. As more of the design is delegated to the Contractor, I wonder if more jurisdictions will start to require sealed shop drawings as part of the code review process. How do you think that will affect the bidding documents?
If the fabricator designs the steel connections the IBC would deal with this as a deferred submission and should plan check the deferred submissions.
OSHPD does not require sealed shop drawings. What they do require is to have a complete set of drawings submitted for plan review. Only in very limited circumstances they will allow deferred approvals.
When the Owner decides to have a specialty contractor provide the design of lets say the exterior skin the contractor will often decide to submit sealed shop drawings instead of separate design documents. The contractor always has the option to produce design drawings for submission from which shop drawings will later be submitted.
Stuff I never imagined I’d have to communicate to a structural engineer: “The Tilt-Up Concrete section isnt a good place for the stair tread mockup instructions, since I specified the stair tread itself in the Decorative Metal Stairs spec section.”
The fact that the structural engineer addressed the issue is a sign that he/she is trying to help address the issue. The structural engineer probably put it in the concrete specification because since he had control of that section and was not able to access your specification sections.
Remember the engineer probably never had a class in specification writing.
Structural engineers are my favorite consultants. Their work actually does have an impact on life safety; instead of abstract theory, they learn useful things in school; they don’t care if the building resolves the tension between the earth and sky elements; they make sure things work before using them; and they worry about the building falling down so everyone else can focus on really important stuff like the perforation pattern in ceiling tile and alignment of stuff no one will see.