Why is it so difficult....

As someone else has said on this board: the standard for Construction Plans (and CAD work) used to be "Build-ready," now it's just "Approval-ready" or "Financing-ready."

The other component I see, working in an organization with tons of engineers, is that they weigh risk vs. schedule in a way that surveyors never would. It's often more important to a design engineer to get a project out on time than it is to be correct. Problems caught during advertisement can be rectified with an addendum and notice to bidders. Problems caught during construction are fixed with a change order. Problems found after construction...well, what'r'ya complaining about, this project's closed out.

It's a completely different culture from surveying, in my experience, where we expect to be right on the important stuff all the time, triple-checking things with no expectation of letting the next guy clean up the details. Most of us anyway :).

Scotland, post: 431293, member: 559 wrote: The latest I had to scale the drawing down by 12 and translate it to the original control survey.

This is a problem most of us see all the time. I am trying to educate my clients on the benefit of never actually manually scaling a drawing but xrefing instead and setting their target drawing to the required units, therefore maintaining the grid (albeit three decimal places out). This then allows me to do the reverse when I get their site plan back.

I have considered providing the client a pre-scaled drawing along with the original to prevent getting back some crazy site plan with negative co-ordinates.

Scotland, post: 431293, member: 559 wrote: It shouldn't be that difficult to create a clean drawing that can be used by anyone.

Engineers and architects don't get paid to produce clean drawings that can be used by everybody. They get paid to produce drawings that will get approved and permitted so that the process can move to construction.

The architects and engineers bill a lot more, project by the project, than the surveyor does. So if some cleanup work gets pushed down to the surveyor it makes economic sense. As long as we get paid for it. Nevertheless, it sure is nice to work from good plans.

Scotland, post: 431293, member: 559 wrote: The latest I had to scale the drawing down by 12 and translate it to the original control survey.

I think that I've had to do that with every drawing I've ever got from an architect. Even when the architects were working for the same company I was.

Mark Mayer, post: 431305, member: 424 wrote: Engineers and architects don't get paid to produce clean drawings that can be used by everybody. They get paid to produce drawings that will get approved and permitted so that the process can move to construction.

The architects and engineers bill a lot more, project by the project, than the surveyor does. So if some cleanup work gets pushed down to the surveyor it makes economic sense. As long as we get paid for it. Nevertheless, it sure is nice to work from good plans.

"They get paid to produce drawings that will get approved and permitted so that the process can move to construction."

But they rarely produce drawings that are complete! I haven't seen a set of plans other than our own that has been sufficiently dimensioned to construct in decades... I ALWAYS have to ask for the CAD files to be able to stake the project. If I spent my time writing complaint letters to the board I don't think I'd have any billable time left. Architects don't even dimension foundation plans anymore!

Jim in AZ, post: 431311, member: 249 wrote: I haven't seen a set of plans other than our own that has been sufficiently dimensioned to construct in decades

So the surveyor becomes liable for correctly fixing the design omissions? Engineering without a license.

Bill93, post: 431319, member: 87 wrote: So the surveyor becomes liable for correctly fixing the design omissions? Engineering without a license.

Of course not - I call the design "professional" and ask him to provide more data. His response 99% of the time is to provide the CAD file.

Jim in AZ, post: 431311, member: 249 wrote: But they rarely produce drawings that are complete! I haven't seen a set of plans other than our own that has been sufficiently dimensioned to construct in decades... I ALWAYS have to ask for the CAD files to be able to stake the project. If I spent my time writing complaint letters to the board I don't think I'd have any billable time left. Architects don't even dimension foundation plans anymore!

Yes, you have to have the CAD files to stake. Or at least vector pdfs. What gets me is those that act surprised when you ask for the CAD. "Yes, I need the dam_ CAD just like I do every dam_ time."

i don't argue anymore with these folks. I tell the client that the drawings require some clening-up and he has to pay for them. Otherwise i don't start.

I never use paper drawings but check dwg's. Exploded dimensions and other crap is found easily and transmitted to the client.

Bill93, post: 431319, member: 87 wrote: So the surveyor becomes liable for correctly fixing the design omissions? Engineering without a license.

Yep, it stinks. After fixing site grading plans "on the fly" a couple times in my younger days, I've come to realize the error of my ways. The best path is to file a RFI (Request for Information) through the contractor to the design engineer and receive an approved solution. Of course the problem is always schedule and delay...but you're right, it's not worth it to sign up for that liability.

Frustrating

This may not be the way many people approach this but when we are asked to stake buildings, columns etc... we always "build" the building perimeter or column outbound to check for errors in CAD. I do not trust CAD files from architects. We had one CAD file where none of the lines were perpendicular or parallel to each other - scary! This also checks the size of the building against what was engineered. We had one building over the setbacks recently that was discovered since the engineers (not their fault) were not aware that the building envelope had changed.

We definitely build this into our cost and I have not had any issues with telling a client that something is wrong and having them approach the architect (or engineer) to fix this.
My biggest fear is talking about this - I am bound to screw something up now!

Looking at the CAD files today for a small subdivision that specifies a certain standard curb on grade inlet from the state highways design manual. The detail is on the plan set...10' throat, 6" walls, 11' total length. The inlet blocks in the CAD file are 10.667' feel long. Arggg.

I used to do a lot of layout work off of plans prepared by an engineer friend of mine. He was a one man show, great guy, but plans were not the best. His favorite saying was "We'll fix that during construction", and that is exactly what happened. Almost every job had some sort of deign/build thing going on, even though they were not design/build jobs. No one ever batted an eye either. It must be nice.

FrozenNorth, post: 431326, member: 10219 wrote: Yep, it stinks. After fixing site grading plans "on the fly" a couple times in my younger days, I've come to realize the error of my ways. The best path is to file a RFI (Request for Information) through the contractor to the design engineer and receive an approved solution. Of course the problem is always schedule and delay...but you're right, it's not worth it to sign up for that liability.

The last RFI` on a tank site I was scheduled to stake started out in the job file as "Surveyor Delay".

Dave Lindell, post: 431336, member: 55 wrote: The last RFI` on a tank site I was scheduled to stake started out in the job file as "Surveyor Delay".

Oh, yes - it's always my problem when I find errors/omissions in others plans. I'm always the reason that the project is behind schedule, no matter what the ramifications might be!

FrozenNorth, post: 431295, member: 10219 wrote: As someone else has said on this board: the standard for Construction Plans (and CAD work) used to be "Build-ready," now it's just "Approval-ready" or "Financing-ready."

The other component I see, working in an organization with tons of engineers, is that they weigh risk vs. schedule in a way that surveyors never would. It's often more important to a design engineer to get a project out on time than it is to be correct. Problems caught during advertisement can be rectified with an addendum and notice to bidders. Problems caught during construction are fixed with a change order. Problems found after construction...well, what'r'ya complaining about, this project's closed out.

It's a completely different culture from surveying, in my experience, where we expect to be right on the important stuff all the time, triple-checking things with no expectation of letting the next guy clean up the details. Most of us anyway :).

You couldn't be any more right! Having just quit an engineering firm, this culture was rampant. Engineers quit putting curb sheets together, just give the surveyor their dwg. Saw a water line lowering designed off resource grade gps location of the line, guy stuck his arm out the window and drove to shoot it, he actually didn't even know where the line was so he could get his +/- a meter. Guess how far off the pipeline was when the excavator showed up.

Wow... opened a can of worms here too. But my point really is that even with the best technology we don't take advantage of it. Instead of producing quality work that can be used we end up pushing out crap and let it be dealt with onsite or by the lowly surveyor. No wonder there are so many failures and disasters in construction.

I am very careful and try to check everything, but I do a lot of CYA with lots of documentation.

beuckie, post: 431323, member: 2245 wrote: i don't argue anymore with these folks. I tell the client that the drawings require some clening-up and he has to pay for them. Otherwise i don't start.

I never use paper drawings but check dwg's. Exploded dimensions and other crap is found easily and transmitted to the client.

If you never use "paper drawings" which I assume are the stamped and approved construction drawings how do you check the .dwg?

All cad/.dwg files should be verified with the approved and stamped "paper drawings". If those drawings lack sufficient dimensions or spot shots or details to accurately reproduce the plan, then it's scaled by use of cad or scale. If something comes up do to the lack of detail in the "paper plans" not my problem!