Why is it so difficult....

One more reason I quit doing any construction staking.

Scotland, post: 431357, member: 559 wrote: 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.

I'd like to climb on a soapbox and rant but sadly I'd just be preaching to the choir. Forty nine years in heavy construction and it keeps getting worse. I know surveyors have been doing this way longer than I have. I've been the only inhouse company person building 3D site construction models for the last 10 years as an hourly employee. CAD drawings don't match paper/pdf. There is nothing like a standard method of making CAD drawings even within the same agency and even by the same engineer/draftsperson. I keep telling our PMs that when I build a model I'm essentially building the project. I have to make sure everything fits and works. I find myself being the proof reader. Most of the guys I know doing model building have no one else proofing our work so we go over it repeatedly. The general superintendent keeps telling me it is part of our service.

I'm guessing most owners are unaware of the poor quality or work coming out of the engineers office. They probably went with the lowest bidder without knowing what was being sacrificed.

Michael White, post: 431416, member: 12162 wrote: One more reason I quit doing any construction staking.

This thread is full of reasons reminding me why I've avoided construction surveying for the past 10 years or so. As a practical matter, if you want to maintain a reputation as a construction surveyor who knows their job, you need to be able and willing to correct design errors along the way. Some, you should probably get the design engineer to sign off on before you proceed. Others, unless you want to be the one to take the heat for delaying construction schedules, you need to recognize, fix, and get it done. But, as Bill93 pointed out, in many states (including CA), that is considered to be engineering without a license. so for the surveyor to do his job well, it has become SOP that he makes it work then gets the concurrence of the engineer, but in the meantime it's the surveyor's license that is exposed to Board discipline to cover the omissions in the engineer's work.

eapls2708, post: 435316, member: 589 wrote: This thread is full of reasons reminding me why I've avoided construction surveying for the past 10 years or so. As a practical matter, if you want to maintain a reputation as a construction surveyor who knows their job, you need to be able and willing to correct design errors along the way. Some, you should probably get the design engineer to sign off on before you proceed. Others, unless you want to be the one to take the heat for delaying construction schedules, you need to recognize, fix, and get it done. But, as Bill93 pointed out, in many states (including CA), that is considered to be engineering without a license. so for the surveyor to do his job well, it has become SOP that he makes it work then gets the concurrence of the engineer, but in the meantime it's the surveyor's license that is exposed to Board discipline to cover the omissions in the engineer's work.

I've done a bit of construction surveying, and the biggest thing I learned was that the finger pointing always starts with blaming the surveyor when something doesn't work out. So, I knew right away that I was never going to "fix" a GD thing without notifying the GC first, in person and writing, and getting instructions in writing, as far as what's going to be done to solve the F up.

Screw being, "...able and willing to correct design errors along the way." Construction is the ultimate CYA job.

At where I work, the staff is expected to do work of the highest standards. Yet customers regularly have errors and omissions in the "work" they provide to us. Since it is not my job to guess at what the customer wants, I promptly return the issues to the sales person. Should they decide to be lazy and guess at the answer instead of checking with the customer, well, that takes the heat off me. If/ when the finished product comes back to bite, I have covered my hind quarters. After all, I do have enough holes in my body, I don't need any more from a rear-end chewing 😉

JPH, post: 435317, member: 6636 wrote: I've done a bit of construction surveying, and the biggest thing I learned was that the finger pointing always starts with blaming the surveyor when something doesn't work out. So, I knew right away that I was never going to "fix" a GD thing without notifying the GC first, in person and writing, and getting instructions in writing, as far as what's going to be done to solve the F up.

Screw being, "...able and willing to correct design errors along the way." Construction is the ultimate CYA job.

The Surveyor is always the one blamed first - sometimes before there is even a problem! I got an email from a contractor last week saying "The water services you staked in the street that we constructed last night do not line up with water services on the adjoining site (under construction). They are mis-aligned by 5'-7" and we'd like to know why?" While I was composing my response asking for particulars an email from the site construction contractor pops up - "Never mind! We were scaling from the wrong fire hydrant... Everything is okay." Reading down the email chain it became clear that the site contractor had immediately blamed us for an error that didn't even exist! The design engineer on the project we staked had been to the field, the City inspector was involved, the building architect in Chicago had been told it was our fault - I know better than to wait for an apology.

A number of years ago at a surveying company I used to work for: On one section, the client decided to do the water and sewer themselves. Then promptly came blaming the surveying company when things were obviously very wrong. The client had not buried the water and sewer nearly deep enough. So things like fire hydrants were sticking much too far out of the ground.

Even further back at the same company. A cul-de-sac was designed in the office. Staked in the field. Built. With a huge (5+ foot tall) cone in the center. The field crew was sent out multiple times to shoot, re-shoot, and shoot again. It seemed like not one of the engineers could believe it had been built that way, nor be bothered to get off their rear ends to go look at it themselves. This was the days before digital cameras. If I remember correctly, the end result was that much of the cone (built out of macadam) was chopped off. Still looked strange when I drove by years later. Partial cone in the middle of the road.

My take is "engineers make nice paper pictures that surveyors have to mark on the ground and construction builds." We've seen plenty of those nice ideas played out on the real world.

Addition to my comment above. I forgot to mention that the supposed cause of the cone in the cul-de-sac had something to do with AutoCAD (early version obviously). I did not use cad back in those days, I was on a field crew. Anyway, supposedly something about the way Autocad worked in those days created the cone and nobody noticed or could be bothered to say anything until it was too late (built).

I've been an engineer and surveyor both for many years, a large portion of which has been heavy highway construction. I do design, construction engineering and both construction and boundary surveying.
Mistakes will happen and things do get missed. Not all designers, engineers and surveyors have the same strengths, weaknesses and experiences.
A very good effort by any one part is often overshadowed by the inevitable mistakes and oversights that occur.
My most notable observation on this journey is how little each of the various players in a project know what it is like to stand in the other's shoes. The construction survey group I am currently immersed in is the least understanding of other players roles than any of the multitude of other players involved.
I believe this is a prevalent issue in the industry.

I read here often enough " my stamped paper drawing is gospel" because cad files can be changed. That is why I only work off of stamped approved drawings. I do have a couple of engineers that provide very good drawings and I work from them a lot. However, I always compare the cad drawings with the approved plan set and have found blunders that could have only been found by close comparison. I bought a very expensive foundation once because the 2 were different (the jurisdication had made a redline edit on the plan set that I missed).

Go forth, believe nothing and check everything! Oh, and be sure to bill accordingly!!!!!

Joe Ferg, post: 435369, member: 332 wrote: I bought a very expensive foundation once because the 2 were different (the jurisdication had made a redline edit on the plan set that I missed).

Go forth, believe nothing and check everything! Oh, and be sure to bill accordingly!!!!!

I wonder if there's a way that you can protect yourself by including language in the contract that any changes, modifications, etc, to plans must contain a change-order letter.

Early in my career I didn't notice that a set of pilings had moved, and we staked them as on the original plans. We had received a new set of plans where an issue that we'd noticed was fixed, and they explained the fix to us when they gave us the new plans, but nothing was said at all about the pilings being moved. Luckily, they were still able to work with the original location, just had to pour a little extra concrete, which they didn't hit us for.

My favorite quote from the engineer was, "what is your problem? The plans were approved by the agencies!"
Oh how the world changes, I thought they were to construct from. No Country for Old Men, Jp

JPH, post: 435500, member: 6636 wrote: I wonder if there's a way that you can protect yourself by including language in the contract that any changes, modifications, etc, to plans must contain a change-order letter.

Early in my career I didn't notice that a set of pilings had moved, and we staked them as on the original plans. We had received a new set of plans where an issue that we'd noticed was fixed, and they explained the fix to us when they gave us the new plans, but nothing was said at all about the pilings being moved. Luckily, they were still able to work with the original location, just had to pour a little extra concrete, which they didn't hit us for.

In the days before email there was fax. The engineering firm I worked for was staking the predecessor to today's big box lumber yards. We were faxed a change order on which some utility lines were revised. The problem was that not all of the revisions were noticed because of the fax quality. The company ended up buying a bunch of pipe. From then on company policy stated that change orders needed to be supplied in hard copy.

I have the following bullet points in my layout proposal assumptions.

?ú The contractor shall provide construction plans in AutoCAD or Microstation format.

?ú The contractor shall provide construction plan revisions to Orion Geomatics at least two (2) business days prior staking.