Same Brand X doing construction layout in each case:
Site A. Could not find the site benchmark and told the contractor they would have to run a line of levels several miles for $$$ extra. The architect called me, I drove across town, got out of the car, and saw the benchmark from a hundred feet away, undisturbed.
Site B. The site benchmark was indeed gone, so they ran a line of levels from miles away and charged an extra to the contractor, who in turn backcharged the architect. I pointed out that the benchmark was gone, but all five of the panel control points were there, undisturbed, and they certainly matched the topo. There was no need to run levels from miles away.
Site C. They told the contractor the benchmark was paved over and they would have to run levels from a mile away, for an extra. The architect called me, and I pointed out the site benchmark was in the middle of the parking lot, not paved over since no work had yet been done, with plenty of pink paint around it.
I think I'm seeing a trend here.
Sort of sounds like.....
.....AutoCAD!!
Brand X was probably the low bidder by half. Maybe it serves the contractor right for bottom feeding?
The architect is liking his decision to hire you, Bruce.
The trend will be for the contractor to have their own layout man on staff, licensed or not. Surveyors in general are making choices that encourage finding other options other than using a surveyor. Those organizations or their state organizations wanting other options usually have money, a lobbyist and some influence in government. Misleading a client for extra income is theft and should be prosecuted as such, even if it is becoming the norm, the norms can be changed, it is who or why the change is made that will impact the future of those providing a service.
jud.
I know one outfit who was routinely charging a company I worked at for delivering a loaded data collector to their field crew. My colleague pointed it out on one of the invoices and we just laughed. This buffoon was charging 8 hours (and calling himself a "Chief of Parties"). This guy probably didn't even know how to load the collector. IN essence the contractor was paying for a gopher/messenger at an exorbitant rate.
Ralph
In my area some construction companies are going the other direction. Know of one, family owned, that has been in business since 1911. One of the owners has an engineering degree and went back to college to qualify for fundamentals of surveying exam. They have a P.S. on staff and the owner hopes to work toward the same. Even if he never gets a license little chance of anyone convincing them to pay for unneeded work.
Another, again family owned, sent son to technical college to get 2 year engineering/surveying degree. He will be working with the P.S. they have on staff to ensure the layout is done correctly. The smart companies are getting good people in house and making sure their sub contractors know what they are doing.
> Same Brand X doing construction layout in each case:
>
> Site A. Could not find the site benchmark and told the contractor they would have to run a line of levels several miles for $$$ extra. The architect called me, I drove across town, got out of the car, and saw the benchmark from a hundred feet away, undisturbed.
>
> Site B. The site benchmark was indeed gone, so they ran a line of levels from miles away and charged an extra to the contractor, who in turn backcharged the architect. I pointed out that the benchmark was gone, but all five of the panel control points were there, undisturbed, and they certainly matched the topo. There was no need to run levels from miles away.
>
> Site C. They told the contractor the benchmark was paved over and they would have to run levels from a mile away, for an extra. The architect called me, and I pointed out the site benchmark was in the middle of the parking lot, not paved over since no work had yet been done, with plenty of pink paint around it.
>
> I think I'm seeing a trend here.
Sounds like a case of Architects being in charge of things they know nothing about. When we work with architects we are responsible for all onsite design, data, benchmarks and staking(when possible). Let the architects design buildings, let the engineers and surveyors handle the rest!
>
> Sounds like a case of Architects being in charge of things they know nothing about. When we work with architects we are responsible for all onsite design, data, benchmarks and staking(when possible). Let the architects design buildings, let the engineers and surveyors handle the rest!
Maybe I'm missing something? I thought Bruce was bought in to represent the Architect who was being back-charged.
Ralph
The layout surveyor is known for not being able to find benchmarks in plain sight, and he then asks for an extra to run levels from miles away. The architects ask me for help (they designed the site) and I point out the obvious.
A lot less expensive for you to make a site visit than for the level loop.
Good deal for both you and the architect. Must be one of the better architects.
> A lot less expensive for you to make a site visit than for the level loop.
>
> Good deal for both you and the architect. Must be one of the better architects.
:good: :good:
IMHO that's the case of an Architect who actually knows WTF he's doing.
Ralph
> The layout surveyor is known for not being able to find benchmarks in plain sight
Not THIS layout surveyor. Benchmarks make me "pitch a tent" that points me right to them, kind of like a divining rod. Its icing on the cake if theyre painted pink when I find them. 😛
Plus- running a miles long level loop, to me, is an assswhipping of the highest order and would probably be my plan G or H, right behind saying eff it and pencil whipping in a new one.
In my experience I could not legally run in a benchmark from offsite, so I am assuming this is a PLS with a party chief they are calling a field engineer (and lord help them if they don't know the difference) and he probably has orders to pad billing as much as he thinks he can get away with.
Mr. Small, am I off the mark or what?
Just a little story.
A guy underbids a staking job knowing full well he has, then tells the construction foreman there is something "wrong" with the control and he needs to spend a bunch of money to "fix" it. He then proceeds to find site control and uses it while charging time that is never worked in the field, thus making up for underbidding the job. He lets the construction foreman (who is busy putting out fires left and right) know how he saved the day.
Anyway, it's an interesting story.
That would be my guess.
seems like the bases have been covered
It seems to me that if a construction surveyor could find a way to charge for mistakes and plan omissions made by engineers and architects he could double his contract amount legitimately without making up lies. That was my experience in the past. Jp