Sub-Contractor's Surveyor:
I inserted your dwg into my survey stakeout dwg and see that the primary and secondary control points on the*********** PDF are shifted +/-2.37Ûª to the east of where the coordinates of the control points are. I left the points turned on in the dwg if you are able to view them. You will need to take a look at this before I go any farther in the stakeout process. I will be in the field the rest of today and tomorrow, but if you e-mail questions, I will try to get back to you.
Sub-Contractor:
Our surveyor went out to start working on getting his locations to match the ******* Control Points. He ended up with a 2.37Ûª bust on the easting coordinates on the north line. When is a good time for us to get together with him to figure out where this problem is?
Prime Contractor:
I have copied the ********, on this email so he may can explain/discuss. We can set up a conference call or plan on meeting onsite tomorrow at 9:00AM to discuss if needed to resolve this. We must resolve all surveying discrepancies/items of concern ASAP.
My First Reply:
We spot checked our CAD file that we submitted and the coordinates agree with the listing on the drawing. It is very common for CAD files to be shifted, usually due to dissimilar software or versions, during transfer. A uniform difference of all points in a CAD file from ground values is almost always a CAD shift. Based on our experience depending entirely on a CAD file is a recipe for disaster. We recommend using the actual coordinates listed on the PDF plan to verify our control. The PDF containing the coordinate listing is on what we stand. If discrepancies are found by ground measurements, please let us know. We performed extensive procedures and checks to determine these values and are confident in our work. However, we will check legitimate discrepancies.
We simply have no control over a CAD file once we submit it to others. Please use the coordinates listed on the PDF plan and check by ground measurements. Just as always, a dimension shown on a plan has more validity than a scaled distance. The CAD file is not going to make steel fit. Frankly, we deal with this common issue regularly avoiding an extensive email chain.
Prime Contractor Today:
We would like to set up a conference call to discuss the control points issues that you provided a response to yesterday. We would like to include *****, (Sub-Contractor's Surveyor), and (the Prime's Surveyor). I have attached an email from Sub-Contractor including the CAD file from Sub-Contractor's Surveyor along with the CAD file including the wall at the NW and best fit line. This may be something, if you your willing, can pull up and detect the issue up front? If not, IÛªd like to set up a conference call to resolve.
Let me know your thoughts or when you are available to discuss on a conference call. Preferably after 3:00PM today or tomorrow morning.
My Reply Today:
If the discrepancy we are to discuss is based on field measurements comparing the coordinates that we posted in the PDF plan, We are willing to discuss and resolve. If we are trying to resolve why the file has been shifted from the file that we originally submitted, this is a waste of our time. I have verified the coordinates in the files that we originally submitted.and they check (attached). I also checked the CAD file that you attached. I am in agreement that the file was shifted after we submitted it. The file has obviously been altered with the addition of the pile caps. We suggest that the designer who apparently shifted the file fix it. We are definitely committed to the success of this project. However, we simply cannot resolve an issue that was caused by a third party corrupting our file.
We trust that this explanation clearly outlines the issue at hand and will help lead to resolution.
Prime Contractor's Reply:
Crickets
My Resolution:
All Contractors can go pound sand. Unless I develop Alzheimer and lose half my brain power, I have officially retired from all construction staking.
I remember a similar pile o' crap I stepped in a few years ago. I had the engineer's cad drawing with "pseudo" SPC. I set control for the contractor to use his machine control and a dtm provided by others. Contractor's operator didn't use control points and (my best guess) just let his Topcons sing away where they "thought" the SPC were at. Things got screwy quick to the tune of about 15 feet. I was personally surprised things were that close.
I tried my best to explain to them the "job" contract documents and coordinates should be adhered to. If he would just set his job up with my provided control points everything would fit. Salesman still said "everything" was wrong.
After a week or so the stupid machine control salesman got involved and was ragging on me that his "SPC" was different than mine. I was just trying to get everybody to realize it didn't matter if it was SPC or 10000 over 10000...the plans and the dtm had to usurp everybody else's confusion. After a big high-rectum meeting at the engineer's office someone (not me) was able to explain the difference between the original survey's coords and what everybody else's autonomous solutions. The contractor finally localized on the control points I provided that were on the "job" grid. And low and behold everything fit.
The contractor called me back several times during the construction for some help and I kindly declined his request for my services. Life's too short.
Frustrating for sure. I had a similar issue last week. I was told by a contractor that my coordinates were off because they didn't match what his gps was showing. I asked him if he was using the same state plane zone I had specified. His reply: it doesn't matter, it should just work...
Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk
Just a guess but if you inverse from one of your local coordinates to 0,0 do you get about 1,185,000'? If so you have one drawing in international feet and the other in US survey feet.
Yep looks like the job is probably between Lawrenceville and Athens, closer to Lawrenceville. Just a guess but if so it's definitely a mismatch of US ft vs International ft.
Oops that's no right I went the wrong direction how about more like the Milledgeville area?
There does seem to be a them and us, adversarial attitude sometimes. My experience on a couple of recent earthworks jobs has been more positive.
We ensure that that the contractor receives the points and surface files, and have a set out session at part of establishment site meeting. Walk round with the contractor and their machine control guys, when they set the site base, show them the control points, calibrate/localise with their gear and ours and then go check some points to ensure we have the same positions and heights. Put the bucket/blade of the machines on the ground and check. Usually an hour or two on site at the start saves lots of headache.
We do a lot of hand holding with the contractors to get things done right, but we are normally all working for the same client.
Sounds for sure like a survey foot to international foot issue. Happens a lot.
Just another reason why I no longer do ANY staking. Any survey I do that will be for design by others, I give 2 control points with an elevation only on 1 point. And I always have additional control, near the site, if they lose one and need to pay me to set control.
I deal with this issue, ( or something similar) maybe once a month. I agree with your "we can't fix a problem we didn't create" stance, although that can cause a lot of bad blood with clients.
I find the easiest "solution" is to send them the previously issued CAD file again. That goes a long way towards "public relations", all for the low cost of a few minutes and no extra liability.
I have no problem walking clients through this sort of thing. I investigate the problem then explain and document the solution. Then I get paid. The more stuff they break the bigger the bill.
In the end nobody remembers who messed a job up. They only remember who was working on it.
Jon Collins, post: 410865, member: 11135 wrote: Sounds for sure like a survey foot to international foot issue. Happens a lot.
The coordinates are not SPC. They are a part of a localized surface grid. The CAD file we sent checks with our coordinate listing. The altered file they sent back does not. Case closed. Aren't we glad that we live in an age where the equipment is so good that a monkey can run it as we all know that coordinates just fall from the sky and are always right. If there is a problem, well let's just blame the surveyor. I have no problem educating Contractors. The problem is recently my experience is they do not have the ability to learn.I can't believe that I have to continually point out that the girder fitting between twp piers is not based on a theoretical concept but is in fact a reality. This project is a $100M+ and no plan gave coordinates on the existing piers or the proposed pier locations. How does a major contractor provide a bid under these circumstances? It is Design/Bid not Design/Build. I had to explain that as this is a retrofit we needed to determine the exact location of the existing piers. I had over 10 telephone conversations and meetings for them to agree to this very basic concept. I then had to determine the new footer locations based on the existing piers. Yes we have been paid well for our efforts. I am willing to forfeit a few $$ to actually do work that I enjoy.
all this is a good bit of the reason i quit and got out of the land development business.
got sued a couple years back by a dirt guy. his surveyor- actually, his CAD guy- started a sh*tstorm by claiming our topo was bad. truth is the dumb SOB underbid the job by exponents and was trying to find some way to recoup the loss. except he was too stupid to wait until it was done, so i went back out and spent an afternoon shooting random, blind spots to compare against the original. his surveyor followed behind me taking shots and his matched mine. looked fine against what happened the first time around. called in a favor and had a buddy come out and do the same- shoot some spots, send me the coords. no why, no what for, just i want some XYZs on this tract. that too looked fine.
few days later in a conference call (after the email mushroom cloud) with the GC, the owner, the dirt guy, couple engineers, trying to figure out what's wrong. "nothing" was my answer. i did blind checks and contoured it and it came out essentially the same. took the third party data, ran countours, came out essentially the same. dirt guy says- i swear- "contours don't matter. surveyors don't know how to do topo like we do topo." i promptly excused myself from the conversation and told the GC if that i would be available for hire once they either found a new dirt guy or else to repair what this numbskull would inevitably bollocks up.
turns out the guy turned around shortly thereafter and claimed the geotech data was bad too, which supposedly "cost" him hundreds of thousands of dollars. i read the report and it said exactly what anybody within a 200 mile radius of here that's ever held a shovel could tell you: the ground is full of rock.
in the end i guess the guy graded the site to the GC's satisfaction, and they apparently were generous enough to throw the guy a pretty decent sized bone for his services, even though it was clear to everyone at that point exactly who was responsible for any misunderstanding.
Jeebus, your replies make you sound like a Prickly pear. I bet you are getting crickets because he is tired of listening to that.
[MEDIA=youtube]c6Kj17oVHAk[/MEDIA]
Roadhand, post: 410926, member: 61 wrote: Jeebus, your replies make you sound like a Prickly pear. I bet you are getting crickets because he is tired of listening to that.
[MEDIA=youtube]c6Kj17oVHAk[/MEDIA]
Then I accomplished my purpose. Obviously clearly stating the facts did not help. Not the first Client I fired.
Roadhand, post: 410926, member: 61 wrote: Jeebus, your replies make you sound like a Prickly pear. I bet you are getting crickets because he is tired of listening to that.
[MEDIA=youtube]c6Kj17oVHAk[/MEDIA]
lmbrls, post: 410934, member: 6823 wrote: Then I accomplished my purpose. Obviously clearly stating the facts did not help. Not the first Client I fired.
Today, there are "facts" and "alternate facts". It gets confusing.
Tom Adams, post: 410937, member: 7285 wrote: Today, there are "facts" and "alternate facts". It gets confusing.
And determining which one trumps the other is apparently a matter of personal beliefs.
paden cash, post: 410942, member: 20 wrote: And determining which one trumps the other is apparently a matter of personal beliefs.
The Golden Rule - he who has the gold, rules
Prime Contractors Reply (To his credit):
Thanks for the explanation. I agree with your statements and concerns below. This has been relayed to (Sub-Contractor) and (Sub-Contractor's Surveyor) and I believe all discrepancies were within their CAD files and to my knowledge are being corrected.
I guess he actually listened. Sometimes, our best service to our Client is to make clear that the alleged "Survey Problem" is BS. Once that is determined, the real issue can be addressed. It could have been handled this more delicately, but why should I BS is BS.
My Lesson Learned is to submit Read Only files with instructions to Save As, so our original file will be retained. I am open to suggestions to other methods to assure the preservation of the original file after it is submitted to others.
lmbrls, post: 411106, member: 6823 wrote: I am open to suggestions to other methods to assure the preservation of the original file after it is submitted to others.
It sounds like overkill to me, but I have seen companies issue "blank" cad drawings, with everything Xref'd or data linked in from an ftp server. That means you'd have to maintain that ftp server for anyone to see the drawing.
A simpler solution is to lock the points and layers. The end user can still unlock them, but the fact they had to go through the steps to do so might deter them (or at least give you something to definitive to point to when someone accuses your work of being wrong).