PLS blew a gasket and pulled his hubs on Construction site

Was the surveyor under contract to set those points?
Was the surveyor paid to set those points?
If yes, he probably is in too deep to get out now without making it right.

I'm not sure about the contract. Surveyor working for GC. We have been doing same process for 2 years now. GC had no clue why this happened. GC said he didn't ask surveyor to do any less than before. I'm sure the surveyors are seeing their bottom line go down as technology advances. Surveyors in this area trying to push back. They do things like intentionally leave BM off the plan. Just to get the call back. So I include them as much as I can.

Personally I feel like PLS has a Target on my back now.

Where is the technology that is taking work from the Surveyor in this? I assumed the dozer has a GPS Unit on it, or the Building layout crew has some survey equipment?

If I lay out the entire building or just part of it, I always charge like I was laying out the entire building.

Scott Ellis, post: 456004, member: 7154 wrote: Where is the technology that is taking work from the Surveyor in this? I assumed the dozer has a GPS Unit on it, or the Building layout crew has some survey equipment?

If I lay out the entire building or just part of it, I always charge like I was laying out the entire building.

Concrete contractors are using LN100, a Robotic Total station for layout. In the past they used theodolite and steel tape, with string lines. Contractors actually creating a new roll for the surveyor as a result. They want surveyor to verify cad lines and assistance with technology. Most surveyors refuse to do this. So it is left for me, then I become the scapegoat.

That has been happening in my area for years now. The GPS network of Base Stations does make Surveying easier and faster for us now, however it also cost us a few jobs as well.

I did one job a few years ago for a Plant Site with everything being prefab, I just layout out the corners for the equipment and they bring the equipment and everything should fit. I get there I was supposed to do everything, new buildings, storm sewer, waterline, concrete, the pre fab equipment. I get there and there and well the Concrete crew has their GPS ready to go, they were going to do concrete and storm. I had a talk with the Client if I have to go thur the stress and worrying of your muilt million pre fab equipment all fitting together I need some of the easy parts of this layout as well. They agreed I did the storm layout and all the radius points and end returns for the parking. Also everything did fit together just fine, it did help that they fab the pipelines between the equipment on site.

In my area the Houston area, the dirt and concrete crews are really good, almost too good for my liking. They can layout the job with a scale and tape measure and most of the time be within 4 or 5 tenths which for most parking lots is good enough. If you are a day late on laying out the parking, when you get their half of it will be built.

Now in Dallas from my experience it's a different story with the concrete crew. I was laying out a nice size apartment job. I was on the other side of the job working. The Concrete crew comes up to me, all worried and saying we need help something isnt right, which gets me all worried. They show me they found a stake but cant find the hub, what do we do? The stake was just a point on line stake and the distance was only about 200 feet. Make a straight line from that point to this point and quit bothering me. They always had problems like this, or we have two returns but the radius point is gone. In Houston it takes alot of missing points for the concrete crew to ask for a restake.

For as long as I have known, the man doing the staking gets all the blame.

When doing construction staking, It does not take long to learn to document everything.
From field notes of setups and measured distances to offsets with grade info with level notes and sketches that matched what was in the field books.
Otherwise there is no proof that you put on the ground what was in the plans.

Today when a prospective client asks if I have liability insurance and how much, I find myself too busy for their project.
It is like they are shopping for their newest victim to sue.
Nada, don't that.

A Harris, post: 456019, member: 81 wrote: Today when a prospective client asks if I have liability insurance and how much, I find myself too busy for their project.

A couple of weeks ago I posted about a small topo project on which I had to wrangle with the client about contract terms before we reached an agreement. The PM was in a big hurry, so I got out there as soon as he gave me email authorization, though it was several days later that I finally ironed out the contract verbiage with his back office. I've had the deliverable map files ready to send out as soon as I get an executed contract, which I still haven't received. Yesterday I got email from their contracts person asking me to get the auto insurance certificate redone because it only covers owned vehicles, and they need it to cover owned and rented vehicles. I explained that the work is done, I was the only one on site, I used the one vehicle that I own, there were no incidents (auto or otherwise), and I'm holding the survey until I get a contract. I'm still waiting for their response.

Why have all that liability for a couple hundred bucks to set a few hubs?

Jon Collins, post: 456046, member: 11135 wrote: Why have all that liability for a couple hundred bucks to set a few hubs?

I had a Contractor's bean counter hold up my payment because I didn't have a Way Comp Certification. I'm a solo operator. I pay a $175 to get a Certification that I'm not eligible for Workman's Comp because I'm self employed. My Certification for nothing is hanging on my bulletin board.

leegreen, post: 455995, member: 2332 wrote: PLS said "if we are NOT going to layout the entire building, then we are not going to be liable for any of this building."

The fact is that all trades have survey equipment to do layout from control set by a surveyor these days. In fact, I just returned from a day of doing just this (setting building grid control for trades to use). If I was going to attempt to do every bit of layout that goes on on a building site I'd have to be there several hours of every day for the life of the project. Trades have always had their little ways of doing layout (tapes, strings, rotobeams). Nowadays they have total stations.

Skeeter1996, post: 456061, member: 9224 wrote: I'm a solo operator. I pay a $175 to get a Certification that I'm not eligible for Workman's Comp because I'm self employed.

Is that a one-time thing, or does it have to be renewed periodically? I pay about $500 a year now for Workers Comp, but I don't want to drop it because once or twice a year I need a field assistant.

leegreen, post: 455995, member: 2332 wrote: PLS said "if we are NOT going to layout the entire building, then we are not going to be liable for any of this building."

This is one of those situations where everything is fine as long as everything is fine.

When you have a bunch of different parties staking improvements, you've got a lot of finger pointing when something ends up in the wrong place or the curb/parking lot doesn't flow into the CB. I would think that the GC would want a single party responsible for the location of improvements (not every pipe and interior footer - just the critical/expensive elements such as building corners, catch basins, water and sewer lines coming into buildings, etc.) and I believe that if I were the GC I'd want that party to be the PLS. 1. they've got the expertise. 2) they've got the insurance.

There is no doubt that many people in other trades are highly skilled at layout - my experience is that foundation people generally tend to do an excellent job (I guess if you screw up and have to chip out a bunch of concrete, you don't last long in the biz). When things get adjusted do they take into account easements and setbacks? Do they know where property lines are? How much of the planset have they seen?

So, I fully understand the PLS wanting to distance themselves from the potential fray (I wouldn't blow a gasket - gaskets are damn expensive and sometimes they just can't fix them). If somebody else want to take responsibility for the location of the improvements - go for it but don't drag me into it. If you want me to be responsible for it - fine, let me do my job - I trust the foundation people to make the building square and get the interior footings where they belong but I'll employ checks on location relative to other improvements, easements, and setbacks that the foundation people probably won't be thinking about. I want to minimize my exposure to by clearly delineating what work I'm responsible for - that gets more difficult when you have a variety of individuals laying out improvements that I've been tasked with.

Everybody has their own level of acceptable risk for a given environment. In some situations, I may be fine setting 4 or 6 gridline hubs for others to work off. In other situations, I don't want any part of that. The key is to understand what risk is there and consciously decide whether that risk is acceptable to you (and your employer and your insurance company and your client and...).

Jon Collins, post: 456046, member: 11135 wrote: Why have all that liability for a couple hundred bucks to set a few hubs?

That sounds like the problem here.

So what is the solution? It's the PLS obligation to protect the public interest. If they are going to walk because of the, then who will do it?

The GC and other contractors want unbiased independent checks from others. When I discussed this with my client he does not want to use the surveyor hired by the owner. He wants an outside source to check them. Trouble is this is exactly what the surveyor does not want. In this case things were going south for him. Instead of being part of the solution, he became part the problem.

Curious, for those of you commenting on this thread (other than Jim Frame), is construction staking regulated as surveying in your state? Does staking require being licensed?

Engineering survey in New Zealand does not require a licence

No license requirement for construction in NY
But I think this should be changed. I would like to see it similar to Florida. Which requires an LS to set minimum Baseline and BM to start each construction site.

Contractors have been using optical levels, lazer levels, steel tapes and transits for a long time. Even in Ca where surveying of ƒ??fixed worksƒ? is regulated, the contractorƒ??s use of levels, tapes and transits has been long standing for ƒ??fixed worksƒ? with little objection. But now that theyƒ??ve started using total stations and gps units some surveyors now believe something has changed?

Over here in NSW Aus., they only require registration for cadastral work, but ironically the most claims which are lodged are apparently level related. Seems a bit weird how the cadastral discipline is more heavily regulated when there is more at stake financially and from a public safety perspective in the construction/engineering surveying discipline.

JKinAK, post: 456077, member: 7219 wrote: ...and I believe that if I were the GC I'd want that party to be the PLS. 1. they've got the expertise. 2) they've got the insurance.

Having a PLS License doesn't necessarily come with expertise for construction staking and/or insurance. I kind of think there should be some sort of certification or something to assure the GC that a company or surveyor is qualified to do construction staking. (I know I would be wary of pitting myself against some hardened quality construction staker).