I got a call the other day from a local contractor. There is a small bank in town and they are putting an addition to the back of the building and adding on to the parking lot in the rear. He wanted to know if we'd surveyed that site. I told him we had not. He said he's been trying to lay out the site plan and nothing is fitting just right. He doesn't think it was surveyed. He sent me the "site plan". A better word would be "cartoon". He asks me to do enough surveying to figure out how to fit the stuff on site.
I sent a crew out yesterday to do some locating. This morning I plugged their data in, and brought the "site plan" CAD file in. The first problem is the building on the "site plan" is not the same size as the building on the property. The next problem is the side street is in the wrong place and the parking lot addition would actually go out into the street. Oh, did I mention this "site plan" came from an architect?
This looks to be a good time to hire a surveyor and an engineer.
I think the time to have hired those 2 professionals was about 6 months ago...:joy:
Tommy Young, post: 380427, member: 703 wrote: This looks to be a good time to hire a surveyor and an engineer
Sounds like to me it's time to bring our favorite buddy's (Attorneys) into the picture.
Things rarely go right when the surveyor is hired after the engineer and architect. The engineer believes he knows and the architect doesn't care.
Next you will tell me that the design works to the GIS
I've always compared that kind of deal to pullin' the trigger and then tryin' to point the barrel...you will ALWAYS be dissatisfied with the results.
J. Penry, post: 380454, member: 321 wrote: Things rarely go right when the surveyor is hired after the engineer and architect. The engineer believes he knows and the architect doesn't care.
There is no engineer on this project. At least not yet anyway.
After meeting with the contractor this morning, he told me that the new "site plan" was based off the old "site plan" when the bank was originally built 16 years ago. A site plan isn't much good after the construction if you didn't follow it in the first place.
Tommy Young, post: 380486, member: 703 wrote: After meeting with the contractor this morning, he told me that the new "site plan" was based off the old "site plan" when the bank was originally built 16 years ago. A site plan isn't much good after the construction if you didn't follow it in the first place.
Hence the term "as built".
What bothers me so much about this situation is, the client paid a lot of money for the site plan, which turns out to be almost worthless. When the surveyor tells the client it's worthless, guess who looks like the bad guy. The surveyor is the bearer of bad news, telling the client he needs to hire two professionals that he didn't know he needed, and typically what the client remembers is the surveyor caused him a big problem.
True, but if the contractor was competent, he would have had those bases covered. As I'm sure you will agree. Me also being formerly a small time contractor, I know this to be the truth. Hopefully, our fellow surveyor can make the situation clear to the client and still be able to salvage the situation for all involved. Seems it's in his court now.
Rob S, post: 380508, member: 11901 wrote: Hence the term "as built".
An "as built" survey is required in most major subdivisions and de facto when municipal improvements are involved. No matter what the engineering plans purport, an "as built" post construction survey is required to actually ascertain what was actually built. It protects all parties from litigation concerning faults by the players. Curiously, it introduces liability where a municipality elects to delete or change an engineering requirement in the plans (drainage, access, etc.,) and is faced with post construction litigation.
I recently turn down a project an engineer asked me to do upon my review of his site plan. It was very clear the site plan was based on gis 5' contours and old record data. Which he somehow passed off to the county as grid coords. And got plan approval.
He wanted to prepare an easement plat of the swm/bmp that he designed. At first I just said I was too busy to get to it, he kept pushing me and I kindly let him know that the time to get a surveyor involved on his project was prior to his plans being produced and I was not interested in attempting to prepare his plat based on plans that were not adequately prepared. And I would not just take his cad work and turn it into a plat. Next thing I heard was CLICK.
Ron Lang, post: 380522, member: 6445 wrote: Next thing I heard was CLICK.
and after a relaxing weekend on the lake...ring ring...WeGotCha Law firm here...we would like to retain you as an expert witness in an upcoming litigation...
Pay me now...or...
DDSM
C Billingsley, post: 380509, member: 1965 wrote: What bothers me so much about this situation is, the client paid a lot of money for the site plan, which turns out to be almost worthless. When the surveyor tells the client it's worthless, guess who looks like the bad guy. The surveyor is the bearer of bad news, telling the client he needs to hire two professionals that he didn't know he needed, and typically what the client remembers is the surveyor caused him a big problem.
I'm not the bearer of any bad news here..
The contractor is, and he knows a surveyor should have been hired long ago. These phony plans are costing him money.
Tommy Young, post: 380427, member: 703 wrote: I got a call the other day from a local contractor. There is a small bank in town and they are putting an addition to the back of the building and adding on to the parking lot in the rear. He wanted to know if we'd surveyed that site. I told him we had not. He said he's been trying to lay out the site plan and nothing is fitting just right. He doesn't think it was surveyed. He sent me the "site plan". A better word would be "cartoon". He asks me to do enough surveying to figure out how to fit the stuff on site.
I sent a crew out yesterday to do some locating. This morning I plugged their data in, and brought the "site plan" CAD file in. The first problem is the building on the "site plan" is not the same size as the building on the property. The next problem is the side street is in the wrong place and the parking lot addition would actually go out into the street. Oh, did I mention this "site plan" came from an architect?
This looks to be a good time to hire a surveyor and an engineer.
I am dealing with nearly the very same thing. I got a $6k retainer (1/3 estimate) and have been looking at this at my own leisurely pace. Is this going to be a new trend?
I've been seeing this a little bit too. Full speed ahead with the architect & builder, then "Oh! The #^$#* Building Inspector wants a site plan. Can you have it this afternoon? We want start building tomorrow. YOU ARE HOLDING US UP."
I have even seen it with engineering. I had a (non-)client tell me he had a septic system scheduled to be installed next week within the 200' riverfront area of a river. Could I design it for them?
It doesn't work that way!
