Presentation on theme: "SEAC/ RMSCA Steel Liaison Committee SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOP DRAWING PROCESS."— Presentation transcript:
SEAC/ RMSCA Steel Liaison Committee SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOP DRAWING PROCESS
WHY The process of preparing shop drawings has become the most time consuming and unpredictable part of the fabrication process
Participating Members of the Committee Jim Edwards, Quality Steel Services, Inc. Dave Henley, P.E., Vulcraft Richard Huddleston, Zimkor LLC Robert Leberer, P.E., Anderson & Hastings Consulting Engineers, Inc. Curtis Mayes, P.E. LPR Construction Co. Nick Miller, LPR Construction Co. Eric Moe, P.E. Puma Steel Dave Schroeder, Mortenson Tom Skinner, P.E., JVA Consulting Structural Engineers Maynard Trostel, P.E., Puma Steel Jules Van de Pas, P.E., Computerized Structural Design Bruce Wolfe, P.E., Structural Consultants, Inc. (CHAIR) Bill Zimmerman, P.E., Zimkor LLC
Disclaimer SEAC, RMSCA, nor its committees, writers, editors and individuals who have contributed to this publication make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations included in this document. This document does not replace and is not to be used as an adjunct to the current edition of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges or Case document 962D. The following is a discussion of the current status of the process of preparing structural steel shop drawings. This paper was prepared by the SEAC/ RMSCA Steel Liaison Committee, a coalition of Front Range Fabricators, Detailers, Erectors and Structural Engineers (EOR) dedicated to improving the steel construction industry. The intent of this paper is to propose suggestions for improving the structural steel shop drawing process. The process of preparing shop drawings has become the most time consuming and unpredictable part of the fabrication process.
Topics PURPOSE of Shop Drawings The Normal Shop Drawing PROCESS PROBLEMS in preparing and approving the shop drawings RECOMMENDATIONS to improve the shop drawing process
PURPOSE and PROCESS of Shop Drawings Each participant has a different Perspective, Role and Contractual Responsibility: Fabricator /Detailer Erector General Contractor or Construction Manager Engineer Architect
SHOP DRAWING PROCESS FABRICATER PREPARES SHOP DRAWINGS GC/CM REVIEWS FORWARDS TO ARCHITECT ARCHITECT REVIEWS FORWARDS TO ENGINEER ENGINEER REVIEWS RETURNS TO ARCH GC/CM AWARDS CONTRACT AND PROVIDES CDS TO FABRICATOR ERECTORDETAILER
CONTRACTS & STANDARDS THE AISC CODE OF STANDARD PRACTICE AND THE VARIOUS AIA/ASCE STANDARD CONTRACTS ALL CONTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW OF SHOP DRAWINGS
Shop Drawings – AISC COSP 4.2 Fabricator Responsibility Except as provided in Section 4.5, the fabricator shall produce Shop and Erection Drawings for the fabrication and erection of the Structural Steel and is responsible for the following: (a) The transfer of information from the Contract Documents into accurate and complete Shop and Erection Drawings; and (b) The development of accurate, detailed dimensional information to provide for fit up of the parts in the field.
CHANGES – AISC COSP 4.2 Fabricator Responsibility When the Fabricator submits a request to change Connection details that are described in the Contract Documents, the Fabricator shall notify the Owners Designated Representatives for Design and Construction in writing in advance of the submission of the Shop and Erection Drawings…
Approval AISC COSP Except as provided in Section 4.5, the shop and Erection Drawings shall be submitted to the Owners Designated Representatives for Design and Construction for review and approval. …returned in 14 calendar days…
Approval AISC COSP Approval…or…approval subject to corrections noted and similar approvals shall constitute the following: (a)Confirmation that the Fabricator has correctly interpreted the Contract Documents… (b)Confirmation that the (Engineer) has reviewed and approved the connection details shown on the Shop and Erection Drawings and submitted in accordance with if applicable; and (c)Release by the (Engineer) and (CM) to begin fabrication using the approved submittals
AIA STD. CONTRACT- CONSTRUCTION Shop Drawings…The purpose of their submittal is to demonstrate for those portions of the work for which submittals are required the way the Contractor proposes to conform to the information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents.
GC AIA STD. CONTRACT - CONSTRUCTION (a)The Contractor shall review, approve and submit to the Architect…submittals required … (b)The Contractor shall perform no …Work…requiring submittals until the submittal has been approved by the Architect… (c)By approving… Shop Drawings… the Contractor represents that the Contractor has determined and verified materials, field measurements and field construction criteria…and has checked and coordinated the information contained with such submittals with the requirements of the Work and of the Contract Documents.
GC AIA STD CONTRACT – CONSTRUCTION ( d) The Contractor shall not be relieved of responsibility for deviations from the…CDs by the Architects approval of Shop Drawings…Unless the Contract has specifically informed the Architect in writing of such deviation…The Contractor shall not be relieved of responsibility for errors or omissions in the Shop Drawings…by the Architects approval.
ACEC STD. CONTRACT for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEERS CONTRACT Review and approve or take other appropriate action in respect to Shop Drawings…but, only for conformance with the information given in the CDs and compatibility with the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning whole…
ACEC STD. CONTRACT Engineers Approval NOT – will not extend to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction or to safety precautions and programs incident thereto.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE / FABRICATOR The Fabricator and GC negotiate the contract. Once an arrangement is made, the Fabricator compares the bid/ pricing drawings to the final Contract Documents. Detailing is usually started right away. Then the Fabricator, Erector and GC discuss the fabrication and erection sequence.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE / FABRICATOR When questions arise or conflicts are found during the preparation of the shop drawings, questions are asked via RFIs to determine direction.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE /FABRICATOR Multiple copies of the shop drawings are submitted to the GC. In order to help expedite the review turn-around time, a concurrent copy sometimes is sent to the EOR and/or Architect, with the GCs permission, to help expedite the process.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – GC The General Contractor Verifies that the Subcontractor understands the submittal requirements. Obtains a schedule for submittals from the subcontractors Reviews the submittal Forwards the submittal (if acceptable) to the AE. Returns submittals back to the subcontractor after AE review Tracks status of submittals
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – GC GC Review To confirm that the system is in general conformance with the Contract Documents and the GC/ Sub-contractor agreement and to also coordinate with the other affected trades.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E The Architect sends the shop drawings on to the EOR. In practice, the Architect often performs their review simultaneous with the EOR or after the EOR and adds his comments. The EOR reviews and makes comments … keeps one set, and returns the remainder back to the Architect.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E REVIEW PRACTICE The level of detail involved in the Engineers review varies greatly from firm to firm or project to project. FIRM(A) General review of member sizes, connection types and major building dimensions
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E REVIEW PRACTICE FIRM(B) Detailed review of each part, verification of member size, overall length, material type, verification of each connection, weld sizes, hole sizes, hole locations verification of no paint at SC connections, primer.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E REVIEW PRACTICE -WHO REVIEWS THE SHOP DRAWINGS? The design engineer. Another similarly qualified engineer. The CA department. The most junior member of the team.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E The typical actions by the A/E are: Approved / No Exceptions Taken Approved as Noted / Exceptions as Noted Revise and Resubmit Rejected The first two actions allow the Fabricator to proceed and fabricate the material without a re-submittal. The latter two require re-submittal.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E the Fabricator/Detailer reviews all comments, contacts the appropriate party with questions and/or RFIs, and … completes or corrects them for fabrication. Drawings are released to the shop. Final For Construction copies are sent to the GC. The Erector is sometimes copied at this time.
ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E The For Construction shop drawings are sometimes not given to the field erection crew until the first delivery truck arrives at the job site.
Structural Engineers Association of Colorado Rocky Mountain Steel Construction Association Steel Liaison Committee PROBLEMS In Preparing Shop Drawings
Incomplete Contract Documents Common concerns voiced by Fabricators Dimensions do not close. Structural components are not located in plan or in elevation. Details are not complete or specific to the project. Design Drawings and Specifications are in conflict. Structural drawings are not thoroughly coordinated with Architectural or Mechanical drawings
Inconsistent industry guidelines for production of drawings For shop drawings: AISC Code of Standard Practice for Buildings and Bridges, 3/18/05, 3.1. For Design Drawings: SEAC A Guide for Consulting Structural Engineering Services in Colorado, 10/04, 4.G.1-4. AIA Monthly Periodic Best Practice in Risk Management September 2005 States: architects drawings can not be used for construction
The Architect is responsible for control dimensions and elevations. Common problem areas are: (1) Geometry in plan and elevation (2) Stair dimensions (3) Canopies and entrances (4) Edge of slab or roof deck (5) Mechanical unit sizes, weights, locations and openings through the structure.
Request For Information Often, RFIs may result from unanswered questions. The timing of the shop drawing submittal can be delayed by this part of the process. Numerous RFIs can be indicative of unclear or incomplete Contract Documents. Time and possibly the cost required to prepare the shop drawings will likely increase.
Poor Communications The shop drawing submittal and review process is often unclearly specified. Because of this, the GC and/ or Architect decide on a project specific process. Different EOR offices have different practices with regard to the timeliness and completeness of their review methods. The construction schedule sometime changes and the affected parties are not informed. The Fabricators schedule requirements are unknown to the other parties. The reviewers have no idea how large the submittal packages will be.
Shop Drawing Review Comments Can be vague, unclear, cryptic or unreadable. May not adequately address or completely answer questions raised. May make changes outside of the scope of work, thus affecting cost and schedule. May be deferred to a downstream reviewer and thus may go unanswered. May be specifically avoided due to a concern on the part of the EOR that he will become liable for fit up when answering a dimensional question.
Coordination With Other Trades The burden of coordination responsibility is often placed on the Fabricator by the GC. The Fabricator is generally not provided with needed documents and is not generally equipped to effectively coordinate with other trades. Timing of coordination can be an issue, since other trades are working under their own schedule. The Fabricator usually does not have contractual authority over the other trades, which dilutes obligations, incentives and cooperation.
Structural Engineers Association of Colorado Rocky Mountain Steel Construction Association Steel Liaison Committee Suggested Solutions In Preparing Shop Drawings
RECOMMENDATIONS to improve the shop drawing process A. Complete Contract Documents are necessary 1. AISC COSP 2. Customized specifications 3. Mechanical openings 4. EOR compensation for mechanical changes 5. Specify unusual loads for the joist supplier 6. Flexibility concerning connections
Improve Communications 1. Pre-Detailing Conference a. Face to face meetings b. Who should attend c. Come prepared d. Establish procedures e. Discussion of Fabricator issues
Improve Communications 2. RFIs (10/05 MSC and the AISC COSP 4.6) a.Ask & answer in a timely way b.Only ask about issues not addressed in CDs c.Address only one question or issue d.Ask a yes or no question, with a proposed sketched solution e. Answers must be clear f. Follow up phone call g. Dont use for changes or substitutions
Improve Communications 3. Construction Schedule a.GC should provide b.Key Fabricator milestone dates are needed c.Advise EOR of arrival date of shops d.Advance copy
Suggestions For Improving Shop Drawing Review Comments 1. Route one record set of shops for review 2. Readable comments, addressing all questions 3. Do not finish design on the shop drawings 4. Go over comments with the Detailer 5. Reviewer should talk with affected parties 6. Changes should be separately documented 7. Comments should refer Detailer to specifics in CDs
Coordination With Other Trades 1. GC is responsible for coordinating the trades