| Author |
Message |
Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA
Senior Member
Username: brett
Post Number: 161
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 10:19 am: |    |
Has anyone had to write a spec to require the contractor to issue their submittals by email? What are the pitfalls? Would I limit my requirement to just 8-1/2x11 submittals and require full size drawings? Obviously, samples would have to be submitted as normal practice.
Is there published electronic data transfer language out there that would protect the Owner and Architect? I've googled it but to no avail.
I guess there are also issues with logging data and archiving.
Any input would be appreciated. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 263
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 10:27 am: | |
The threshold should be 11x17, and shop drawings in that size format should be encouraged wherever feasible. Good examples are rebar, millwork, flooring, misc. metals, flashing, sawcut layouts, etc...
Typically, low voltage (security & fire alarm), fire sprinkler, and structural steel are not practicle at that smaller size. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 735
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 10:54 am: | |
So, for the sake of convenience to the contractor, you are going to take 11x17 versions of shop drawings?
I can't see that at all (literally or figuratively).
Everything should come as its natural size, and nothing larger that x (where x is whatever limit you want to use).
Anything larger than that size, especially where it needs to be marked up during the review, just can't come electronically.
There are no real standards for any of this. Its mostly what seems reasonable to you. Don't let the Owner or the Contractor dictate what may become unreasonable just to be 'electronic'.
And consider...if any of this needs to be printed out at the reviewers' end, you are into 2 issues.
1 - you have become the printer for the contractor, you have to print it out at the expense of your own printer usage and paper.
2 - if you have to mark up something that you had to print out to review, you are going to have to scan it back in to return it. There are ways to do an electronic markup in pdfs, but it is not nearly as fast as just marking the paper. And there is a real difference in looking at stuff on a screen and marking it vs looking at it on paper and marking it.
What someone really needs to do at the Architect's end is sit down and consider all the types of submittals that come in and what that is going to look like and require on your end for review, markup, stamping, whether it needs print out and rescan (how do you affix your stamp if not, there are alternatives but are they acceptable) and what to do about non-native sizes (files larger than standard printing or where it is smaller on the screen than it is printed).
It sounds nice to be 'all electronic'. But its not necessarily the best thing. It can be a lot like making your grocery list on a computer - looks high tech but takes longer.
Another thing - 'email'. You probably don't want all this stuff coming via email. There are size limitations to what can be sent and some things may exceed that size. Email systems also may have limitations to what can be stored in your mailbox (inbox and other folders) and exceeding that size suddenly everyone's emails to you are getting bounced back to them. Most contractors that want to use electronic submittals use an online system. It costs them, there is a fee. But it works for them. And it can work for the architect as well. If the Owner wants to buy into one of these systems for the project, that's fine, but someone has to be the subscriber. As the architect, unless you are really in love with a particular system, you should never be the subscriber. Your access should be through the contractor or the owner. And there, you really need to be making your own record copies because it is the subscription holder that 'owns' the information. If relationships go bad, you may find you don't have access to stored data. Do these kinds of things happen? Not often, but, their potential is contracts are written and general requirements like AIA A201 are written. There are no standards currently written about conduct and access for electronically stored documents. Not everyone has an automobile accident in their life, but do you feel that lucky to drive without auto insurance?
Just think it through, be brutally logical in your evaluation, and be careful.
William |
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 264
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 11:05 am: | |
"So, for the sake of convenience to the contractor, you are going to take 11x17 versions of shop drawings?"
NOT AT ALL! It is for my convienence. I can often times perform my review on the screen via the PDF, and then I print out the cover sheet, stamp it, scan it, and insert in place of the origional, and email the whole thing back. It is extremly fast and efficent.
If it is a more complicated review, I print it out, mark up the one set, scan it, and send it back electronically.
The time saved in not marking multiple copies, or arranging to have copies made is VASTLY more cost effective than the cost of 11x17 paper and toner. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 736
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 11:36 am: | |
Marking up multiple copies has no bearing on this issue. We (and most I know) have not done that in years for 'paper based projects'. We mark up one copy. We make a copy of that for record purposes and send back only one copy. I can't see that taking any longer than what you are doing.
If reviewing documents in smaller than half size sets works for you that's fine. But it does not work for everyone. Likewise, some are not going to be comfortable reviewing any drawing with the pdf markup tools. Its true, its like any tool, the more you use it, the more efficient it becomes. But the person just starting out setting up an electronic program may, or may not, be proficient (or may have a personal preference) and should be advised to take that into account.
William |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 282
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 05:24 pm: | |
MASTERSPEC's latest Div 01 revisions include provisions for electronic submittals and project web sites and deletes references to "reproducibles" and "transparencies".
The issue about paying for printing is a biggie. Back when you could get a cheap graduate architect, the architect didn't mind marking up 6 sets of shop drawings; that is, until the boss discovered how many transcription errors there were. Those days, however, are way past gone for good. Many offices I work with have been doing what Mr. Pegues describes for a number of years. Contractor winds up eating some pretty heafty reproduction costs (well, passing it along to the owner), but then the architect never has budgeted enough for reproduction anyway and can't get any more out of the owner. Well, someone's girlfriend is going to Maui for Christmas, it might as well be the reprographics man.
Some of my clients (and their clients) are now requesting electronic submittals (including shop drawings). The shops are annotated using Adobe (OK, the design professional may print out a set to check in whatever size is appropriate) and returned to the contractor in .pdf format. Contractor keeps a copy of the file (and maybe prints out a set for the field) and forwards it on to the sub. It seems to be working OK for the offices that are doing it that way. The only drawback I see is that the reprographic man's girlfriend may be spending Christmas in South Padre Island instead of Maui. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 286
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 08:41 am: | |
The other drawback would be if the repro man's WIFE finds out. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 739
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 11:13 am: | |
Just to put this out there for general consideration, what we decided here at the senior management level was that our Division 1 would always be written the way that we have done it that 'works best for us'. This is based on how we outline CA will be performed in our agreement/contract with the owner.
If the owner up front wants to do otherwise, we have done it a number of different ways including electronic to know how that impacts our time/fee, we can negotiate it appropriately and also specify it correctly. Typically, the owner does not care one way or the other.
If the contractor wants to do otherwise, he either brings it to the owner up front where we can then tell the owner the additional effort that may be required, or if he waits until 'later' like the pre-construction conference, we can tell them that they 'bought' how it was specified and should be passing along a cost savings to the Owner (which 100% of the time I have never seen offered up front), and that if it is outside our scope of services with the Owner then we will participate only to the point that it is beneficial for us. That is, sometimes it only takes a quick markup of something which we may choose to FAX back rather than go through rescanning, and uploading to web based submittals tracking sites.
Most of the time, we actually participate significantly and without additional cost to the owner. But, we like to lay the issues on the table so that if it is taking additional time (and some of this does require meaningless wasted time just like computer generated grocery lists are mostly a waste) we let the owner know we are doing that as a favor.
Electronic options can be great - but also be careful with some of these tracking systems. Some of them have some really very time consuming interfaces. And a couple of them are downright worthless. Just like buying a used car. Some are great, some are less than such.
William |
|
4specs.com Home Page