Contractor's Panelization Drawings

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 270 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 11:52 am:    We are doing a wood framed on top of podium project and the Contractor has elected, as means and methods, to panelize the walls in a shop off-site. They have sent us signed and sealed "shop drawings." We are having a discussion, in house, as to whether we should be reviewing these as an action submittal, or just file them as an informational submittal. We did not require panelization in the spec nor did we ask for these drawings. Of course the contractor is being insistent that we review them. We are not so sure. Any insights or opinions would be appreciated. Thanks. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1396 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 12:20 pm:    He wants you to assume the responsibility by reviewing. I would not based on the fact that he is responsible for methods and means; and the drawings and design are signed and sealed by a properly registered [?] professional. Really there is discussion about "informational submittals" as your liabiity may suffer if you review or don't review them. A dilemma your attorney might like to address. I'd just return the submittal as extraneous and not required. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 525 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 04:52 pm:    I'm with Ralph. Unless the Contractor wishes to hire you directly to perform this service to the Contractor, you do not have an obligation to perform the review upon request. Your liability insurance people may not cover services provided without obligation. Contractors often have very confused ideas about why architects review submittals. It is a service to the owner, not the Contractor. I too would return them as extraneous. If the Contractor wants outside review of his engineer's work, he can hire someone else. You can perform normal site observation of the completed wood frame walls once they are erected. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 271 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 05:09 pm:    Thanks Ralph and Phil. That's kind of what I was thinking and needed some ammo to convince a few others. Thanks. I love this site. Don Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 562 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 05:22 pm:    Ask the contractor if the installed work, based on his shop drawings, will differ from what was required by your construction documents. If he says that they have made changes then ask him to submit an substitution request for your review. He needs to point out the deviations. Have the Owner tell him that as a condition of your review of the substitution request that he will need to pay for all of your time. Because there are changes if you accept his substitution it will be necessary to modify your documents and obtain approval from the building official. If he says that there will be no differences send back the submittal without review. Note that you did not review the submittal. I would not keep a copy. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 534 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, May 16, 2013 - 05:45 pm:    I agree with Mark, and you need to get your SE of record involved in the discussion too. If the change of framing method materially effects the structural design (which assumes a completed assembly, not increments of work), you need to have a dialogue with the owner about additional services to review the impact to the structural design of the building. It's not a big deal in terms of the task involved, but it absolutely needs to be done to ensure its not a big deal for the building design. This really is similar to having a tall retaining wall going from poured in place to shotcrete. The detailing is different, there are different requirements that have to be incorporated, etc... It should be performed by you and your SE and it should be an additional service Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 563 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, May 17, 2013 - 01:41 pm:    My impression is that the panelization of the walls was limited to the structural frame. If so the previous suggested response should be sufficient. On the other hand if the prefabricated assemblies include work that could not be inspected at the job site you should consider the added costs of providing those inspections at the fabrication facility. When the prefabricated work obscures work that the city's inspectors want to see, the building department may need to be involved in the discussion. Thus in these situations even if the Contractor says that the work will comply with the permit documents it may constitute a substitution. This would not affect the decision whether or not to review the submittal. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, May 20, 2013 - 09:37 am:    I am not sure just which side of this discussion that I would fall on (in terms of reveiw/not review). However I do believe your obligation to your client needs to be considered. Return of the submittal without review and without keeping a record copy could leave your client without a valuable record document that may be crucial for future reference. At some point your need to avoid liabilty has to be weighed against your clients needs, and your responsibility to serve those needs. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 520 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, May 20, 2013 - 10:26 am:    I completely agree with the majority here. It's probable that the panelization is benign and beneficial to the Contractor, especially in terms of schedule but possibly even quality. That's not the issue. The bottom line is if this changes the design intent, it's a substitution and paid in-depth review is warranted. If not, it's business as usual and, if no submittals were required, none should be submitted or reviewed. Send them back as not read with no copies retained. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1115 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, May 20, 2013 - 10:49 am:    I'm in agreement with Mark. The panelization falls under contractor means and methods. It really doesn't make much difference if the framing is done in the shop and then set up in the field or framed in the field and then set up. All that matters is if the installed work complies with the contract documents. Like Mark mentioned, some things cannot be concealed from inspection by the building inspector. If that does occur, it will be the building inspector and not the design professional requesting the removal for noncompliance with the building code. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 564 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, May 20, 2013 - 01:03 pm:    Spider Why would the Client need these shop drawings for future reference? If there is a problem related to this shop drawing that leads to litigation my understanding is that the Client will be involved in the litigation since the designer would have been acting as the agent of the Client. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 272 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, May 20, 2013 - 02:36 pm:    Thank you all for the additional info since my last thanks. It is good to see such unanimity. It helps with the argument. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, May 20, 2013 - 02:40 pm:    Mark:When I read the original post I took "signed and sealed" drawings to mean that an engineer had prepared the documents and as such I assumed that the drawings would include key information on stud grade, spacing, connections, sheathing, etc. This might be wrong in which case the drawings may have little future value to the Owner. However is such information is available on the drawings and they were prepared by an engineer then this information could be valuable for may diffferent reasons. The client may someday wish to modify the structure in some way. This might mean new fenestrations or maybe adding an additional floor or maybe adding an addition where some of the new loads would rest on the panel walls. Without the benefit of record drawings they would have no idea what the panels were designed for and as such the new engineering would have to assume a worst case scenario. Imagine the difference your calculations would take if you assumed the existing studs for No. 2 grade when they may have actualy been sel. str. Similarly the sheathing used, and the rating of that sheathing, could have a huge impact on what modifications you can make to the panels. The majority of the work my office does is renovation of existing structures and good record drawings (when they exist) not only make our work easier it saves our clients time and money. As I stated previously I am not sure I would review the drawings either but keeping the drawings as an informational document has the potential to benefit the Owner (your client)in the future and that should be considered as well. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 565 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, May 20, 2013 - 05:07 pm:    If the contractor had been delegated part of the design the Owner should have a copy of the contractors design since these documents would have to be submitted to the building department. I do not believe that that is the case here. I am leery of vague claims that something might protect the Client. My bias is to reject them unless they can be made more specific so that they can be evaluated. Inventing obligations is something we should be careful not to do. Yes we do have obligations to our client but they are not open ended. If they were open ended we could fid ourselves liable for all of the clients problems and out of business. For example unless the Client has expressed a specific desire to be able to add onto the building I do not believe that we have an obligation to design the project to make this easy. If we designed the building to accommodate an addition not contemplated by the client and the project cost more we would likely have violated our duty to our client.