Drawing Sheet Index

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

Author Message Brett M. Wilbur Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 18 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 12:50 pm:    What, if any, are the legal ramifications of including or excluding Drawing Sheet Index in Project Manual? It seems like a coordination issue that is redundant or unnecessary, usually wrong, and usually causes us to cram at the last minute. I have been asking consultants to stamp/seal their own Table of Contents (TOC) and sheet index and including them after Division 14 on the TOC. Including the sheet index in the Project Manual is just one more place for a potential liablity headache, but I'm not sure of the legal requirements. Any thoughts? Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 110 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 01:09 pm:    If the project manual requires a drawing sheet index, shouldn't the drawings require a table of contents for the project manual? You're right; it's just one more place to mess up. I don't include a drawing sheet index unless specifically required by the owner (only one of our clients). The convenience is in defining the contract documents on the agreement. It's easier to say "drawings as listed on Document X" than to enter a list of drawings, but that can be overcome by generating a list of drawing sheets and making it an attachment to the agreement. The list of drawings often changes during the bidding period, so you would have to update the drawing sheet index, anyway. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 317 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 01:51 pm:    On the other hand, such an index (list) may be required by the Contract Conditions or Agreement, in the clause which defines the Contract Documents. This is the case with AIA A101. David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 01:54 pm:    I used to include one years ago. The electronic file nature made made it very easy to modify and include as the "List of Drawings" appendix or attachment to the Agreement. The biggest hassle was the drawing team: Too many times than I could count, the Drawing titles used in the Drawing Index Sheet was not in agreement with the actual titles used on the Drawings. So rather than copy from the Index Sheet, I had to acquire a final set of Drawings (is there such a thing?) and go through sheet be sheet and copy those titles instead. It also required asking the consultants to send us their FINAL list of Drawings. Again - the titles they would send would not always agree with the actual titles used on the respective Drawing sheet. Of course, all this was going on while the courier was at the front desk, tapping his foot, patiently waiting to take the stack of spec originals to the printers. Since its such a [last minute, by nature] housekeeping chore and coordination pitfall, I haven't included it in the Project Manual in years, with no detrimental outcome to liability. Anne Whitacre, CCS CSI Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 161 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 02:25 pm:    John- I think even with AIA 101 you can include the sheet index by reference -- "as listed on Sheet A1.0" or words to that effect. we don't include the sheet index either, unless the project (usually some Federal Government job) specifically requires sheet index in the project manual. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 338 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 05:59 pm:    I think that this is likely one of those instances where independent specifiers may have a different point of view than internal specifiers. I am the specifier in an architectural office. I include the list of drawings. First, its not just a list, it also shows the last date revised, it is revised any time there is an addendum or amendment issued. We used to not include it, or did so only when it would benefit us, typically large projects. Howerver, starting about 4 years ago we started getting requests from Owners that their lenders wanted a drawing index in 8-1/2 by 11 format as a description of the documents - they were using our table of contents for the project manual. So we started including the index of drawings. And due to to this now being something that lawyers were using, they wanted to make sure that the title blocks were identical to the list. This was not always so - and consultants often produced totally bogus lists. We have a total routine now for this, not a big deal. They typically like to track it on a spreadsheet and then important that into AutoCAD. Some like to type it into AutoCAD directly. Either way its easy to pass me a spreadsheet version. I bring that into word, and it takes me about 10 minutes from opening my email to receive the spreadsheet to have a totally finished and printed index of drawings. One thing we did find is that after importing into word, its feature of underling unknown words or those spelled incorrectly beneficial as those that are truly incorrect I send back to the project architect to verify with the title block and correct it or their list (or both). We don't find it a burden, , its something that we also now use, and the lawyers are happy too. But I can see where an independent might not be so happy dealing with it. William Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 111 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 06:32 pm:    William: How the heck do you get your architects to update it? I have enough trouble getting the table of contents on the drawing set to match up with the drawings. Assuming the table of contents on the drawings is correct, it shouldn't be much trouble to extract the text and put it in a word processing document if needed. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 339 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:52 pm:    Sheldon, Being an internal spec writer rather than a consultant, frankly, I have all the leverage. I know there are some firms that don't operate that way, but it was the way I was trained back in the 70s, and it was the program I brought when I set up the program in 1983 when I came here. But its is not a dictatorship, its a 2 way street. If they get me the information, they know I will get it in the book correctly. If I ask a question, they know it means there could be potential problems. So at my end, it means that I have to ask the questions needed, help them find the answers and see that it gets in correcctly. The architects are required to provide me with a detailed checklist (that I created) and I put them through a 2 to 3 hour interview when we first go through the checklist. They are then required to give me catalog cuts with all the options they want for any product selected where I have identified that I need cuts. At the same time, I come in early during design development for research on innovative applications and special product searches. I give them hands on tips about how to coordinate things. I am the lead on the terminology team that creates the terminology used on the drawings with the terminology used in the specs. There is just no waivering on this - its a requirement. And you can't do that unless the office buys into from the top down from the beginning. So, list of drawings, no problem, its second nature. Our whole point on this is that I won't take their file from them until the last day a few hours before the book is supposed to go out. And they know that if some consultant has not sent his drawings over, if they want me to hold the book I will - and if they want me to publish it without actual confirmation of the final titleblocks they get told there is a 90 percent chance that there will be errors in the consultants lists no matter how many times they have seen review sets - and its true. For that reason, drawings are due early in the day, and the owner is told that their failure to make this available may mean an uncoordinated drawing list. But frankly, its the only way that I can see a spec system working - you can't just hand over drawings and expect to get a product. Its a 2-way street of coordination and sticking with a program that is kept updated. William Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 112 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:02 pm:    "you can't do that unless the office buys into from the top down" says it all. We're doing some Revit projects now. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if a list of drawings is automatic. Computers are finally starting to do what has been promised for the last thirty years! Changes in any drawing or detail show up everywhere, including opening schedules. It doesn't write specs yet, but it won't be long. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 319 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 08:52 am:    Sheldon, It's closer than you think. ARCOM has announced a deal to partner with a firm to create a new product to semi-automate specifying. The basic principal is that CAD users would key their drawings from a standard list of keynotes (modified and maintained by the firm as a firm-wide and/or project standard.) The software would then poll every key note in the drawing set, create a spec database, from which a first-pass of editing on Masterspec would be done. It would reportedly get you about three-quarters of the way to a completed spec. I'm not sure when this comes out, but it's not too far off. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 320 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 09:15 am:    I found this announcement on ARCOM's web site: "ARCOM recently signed an agreement to integrate MASTERSPEC with InterSpec's e-SPECS specification automation software and to work together to further improve the interoperability of building information modeling programs and construction specifications. InterSpec's e-SPECS family of specification systems interface with Autodesk® Revit, Autodesk® Architectural Desktop, Autodesk® Building Systems, and AutoCAD® design software, and are fully compatible with ARCOM's MASTERWORKS™ software. "The agreement will allow InterSpec to bundle MASTERSPEC with its e-SPECS software to InterSpec's customers, while providing ARCOM the opportunity to offer e-SPECS' automation capabilities to MASTERSPEC Licensed Users." Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 113 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 10:14 am:    I have been talking to someone at Interspec for a few months, and received from them an e-mail announcement similar to the one on ARCOM's site. The subject - exchange of electronic data - should be one of CSI's most important activities. Instead of worrying about paper formats we should be working on data formats. MasterFormat, SectionFormat, PageFormat, and the old MOP were developed to organize paper documents, which, at the time, were the actual data. Today, paper - or an image on a monitor - is simply the display of data, which exists in electronic files of various formats. We laugh about the "paperless society" but the reason we can't get rid of paper is that we have to be able to see something to understand it. Even if computers talk to each other in a paperless format, we will still need to see things on paper or on a monitor. (At least until we have a neural implant with a USB connector!) At the moment there are a number of proprietary standards for BIM. Establishing industry standards would be a great benefit for owners, architects, and contractors. CSI can build on its traditional strengths by helping develop standards for electronic documents, much as it did in the past for paper documents. Without standards, it would be difficult at best, and maybe impossible, for an architect using Bentley software to use BIM data produced by Revit. Without standards, owners who want to take advantage of BIM will have to choose a single program and force their consultants to use only that program. Without standards, architects working for multiple owners would be forced to acquire two or more programs, and contractors and suppliers would have to have access to all of them. It is only if we have data format standards that the benefits of BIM will be realized. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 35 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 11:20 am:    We have a hard enough time getting a good list of spec sections from out consultants. I try to always have it checked against what they send and there are usually a few errors (less than 5). Usually the spec section is correct, but the listing is wrong, but sometimes they have sent the wrong section (or forgotten to send something). Drawings are another matter. I have some difficulty getting people "on the boards" to understand the it is important that the project name be consistent throughout the documents. I frequently see cover sheets that have a project name significantly different that what is shown on a typical sheet title block. Very infrequently, the name of the project changes and I don't hear about it in time to get it changed on the specs. If I can get a list from our team in house and the consultants, it can be verified against what is submitted. I do have to note that some of our consultants treat our deadlines like taxidrivers in Rome treat traffic lane markings: vague suggestions. This final check helps get the printing order correct as well so we will sometimes get our printer to assist on large projects. On large complex projects, this final crosschecking can take a half a day. If you are goint to provide a list of Drawings in the Project Manual, be sure to follow through in modifying it when changing the Work (Addenda, ASIs, Change Orders). It is good practice to provide a list all of the Bidding/Contract Documents somewhere in the documents. A detailed enumeration of Drawing and Specification numbers and names is part of this list. It should be enough to insert a reference to the Drawing Index and the Project Manual TOC in the agreement (AIA A101) or supplementry conditions; however, many public agencies seem to want to include the Drawing Index in the Project Manual as well. I would prefer to have the detailed listing included in the Agreement when the Contract is finalized (after bidding). The attorneys can generate this from our documents complete with any modifications issued during bidding. Many may feel that this is a formality with little or no relevance. We recently had a client who developed his own agreement and contract conditions without consulting us. In listing the contract documents, this client failed to list the Specifications as a part of the contract. There was some disagreement during construction, and we could not rely on having the specification requirements to back us up. We got it worked out, but there were some pretty intense conversations going on for several weeks. Failing to include the specifications through even the vaguest of references could have been a serious problem.