As-Built Documentation

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

Author Message Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 61 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 04:16 pm:    One of my architect clients wants to incorporate selected images produced as a part of the project visual documentation requirements (usually a PowerPoint file) to be incorporated into the as-built drawings. I suggested placing a numbered arrow (poiinted in the direction the image was taken) on the drawing indicating the place the image was taken. Then have a separate sheet containing the numbered images, plus a brief narrative under the picture. Off the top of my head (which is mostly skin), it seems simple enough. Is anyone aware of other, hopefully proven, methods of accomplishing this? What, if any, have been the reactions of contractors? Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 112 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 09:44 pm:    Consider hot linking to the image files from the key plan. Easily done. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 113 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 09:46 pm:    Hmmm, and if you are actually planning this in advance, do pre- and post-enclosure photos keyed from the key plan to record roughed-in concealed piping, blocking, conduit. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 370 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, June 17, 2005 - 11:53 am:    We actually produce such documents on a regular basis, often as part of the "information available to bidders." This is because site visits are not permitted. We have CD-ROM with plans with keyed arrows depicting a photo--clicking on the arrow opens up the photo. It's a very nifty system--we have the production of it semi-automated as well. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:58 pm:    This is a digression and an irritating nit-pick, but our professional liability insurer begs us to use the term "record" in lieu of "as-built" in cases like this. Their explanations are not always clear, but it seems to be the consensus of the design profession now to eschew "as-built." I am sure the current preference will change to another term someday as we do our best not to say or write anything definite for fear of being summoned to court. Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 225 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 02:25 pm:    Dear Unregistered Guest: Since I have been writing specifications (for about a dozen or so years now) the consensus has been to use "record drawings" instead of "as-built drawings" because they constitute the "Drawings of Record", which perhaps is more a reflection that they are the legal documents. The term "as-built" certainly has a more down-home feeling, but in today's world, I want legal documents carefully completed. D. Marshall Fryer Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 54 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 02:42 pm:    In my experience, the contractor provides "as-built" marked up drawings to the Architect, who then submits the same as "project record drawings" to the owner. Since it's the contractors for the most part using the higher liability language, I say leave well enough alone! Susan McClendon Senior Member Username: susan_mcclendon Post Number: 9 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 02:44 pm:    My interpretation of this issue is that "as-built" implies a certainty -- i.e. "it was actually built this way." The problem is that the drawings no matter how complete are still a person's translation of what was built, so they could have errors and/or omissions too. I think the lawyers just don't want you promising something that you can't deliver. In many cases, these drawings are not legal documents, but if they should become so, it's even more important not to misrepresent them. David J. Wyatt, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 02:40 pm:    Lynn, Thanks for the explanation - clearer than the one I gave. I don't know why my post was designated as unregistered guest. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 371 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 04:57 pm:    Well, then there is the difference between: 1) the contractor maintaining a set of documents at the job site upon which she marks changes to the project and 2) the completed re-drafted compendium of all of those changes. I have struggled (very slightly) with this in Division 1, because you want the contractor to maintain #1, but then produce #2 as a result of those efforts. They really can't be referred to with the same term because they are two different animals (or vegetables really, I suppose.) George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 05:22 pm:    I heard the same explanation as Susan when “as builts” became “record drawings”. The insurance provider at the seminar said something like “If you weren’t there watching each and every moment during construction, how can you claim these drawings represent the project as it actually was built?” They are called “record drawings” because they represent the contractor’s (not the A/E’s) record of what got built, and not what actually got built – two vastly different things. However, most of us still use the archaic term “as builts” as a shorthand for “record drawings”, the same way we sloppily refer to “plans and specs” when what we really mean is “drawings and project manual”. As much as I try to avoid it, I am guilty as charged on that one. There is also an important distinction between “as builts” meaning the record drawings that are produced at the end of the project and given to the owner at project close out, and the “as builts” that are used as resource drawings at the beginning of a project and given to the bidders or contractor for additional information. Neither resource drawings nor record drawings are contract drawings. It’s interesting to note that the use of photography in both record and resource drawings gets us closer to the concept we have been semantically and legally avoiding for the last few decades -- the idea that we are actually depicting the project “as built”. Still, no matter how good our photographs, they are still merely records and not reality.