Working Drawings vs. Shop Drawings

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

Author Message Randall T. Bailey, PE, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: baileyr Post Number: 11 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 09:13 am:    I have a client who differentiates working drawings vs. shop drawings in their specifications, with working drawings comprising design work delegated to the contractor for temporary structures not permanently incorporated in the work (shoring, excavation support, scaffolding, etc.). Typically includes calculations, with all required to be sealed by a P.E. The client's guide specifications have a separate Division 1 section for this. Am interested to know if you encounter this practice, if you do something similar, or if you group this type of submittal in with conventional shop drawings. My sense is that this is a holdover from decades past and that it is not currently common practice. I have proposed doing away with the section and incorporating the applicable requirements into 1) the Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples section or 2) combining the shop drawings section and applicable working drawings requirements into a broader Submittal Procedures section. Client remains to be convinced. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. Thank you. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 542 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:07 am:    I've not seen this, but am wondering if this is an attempt to differentiate between "action" submittals and "informational" submittals. Do the working drawings get reviewed like a shop drawing would? Randall T. Bailey, PE, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: baileyr Post Number: 12 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 10:58 am:    Good point, and a logical one. However, the working drawings submittals receive the same level of review and approval as the other shop drawings. The issue of incurred liability that comes with this review of the contractor's engineer-designed-and-sealed design has been brought to their attention. They recognize this, and choose to continue the practice anyway. Therefore, I'm trying to avoid making this a risk management issue - just a submittals and specifications clean-up issue at this time. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 411 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:37 am:    Our building systems folks use the following [it seems to parallel the "working drawings" noted above] A. "Coordination drawings" as required in other Division XX Sections are a form of shop drawings, but primarily intended to indicate how the specific items or equipment are incorporated into the current project. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 97 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 11:59 am:    Whoa! Your specific examples of working drawings "shoring, excavation support, scaffolding, etc..." are NOT typically reviewed by the A/E team. They are means and methods drawings created by and for the contractor. It is important to bear in mind that the A/E's Instruments of Service describe the design intent for the completed Work, not the transitional stages of the work. I propose that you categorize these types of drawings as "Field Engineering" documents. However, reviewing the Project Resource Manual, page 7.59, Section 7.5.3.5 "Design Data" also seems to cover this category. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 177 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 03:49 pm:    Interesting distinction. Some comments... Coordination drawings don't involve "delegated design", usually, unless they coordinate design-build MEP work. And if it is truly design-build, it isn't really delegated design. I agree, why would an A/E want to review shoring, etc.? I can see maybe wanting an "informational" submittal, but nothing further. The "informational" vs. "action" submittal distinction is a valuable one, and should be explicitly defined in Division 01. "Field Engineering", "Design Data", maybe even "Working Drawings" (although that is slang for Construction Documents), are all okay terms, but I come down strongly on the side of ...whatever you call them, don't make them "action" submittals. Nathan should have underlined "They are means and methods drawings created by and for the contractor."...that's the key point here. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 183 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 - 06:03 pm:    "Coordination Drawings" are defined in MASTERSPEC Section "Project Management and Coordination" as drawings prepared by the contractor that are required to allocate space for installation or to coordinate the work fabricated by different entities, such as above-ceiling detailed layouts for the work of multiple trades. It's a useful definition. As contrasted with Shop Drawings, Coordination Drawings are an informational submittal. MASTERSPEC users do have an opportunity to require preparation of "delegated design" shop drawings for excavation support and protection in the Division 31 section of that name, an opportunity I ordinarily carefully avoid - though certain projects, such as those with excavations in close proximity to neighboring buildings, may indeed require such a submittal. I think this would be an example of what Randall's client is calling a "working drawing," as it is sealed by the contractor's professional engineer, but does receive limited review by the architect (A201 3.12.10, but without any further explanation in MASTERSPEC). The limits of the architect's review of these drawings are stated in A201 4.2.7. "Field Engineering" as a term is used in Division 01 Section "Execution" to refer to the contractor's responsibilities for establishing reference points and benchmarks and interim and final surveys. Again - a useful definition. I agree with Mr. Everding that the term "working drawings" introduces some concern due its more common use as a slang term for "construction documents." Randall - I suggest that you recommend to your clients that their specification section and their services be aligned with the A201 here - their liability insurance carrier is likely thinking that's what their exposure is and may not be covering any added risk. Randall T. Bailey, PE, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: baileyr Post Number: 13 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 03:36 pm:    Thank you for your responses. They confirm what was suspected - that the terminology "Working Drawings" as used, is obsolete and counter to current industry practice, and that the practice of reviewing/approving them is ill-advised from a liability viewpoint. Based on this discussion, the client is re-evaluating its review policy and its position regarding Information and Action submittals. A very beneficial development. Your input was valuable. Thanks again. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 543 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 03:38 pm:    I would only add that this commentary is focussed on construction of buildings. For other types of construction, such as highways, there may be more involvement of an owner in reviewing this type of submittal. Roy Crawford Senior Member Username: roy Post Number: 6 Registered: 03-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 04:41 pm:    The review of submittals is a very liability intensive action, and must be view in concern with the formal agreement that the design professional executes with the client. The Owner Engineer Agreement that we use, EJCDC E-500 has the following statement: "Review and approve or take other appropriate action in respect to Shop Drawings and Samples and other data which Contractor is required to submit, but only for conformance with the information given in the Contract Documents and compatibility with the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning whole as indicated by the Contract Documents. Such reviews and approvals or other action will not extend to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction or to safety precautions and programs incident thereto. Engineer shall meet any Contractor's submittal schedule that Engineer has accepted". The design professional that takes on a review, even for informational purposes, of those items that are the responsibility of the cotractor, may be opening themselves up to liability that their agreement with the client says they will not do. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 139 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 02:31 pm:    Randall, Texas Department of Transportation uses the following definitions. I was googling for something else related to submittal review process and found these definitions. This may not answer your question but it shows precedent for the terminology, even if it is from Texas. Shop drawing – Fabrication detail sheet prepared by fabricators for their manufacturing shop to use in fabrication of bridge components in compliance with contract plans and applicable TxDOT specifications and standards. Typically the Engineer of Record reviews shop drawings. Shop drawings become part of the as-built drawings for the completed structure. Working drawing – Forming detail sheet prepared for or by the contractor for form work, false work, shoring, or erection. Work detailed does not require review by the engineer of record. However, a Professional Engineer must sign a seal these drawings. Submittal is required, but approval is not required. Wayne Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 184 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 02:44 pm:    Roy, I like the last sentence from the EJCDC doc that you quote above insofar that it clearly puts the burden back on the Contractor when they have failed to submit a submittals schedule yet want to claim a delay in AE submittal handling. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 140 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 03:17 pm:    Randall, Texas Department of Transportation uses the following definitions. I was googling for something else related to submittal review process and found these definitions. This may not answer your question but it shows precedent for the terminology, even if it is from Texas. Shop drawing – Fabrication detail sheet prepared by fabricators for their manufacturing shop to use in fabrication of bridge components in compliance with contract plans and applicable TxDOT specifications and standards. Typically the Engineer of Record reviews shop drawings. Shop drawings become part of the as-built drawings for the completed structure. Working drawing – Forming detail sheet prepared for or by the contractor for form work, false work, shoring, or erection. Work detailed does not require review by the engineer of record. However, a Professional Engineer must sign a seal these drawings. Submittal is required, but approval is not required. Wayne Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 135 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 03:37 pm:    It’s been a very long time since I’ve done CA and times have changed - like informational submittals. I have recognized their value and have accepted their use and regularly specify them. My question is what if during this “informational” review the design professional sees something that is not correct or is unacceptable or is deterimental to the project? What do you CA people recommend as a course of action? Ron George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 178 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 03:43 pm:    From MASTERSPEC Evaluations: "Although Informational Submittals do not require responsive action by the Architect, they often cause the Architect to take other actions. Schedules and reports are good examples of Informational Submittals. Reports from a testing agency that show test results are Informational Submittals because they do not require the report to be approved or disapproved by the Architect; they are only for the record. However, if test reports show the Work does not comply with requirements, they may cause the Architect to reject the tested Work." If you notice something on an informational submittal, your response should be the same as if you notice something on a jobsite. Sometimes your action is as simple as just bringing it to the attention of the GC or C/M, other times it is as extreme as rejecting work as being non-conforming Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 98 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 05:29 pm:    "What do you CA people recommend as a course of action? " A submittal is a submittal. If comments are warrented or neccessary, you make them. An information submittal is one that does not require formal response. But it does still require review, and if during that review you have comments, you are required by your architectural obligations and duties to respond with those comments.