Conflict between general conditions a...

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

Author Message Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 467 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - 05:08 pm:    AISC 360-10 N3.1 imposes a requirement on the submission of shop drawings. "The fabricator or erector shall submit the following documents for review by the engineer of record (EOR) or the EOR’s designee, in accordance with Section 4 or A4.4 of the Code of Standard Practice, prior to fabrication or erection, as applicable: (1) Shop drawings, unless shop drawings have been furnished by others (2) Erection drawings, unless erection drawings have been furnished by others" AISC 360-10 is a reference standard in the 2012 IBC. (I have not checked the previous version referenced in the 2009 IBC) This is in conflict with the requirements in the general conditions on submission of submittals. Please tell me why the code requirement does not take presidence over the contractural requirement? Richard HIrd PE (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 08:46 am:    I assume you are talking about a situation where the Architect in conjunction with the Owner tries to cut the design fee by eliminating shop drawing review There is a large cost savings to the Architect, and he takes only a minimal risk in eschewing shop drawings. On the other hand every Structural Engineer I have worked with, wants to see at least the steel shop (erection) drawings even when his Architect does not want to pay for it. I do not think any of them see any cost savings if they do not. When push comes to shove, the code and standards referenced therein, take precedence over agreements between the Owner, Architect(Engineer) and the Contractor. I doubt that you will see a code official checking to see if it has occured. It will only be an issue when someone has a major problem, and I would sure want to show I had checked the steel drawings, even if I missed something. Saying I was not paid to check them would not impress anyone. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 497 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 11:52 am:    Think of an attorney's response to that! Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 468 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 01:48 pm:    I am talking of the case where the Owner has dictated that all submittals shall pass from the General Contractor to the Architect. Now the fabricator sends the shop drawings directly to the EOR bypassing this interface. If the EOR then rejects the submittal would the contractor have a valid claim for delays? This is bothersome because it creates a formal relationship between a sub contractor and a member of the design team which may have liability implications. This provision is bothersome because the building codes and the reference standards are now dealing with what we would normally consider to be contractual issues. Is this appropriate? Does the architect have an obligation to notify the owner that his general conditions may not be legal? The issue of steel shop drawing review should not even be a part of the discussion with the architect. If the architect is suggesting a lower fee for the engineer because he doesn't want the engineer to review the shop drawings I would suggest that we have a real problem with the architect. This is not the type of client the engineer wants to deal with. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1008 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 01:57 pm:    There is nothing in AISC quote that states that the submittals cannot pass through the contractor and the architect before it reaches the EOR. Having the contractor and architect part of the communication/transmittal chain ensures compliance with the contract documents in regard to submittal requirements and allows the contractor and architect to manage the submittal process (who's getting what and when, and how long are they taking to review, etc.). Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 101 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 02:02 pm:    IMHO, as long as the EOR reviews the documents (eventually), the intent of the legislation has been fulfilled. It does not appear that the regulation states "directly to the EOR", nor does it state that project-specific submittal procedures should not be followed. As far as the delay claim goes, providing the routing of Submittals is clearly defined in Division 1, I do not see how this could ever hold up in any court (but of course stranger things have happened, which is why we have "Caution - Hot Beverage" "labels" on coffee cups). When I first started in the Architectural world, this was the industry-accepted standard...sub to contractor to architect to engineer to architect to contractor to sub. With long distance projects and tight timeframes, I saw huge monetary waste (courier charges) and time inefficiencies with this method. At my suggestion, my office originally adopted by-passing the architect on the first go-around with the proviso that we received a copy of the transmittal to the engineer so we were still in the loop (and the Contractors actually followed through with that). Subsequently, 99% of our submittals now happen electronically by e-mail and we are moving towards posting them to an FTP site in the not-to-distant future with e-mail notification of submittal. Ride it like you stole it!!! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1381 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 05:21 pm:    Does AISC 360-10 N3.1 have any other provisions to the effect of "unless the contract says otherwise"? Often this is the case with standards. I also think (no legal opinion is expressed or implied) that a court would put a contract term above a referenced standard. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 470 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 05:25 pm:    I hear the desire to adopt an interpretation that makes the problem go away but I suggest that the language about the fabricator "shall" submit to the EOR is pretty explicit. If somebody wanted to push the point it would be hard to say they are wrong. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1382 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 05:28 pm:    Agreed. On the other hand, many, many standards we rely on for specs have lots of provisions that we, as specifiers, don't really want there. They "control" relationship between general contractors and subcontractor; definitions of terms that are not the ones we use; etc. So what AISC has done isn't unusual. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 64 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 05:31 pm:    I don't see any conflict between the standard cited by the code & the normal contractual submittal review process. The standard requires submittals be submitted "for review" by the EOR. Since it doesn't require that they be submitted directly to the engineer, submitting them through the GC & architect should not undermine the provision -- as long as they are reviewed by the EOR. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 471 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 05:33 pm:    There is no unless otherwise language. The steel fabricators are smarter than that. Why would contract language have presidence over a code provision? AISC 360 is referenced in the IBC and thus is part of the code requirements. We are not talking about a reference standard that the owner voluntarily references. Any legal contract that requires something that is illegal is not enforcable. This might suggest that the attorney who drafted the general conditions will have liability because he authored an unenforcable contract. Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 189 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 05:34 pm:    "The fabricator or erector shall submit the following documents for review by the engineer of record (EOR) or the EOR’s designee, in accordance with Section 4 or A4.4 of the Code of Standard Practice, prior to fabrication or erection, as applicable: (1) Shop drawings, unless shop drawings have been furnished by others (2) Erection drawings, unless erection drawings have been furnished by others" It actually says "shall submit for review by" rather than "to." If it was "to" it would also be requiring the submittals to bypass the Contractor. It would appear to me that as long as the EOR reviews them you are in compliance. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 472 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 06:06 pm:    Will accept the standard says "for review by" but that reinforces my other point. The general conditions attempt to isolate the design team from having any contractual relationship to the general contractor and his subs. Now the building code creates a formal link between the engineer and the fabricator. This formal relationship could be used to increase the liability exposure of the engineer. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 65 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 06:14 pm:    In my opinion, Mark, your may be reading something into the standard that probably isn't intended & certainly doesn't seem to be explicitly stated. The code does not obligate the steel fabricator to the EOR or vice-versa. It simply requires submission & review. I still say this provision is not in conflict w/ the normal submittal review process. Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 178 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - 09:54 pm:    Mark, it seems that they are using the term Engineer of Record to mean Design Profesional. I'm sure that the code intent and the AISC standard would be met if the building was designed soley by an architect that was trained in structural design and he or she reviewed the submittal.