This has come up a lot in my projects and I take the firm position that it is 100% in their court, for this reason: they are responsible for keeping their subcontractors up to speed on the most current drawings at all times. I never want to get in the position where, bc it's their software, something I've done doesn't work right and then someone first have the right drawing. It's a potential liability issue in my mind. When I upload s revised drawing in response to an RFI on Pro-Core, my responsilbility has ended. The GC then replaces that sheet in the separate "current drawings" area and informs whichever subs he needs to that the new drawing must be downloaded and followed.

What does your agreement say? If nothing specific in the agreement, what does the General Conditions say? If nothing specific in the General Conditions, what does Div 01 say? If nothing specific in Div 01, you should do what mantaray says ... then find someone to review your agreements and write your specs on future projects.

I don't know what kind of project this is, or what your specs say, but on most of what I've worked on lately Division 01 has a section that very specifically outlines responsibilities related to the CM or GC's management software - down to the number of hours of training that the CM/GC needs to provide to architect and consultants in the chosen application, who will upload what, in what format, how it will be named and numbered, and on what schedule all of this will happen.  If you don't have this in your spec you might want to get it in there on future projects to avoid this situation.

It depends on the contracts - both the architect's and the contractor's.

I've used procore quite a few times for submittals etc and have never been asked to upload whole drawing sets or revisions outside of responding to rfis.

If you didn't sign an agreement to do so then it is entirely their responsibility to update their elected software databases. So long as you can prove you have sent out the drawings to the parties you originally agreed to you should be covered.

"So long as you can prove you have sent out the drawings to the parties you originally agreed to you should be covered."

Agreed. That's what the revision list on title blocks are for. It's not your job to make the life of the GC easier. - unless you agreed to this method of record keeping - or better yet,  unless the word Procore was actually made reference to in your contract.

If none of the above applies, then having to spend time loading the minutia into their system it would technically fall under additional services category - and therefore would warrant billable hours. If the owner or GC is not pleased with the suggestion - just copy the revision notes into a word document, and that should satisfy the request.

When I worked for large offices, we never participated in the GC’s construction mgt software. The reason was for both liability and the ability to control the communication. The last thing we wanted to do was rubber stamp the GC’s process and written history.

For instance, the timing of rfi’s & submittals: if GC sends something out at 5:15pm, that’s not getting recorded as received that day.

He who writes the minutes writes the history of the project.

Before you put anything on the Procore system, why not read their Terms of Service : procore terms

I found them incompatible with our business / clients / contracts and will not us that tool if asked by out CM's.