My understanding has always been that architect's are not responsible for checking dimensions on shop drawings, as this falls outside the industry standard "reviewed only for general conformance with project requirements..." language in our contract and on our shop drawing review stamp.
But we have a client (a developer who will be GC'ing the project in house) who is insisting we check/confirm a wide range of dimensions on the shops, and who says that the other architects they've worked with have always done this w/out complaint.
I just want to check whether the consensus is that I'm correct that while we're responsible for the dimensions on our architectural drawings, it's the builder's responsibility to check that shop dimensions match the dims on our sheets.
Man, what is that? You office's version of A232? Don't confuse things with your CM language and other edits. Stick to an unmolested A201 for the sake of the children trying to learn something that might help them pass the ARE for example.
"4.2.7 The Architect will review and approve [...] Shop Drawings [...] but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. [...] Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities [...] all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor as required by the Contract Documents."
There's more language in 3.12 that talks about the Contractor's responsibilities with submittals that could be used to really drive the point home as well.
Oct 2, 24 11:07 am ·
·
OddArchitect
That's B131 2019 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. I don't think there are edits in the highlighted section. We added a timeframe for submittals though. Here is the unedited version. Sorry for the confusion.
Everyday Architect - both the A201 and B131 say the same thing about the architects responsibilities for shop drawings and submittals. It's just hat in B131 it's more concise and located in one section.
Also, B131 is for Construction Manager as Constructor. That seemed to fit the OP's situation more than A201.
B131 is OLD. Latest edition was published in 1970. AIA officially retired it long ago and makes sure to note it whenever they publish a list of retired docs.
We have all sorts of clients, GCs and subtrades who makes claims like this. I always put a giant reviewed for conformance to arch design intent stamp and cross out any clause they put down that says arch responsible for X, Y, Z. That's the standard.
Now, you should do a review of the dims to make sure there is nothing odd with the drawings but you should not be confirming/approving anything.
I don't know how it works in Canada, but the kind of thing Architects try to do in the US by avoiding "approved" in their review of submittals drives me crazy. Standard of care is that Architect will "review and approve" (or take other appropriate action ... but the end goal is approval) of shop drawings, product data, samples, and any other action submittals indicated in the contract documents.
"Acknowledged," "Received," "No exceptions taken," all wording invented by people trying to duck the responsibility in their contracts (usually because a lawyer or insurance company told them to) thinking it's going to save them if there is ever a lawsuit. It won't ... or at least it shouldn't. You can go back to the Kansas City Hyatt Skywalk collapse to see the engineers thought that only marking the shop drawings as "reviewed" but not "approved" would absolve them of liability. It didn't then and it shouldn't now. Courts should interpret your stamp of "reviewed," "no exceptions taken," etc. to mean your "approval" and it's likely your contract requires it.
Source of the images above is Quatman, William G. "The Hyatt Skywalk Revisited: What Happened? Could it Happen Again?"
What NS describes ("Filed for Record") seems fine to me for informational submittals where no responsive action is required. AIA contracts, and others based closely on them, don't require that all submittals are "reviewed and approved," only those shop drawings, product data, samples, and others requiring responsive action would need it. Other submittals intended for informational purposes could be stamped "filed for record" and be ok per my understanding. Of course, I also don't think you'd need to return anything to the contractor indicating it was "filed for record" in those instances.
Glad to know I'm in the right here. But this brings up a related question. If we're not responsible for shop drawing dimension accuracy, but in reviewing a shop drawing I notice an incorrect dimension, do I:
a) correct the dimension in my shop drawing mark ups b) ignore the incorrect dimension
My answer is typically 'a', but - and I know we're not lawyers here - does marking up that dimension imply that I'm taking on responsibility for all of the dimensions? I'm thinking of adding language to our contract that would make clear that in this situation, I can point out an error as a courtesy, but that this does not relieve the GC of their responsibilities, or make me at all liable for dimensional errors in the shops.
Oct 2, 24 12:05 pm ·
·
Almosthip
I will correct the dimension if it has already been given in the contract documents. Otherwise I usually put "Confirm On Site"
Oct 2, 24 12:21 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Shop Drawing Dimensions
My understanding has always been that architect's are not responsible for checking dimensions on shop drawings, as this falls outside the industry standard "reviewed only for general conformance with project requirements..." language in our contract and on our shop drawing review stamp.
But we have a client (a developer who will be GC'ing the project in house) who is insisting we check/confirm a wide range of dimensions on the shops, and who says that the other architects they've worked with have always done this w/out complaint.
I just want to check whether the consensus is that I'm correct that while we're responsible for the dimensions on our architectural drawings, it's the builder's responsibility to check that shop dimensions match the dims on our sheets.
It all depends on the contract you've used.
If you've used an AIA contract the GC is responsible for verifying and coordinating all dimensions on shop drawings.
Man, what is that? You office's version of A232? Don't confuse things with your CM language and other edits. Stick to an unmolested A201 for the sake of the children trying to learn something that might help them pass the ARE for example.
"4.2.7 The Architect will review and approve [...] Shop Drawings [...] but only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents. [...] Review of such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities [...] all of which remain the responsibility of the Contractor as required by the Contract Documents."
There's more language in 3.12 that talks about the Contractor's responsibilities with submittals that could be used to really drive the point home as well.
That's B131 2019 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect. I don't think there are edits in the highlighted section. We added a timeframe for submittals though. Here is the unedited version. Sorry for the confusion.
Everyday Architect - both the A201 and B131 say the same thing about the architects responsibilities for shop drawings and submittals. It's just hat in B131 it's more concise and located in one section.
Also, B131 is for Construction Manager as Constructor. That seemed to fit the OP's situation more than A201.
B131 is OLD. Latest edition was published in 1970. AIA officially retired it long ago and makes sure to note it whenever they publish a list of retired docs.
2017: https://content.aia.org/sites/...
2019: https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/RetiredAIADocuments_103119.pdf
2024: https://help.aiacontracts.com/...
Did you mean B133? https://learn.aiacontracts.com...
What does your insurance provider say about this?
We have all sorts of clients, GCs and subtrades who makes claims like this. I always put a giant reviewed for conformance to arch design intent stamp and cross out any clause they put down that says arch responsible for X, Y, Z. That's the standard.
Now, you should do a review of the dims to make sure there is nothing odd with the drawings but you should not be confirming/approving anything.
We've done this as well. We comment "No architectural work to review. See __________ review." Then mark the submittal or shop drawings ' ACKNOWLEGED '
Not reviewed, Filed for record is ours
I don't know how it works in Canada, but the kind of thing Architects try to do in the US by avoiding "approved" in their review of submittals drives me crazy. Standard of care is that Architect will "review and approve" (or take other appropriate action ... but the end goal is approval) of shop drawings, product data, samples, and any other action submittals indicated in the contract documents.
"Acknowledged," "Received," "No exceptions taken," all wording invented by people trying to duck the responsibility in their contracts (usually because a lawyer or insurance company told them to) thinking it's going to save them if there is ever a lawsuit. It won't ... or at least it shouldn't. You can go back to the Kansas City Hyatt Skywalk collapse to see the engineers thought that only marking the shop drawings as "reviewed" but not "approved" would absolve them of liability. It didn't then and it shouldn't now. Courts should interpret your stamp of "reviewed," "no exceptions taken," etc. to mean your "approval" and it's likely your contract requires it.
Source of the images above is Quatman, William G. "The Hyatt Skywalk Revisited: What Happened? Could it Happen Again?"
What NS describes ("Filed for Record") seems fine to me for informational submittals where no responsive action is required. AIA contracts, and others based closely on them, don't require that all submittals are "reviewed and approved," only those shop drawings, product data, samples, and others requiring responsive action would need it. Other submittals intended for informational purposes could be stamped "filed for record" and be ok per my understanding. Of course, I also don't think you'd need to return anything to the contractor indicating it was "filed for record" in those instances.
Glad to know I'm in the right here. But this brings up a related question. If we're not responsible for shop drawing dimension accuracy, but in reviewing a shop drawing I notice an incorrect dimension, do I:
a) correct the dimension in my shop drawing mark ups
b) ignore the incorrect dimension
My answer is typically 'a', but - and I know we're not lawyers here - does marking up that dimension imply that I'm taking on responsibility for all of the dimensions? I'm thinking of adding language to our contract that would make clear that in this situation, I can point out an error as a courtesy, but that this does not relieve the GC of their responsibilities, or make me at all liable for dimensional errors in the shops.
I will correct the dimension if it has already been given in the contract documents. Otherwise I usually put "Confirm On Site"
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.