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.
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 ·
·
graphemic
In this instance, we've noted that the dimension/graphic/whatever does not conform with the contract documents, which would then trigger a Make Corrections Noted or Resubmit. So, we don't take on responsibility for the correct interpretation, but we absolutely made sure they did. If it's still wrong on install, it is also noted, punch list, etc. etc.
Providing the dims expected with reference to the contract documents where the info is located may be a curtesy to the contractor, but it also helps to shortcut multiple rounds of shop drawing reviews with incorrect info.
Don't do the construction contractor's work. In this case the developer and the contractors they subcontract to do the work. If the developer is going to be the GC they must take on and do the work any licensed GC would be expected to or leave it to the pros instead of trying to DIY it.
So you're telling me that if you see a stair width between handrails that is less than the required stair width shown on the contract documents shown on shop drawings, even though it is prudent and ethical to make a note about it on the shop drawings, you are not technically required to do anything about that discrepancy because contractually you aren't required to review shop drawings for dimensions? Interesting how that works...
It doesn't say that "contractually you aren't required to review shop drawings for dimensions," it says that your review is for "checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents." I'd argue that dimensions can be, and many times are, important parts of the "information given and design concept expressed in the Contract Documents" and that you do have a responsibility to review and approve them.
That doesn't mean you have to review all dimensions. That doesn't mean that you have to catch all discrepancies. That doesn't mean that if you make a mistake, you're on the hook for it. It does mean that you "check for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents."
You notify the parties responsible for preparing the shop drawing. You reject with notation and request they correct and resubmit. Do NOT do their job. Do yours!!!!
Oct 2, 24 10:42 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
BulgarBlogger wrote:
"So you're telling me that if you see a stair width between handrails that is less than the required stair width shown on the contract documents shown on shop drawings, even though it is prudent and ethical to make a note about it on the shop drawings, you are not technically required to do anything about that discrepancy because contractually you aren't required to review shop drawings for dimensions? Interesting how that works."
No. We're required to check for conformance with information in the design documents.
Nice attempt at trolling though. Try harder next time.
Oct 3, 24 10:09 am ·
·
BulgarBlogger
Participating is now trolling? Truly ODD. lol
Oct 3, 24 12:56 pm ·
·
OddArchitect
You claim to have 12 - 14 years experience and are running your own projects. Yet you don't understand the responsibilities of an architect when reviewing shop drawings? I don't think so. You're hoping to troll.
Clients approve your design before you complete the CD's, right? - I was a steel detailer in Las Vegas for mega-casino and hotel projects - often the "A" sheets would refer to the 'S" drawings and vice-versa in true discussing professional A/E fashion - you ethically owe it your clients to do the work expected of a licensed architect including approving all construction drawings, specifications, shop and/or other structural drawings, and address the permit review reject list - don't listen to predatory lawyers who have nothing to lose and perhaps your case to gain - BIM software is not your friend if you are not willing to learn and practice the truly fine art of architectural detailing & superior delineation (think Frank Loyd Wright) - if you don't detail it then others will do it for you - do you really want the contractor or tradesman to do it to the best (or worst) of their ability (see photo below)? - will you valued clients appreciate that? - who pays for rework? - will this be your reputation going forward? - basically do the professional work you are paid for - be a Class A architect so you, your clients, and community can be proud of your work ...
This is true whether or not you are a licensed architect or not. Regardless if the project is exempt or not. Of course, if it isn't exempt, you'd need that license but lets not digress. What BluecornGroup said is basically true. In my state, just because you aren't licensed doesn't mean you can't be sued for negligence, tort, etc. It's even more explicit than most states. Nice to read ORS 12.135. If you are functioning in the role comparable to an architect or is one, you are obligated to do the work of the competent design professional that the client assumes and relies on you to be because if you offer services then it is assumed you are competent because if you aren't you have no business offering the services at all.
All shady contractors know sheetrock hides all substandard framing, even from the architect's periodic inspections - the industry's proverbial "lipstick on a pig" ...
While that can be true, it isn't always the case. Sheetrock or drywall is an interior finish. If you want to inspect framing, require inspection BEFORE sheetrock is installed. This is because once it is installed, it could hide shoddy construction. Now, some contractors maybe under a tight schedule so they don't want delays caused by waiting for the slow as f--- architect to show up or the even slower than molasses in antarctica.... building official or inspector to show up. So it is a thing of time is money thing. This may or may not be an issue of a shady contractor just because there is drywall. There has to be more of a reason than that argument alone. I agree it is grounds to be suspicious but be careful with jumping to conclusions as well. I understand things may often be the case but often isn't ALWAYS. Never confuse the two. You know that. Where does any of this have to do with the original poster's comment? Don't know.
Just Archinect Forum playful banter as it appears many of us have nothing else to do in our pitiful design lives (tongue-in-check of course) - because New Mexico is such a large state our Construction Industry Division will allow contractors to digitally photograph work-in-place as proof of construction completed and electronically issue the inspection (green) tag - you are correct in stating there may be a long wait for a scheduled inspection from an A/E firm - welcome to the digital age (thank the gods) that gets project tasks done - most of the time these inspection are more about seeing if the work complies with the CD's than the quality of the work, like seeing if everything is in place before it is buried ...
True. I can accept photographic documentation if the photographic documentation was actually worth a shit and organized properly to properly communicate because it is so easy to photograph 10% of the construction that was done half ass decent yet some 50% of it is utter shit and the photographs don't communicate a complete and thorough review of every wall, stud, joist, beam, and column connections and so forth. I personally like to see everything over but that's me. Compliance with the plans would imply compliance with competent construction work. Competent construction should ~"98%" comply with competently prepared plans. It is also important (to me) that EVERY person who designs buildings understands construction to a competent level. Understands proper construction from shit construction. It really should be part of the mandatory part of becoming a licensed architect.
Anytime I've designed and then seen constructed a truly exceptional piece of architecture, I am operating far outside AIA201 or marking shop drawings as "Approved" or "No Exceptions Taken" or whatever bullshit the lawyers want to come up with.
I mean, I always work for other people so IDGAF if they get sued, and far more than "holding the contractor's hand" I've been fortunate to work with very genuine and progressive GCs who truly want to do a good job - lawsuits are not on anyone's mind.
Miles (whatever happened to that guy!?) always used to say if lawyers are involved you are already fucked (paraphrasing here) and I've found that to be true. If a shop drawing has a dimension on it that I think is wrong or going to cause problems, I call it out, say what I think it should be, and ask the fabricator and gc to confirm.
I'll send you digital models, I'll go out to the fabricator's shop and measure thing, I'll get into a dirty hole in the foundation to help the super get that dim I want to know. I've worked on the fabricator side (I'm a certified welder, son of a journeyman carpenter, and have my rigging and forklift operator certs, wooo) so I'm much more understanding of everything it takes to actually build something and how inadequate the current project delivery/ shop drawing process is in the United States.
Or rather, the process is designed for architecture at the level of strip malls and depressing 5 over 1 apartment buildings, not exceptional architecture with design and detailing at the highest level.
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...
Sorry, I mean B133!
Dear gowd, imagine using B131!
Sorry, I have ADA and membrane locations in wall assemblies occupying most of my brain.
Insane in the (self-adhered waterproofing) membrane.
Now let's discuss the location of weather barrier, air barrier, vapor retarder, and how the dew point within a wall assembly can impact them. :s
Also - lets try to explain to an owners rep why a kitchen would need to be accessible and the 34" countertop height is required. :s :s
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.
We have:
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"
In this instance, we've noted that the dimension/graphic/whatever does not conform with the contract documents, which would then trigger a Make Corrections Noted or Resubmit. So, we don't take on responsibility for the correct interpretation, but we absolutely made sure they did. If it's still wrong on install, it is also noted, punch list, etc. etc.
Providing the dims expected with reference to the contract documents where the info is located may be a curtesy to the contractor, but it also helps to shortcut multiple rounds of shop drawing reviews with incorrect info.
Don't do the construction contractor's work. In this case the developer and the contractors they subcontract to do the work. If the developer is going to be the GC they must take on and do the work any licensed GC would be expected to or leave it to the pros instead of trying to DIY it.
So you're telling me that if you see a stair width between handrails that is less than the required stair width shown on the contract documents shown on shop drawings, even though it is prudent and ethical to make a note about it on the shop drawings, you are not technically required to do anything about that discrepancy because contractually you aren't required to review shop drawings for dimensions? Interesting how that works...
It doesn't say that "contractually you aren't required to review shop drawings for dimensions," it says that your review is for "checking for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents." I'd argue that dimensions can be, and many times are, important parts of the "information given and design concept expressed in the Contract Documents" and that you do have a responsibility to review and approve them.
That doesn't mean you have to review all dimensions. That doesn't mean that you have to catch all discrepancies. That doesn't mean that if you make a mistake, you're on the hook for it. It does mean that you "check for conformance with information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents."
You notify the parties responsible for preparing the shop drawing. You reject with notation and request they correct and resubmit. Do NOT do their job. Do yours!!!!
BulgarBlogger wrote:
"So you're telling me that if you see a stair width between handrails that is less than the required stair width shown on the contract documents shown on shop drawings, even though it is prudent and ethical to make a note about it on the shop drawings, you are not technically required to do anything about that discrepancy because contractually you aren't required to review shop drawings for dimensions? Interesting how that works."
No. We're required to check for conformance with information in the design documents.
Nice attempt at trolling though. Try harder next time.
Participating is now trolling? Truly ODD. lol
You claim to have 12 - 14 years experience and are running your own projects. Yet you don't understand the responsibilities of an architect when reviewing shop drawings? I don't think so. You're hoping to troll.
Clients approve your design before you complete the CD's, right? - I was a steel detailer in Las Vegas for mega-casino and hotel projects - often the "A" sheets would refer to the 'S" drawings and vice-versa in true discussing professional A/E fashion - you ethically owe it your clients to do the work expected of a licensed architect including approving all construction drawings, specifications, shop and/or other structural drawings, and address the permit review reject list - don't listen to predatory lawyers who have nothing to lose and perhaps your case to gain - BIM software is not your friend if you are not willing to learn and practice the truly fine art of architectural detailing & superior delineation (think Frank Loyd Wright) - if you don't detail it then others will do it for you - do you really want the contractor or tradesman to do it to the best (or worst) of their ability (see photo below)? - will you valued clients appreciate that? - who pays for rework? - will this be your reputation going forward? - basically do the professional work you are paid for - be a Class A architect so you, your clients, and community can be proud of your work ...
This is true whether or not you are a licensed architect or not. Regardless if the project is exempt or not. Of course, if it isn't exempt, you'd need that license but lets not digress. What BluecornGroup said is basically true. In my state, just because you aren't licensed doesn't mean you can't be sued for negligence, tort, etc. It's even more explicit than most states. Nice to read ORS 12.135. If you are functioning in the role comparable to an architect or is one, you are obligated to do the work of the competent design professional that the client assumes and relies on you to be because if you offer services then it is assumed you are competent because if you aren't you have no business offering the services at all.
Nothing a little caulk wouldn't fix. https://archinect.com/forum/thread/149984694/show-us-your-caulk
All shady contractors know sheetrock hides all substandard framing, even from the architect's periodic inspections - the industry's proverbial "lipstick on a pig" ...
While that can be true, it isn't always the case. Sheetrock or drywall is an interior finish. If you want to inspect framing, require inspection BEFORE sheetrock is installed. This is because once it is installed, it could hide shoddy construction. Now, some contractors maybe under a tight schedule so they don't want delays caused by waiting for the slow as f--- architect to show up or the even slower than molasses in antarctica.... building official or inspector to show up. So it is a thing of time is money thing. This may or may not be an issue of a shady contractor just because there is drywall. There has to be more of a reason than that argument alone. I agree it is grounds to be suspicious but be careful with jumping to conclusions as well. I understand things may often be the case but often isn't ALWAYS. Never confuse the two. You know that. Where does any of this have to do with the original poster's comment? Don't know.
Just Archinect Forum playful banter as it appears many of us have nothing else to do in our pitiful design lives (tongue-in-check of course) - because New Mexico is such a large state our Construction Industry Division will allow contractors to digitally photograph work-in-place as proof of construction completed and electronically issue the inspection (green) tag - you are correct in stating there may be a long wait for a scheduled inspection from an A/E firm - welcome to the digital age (thank the gods) that gets project tasks done - most of the time these inspection are more about seeing if the work complies with the CD's than the quality of the work, like seeing if everything is in place before it is buried ...
True. I can accept photographic documentation if the photographic documentation was actually worth a shit and organized properly to properly communicate because it is so easy to photograph 10% of the construction that was done half ass decent yet some 50% of it is utter shit and the photographs don't communicate a complete and thorough review of every wall, stud, joist, beam, and column connections and so forth. I personally like to see everything over but that's me. Compliance with the plans would imply compliance with competent construction work. Competent construction should ~"98%" comply with competently prepared plans. It is also important (to me) that EVERY person who designs buildings understands construction to a competent level. Understands proper construction from shit construction. It really should be part of the mandatory part of becoming a licensed architect.
Anytime I've designed and then seen constructed a truly exceptional piece of architecture, I am operating far outside AIA201 or marking shop drawings as "Approved" or "No Exceptions Taken" or whatever bullshit the lawyers want to come up with.
I mean, I always work for other people so IDGAF if they get sued, and far more than "holding the contractor's hand" I've been fortunate to work with very genuine and progressive GCs who truly want to do a good job - lawsuits are not on anyone's mind.
Miles (whatever happened to that guy!?) always used to say if lawyers are involved you are already fucked (paraphrasing here) and I've found that to be true. If a shop drawing has a dimension on it that I think is wrong or going to cause problems, I call it out, say what I think it should be, and ask the fabricator and gc to confirm.
I'll send you digital models, I'll go out to the fabricator's shop and measure thing, I'll get into a dirty hole in the foundation to help the super get that dim I want to know. I've worked on the fabricator side (I'm a certified welder, son of a journeyman carpenter, and have my rigging and forklift operator certs, wooo) so I'm much more understanding of everything it takes to actually build something and how inadequate the current project delivery/ shop drawing process is in the United States.
Or rather, the process is designed for architecture at the level of strip malls and depressing 5 over 1 apartment buildings, not exceptional architecture with design and detailing at the highest level.
Agree. That is all I have to say. Spot on!!!!
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.