It boils down to liability exposure. We share our CAD files with our consultants, but if a contractor or sub wants to use our CAD files to generate quantity take offs, estimates, or shop drawings, we have them sign a release indemnifying us from any claims for inaccuracies, etc. The drawings (dimensions and notes) are "an instrument of service" and only represent design intent - the contractor/subs are responsible for field conditions and measurements.

Clear as mud?

Thanks for the response.

The firm I work for does interiors for new construction, so all of our drawings are dependent on information provided by architects. We have several we work with almost exclusively so I suppose I am used to the way we collaborate.

Design Intent I get, as we operate the same way. As an instrument of service I understand that the CAD files are his property, and I can see the reason he would not want his files distributed and possibly used for others gain.

Is there an ethical or intellectual property issue when referencing anothers files for the same project? I felt like asking him why, but wasn't sure of the depth of the issue.

I'm going to review my book on Instruments of Service.

We do the same that dml describes. With cad files we send to subcontractors or tenant's architects, we go one more step. First, the request needs to come from the GC or CM for subs, or from the owner for tenants, then we remove our office name and logos from the drawing file, also for liability issues.
Try suggesting to the base building architect that your office (a principal) will sign their release form, indemnifying them of any legal responsibility. And ask THEM to remove their firm name and any other identifiable information.
Good luck.

DML's right on. No CAD for contractors. Aside from liability for square footage and issues like that, they occasionally change things (not necessarily that they mean to... it just seems to happen), and not realizing that they've changed them, try to hold architects responsible for drawings that they've screwed up!

Our contract is with the client, and in some cases our decisions direct changes to the architects designs. This has been a sticking point with this person.

Well brer, that's your problem.
I've told every tenant architect that wants to make changes in the base building design of the building I've worked hard on, sometimes for a couple of years, ... to stick it.

It is an issue.

But you gave them the information they needed right?

Is there not a professional responsibility to supply the information whether you accept their input or not?


damn the stupid pointles niches.

:)

*pointless

We will share base drawings in .pdf format or as prints, provided that the client OKs it. But we don't share CAD drawings. This is mainly due to previous problems - such as a sub-contractor whose CAD drafter somehow "lost" some of the existing columns in the project (in other words they were present in our drawing but not present in the sub's drawings) which caused major problems and delays with custom casework and systems furniture that was ordered based on the incorrect drawings. In another instance an interior designer moved load-bearing walls in order to get floor patterns to work out evenly, and then swore to the client that those were the wall positions in the file we provided. In both of these cases we were able to establish that our drawings were correct and complete, so we were not financially responsible for the problems. However, what clients remember is the confusion, hassle, and delays caused by this sort of thing, and they usually expect the architect to be the master coordinator who prevents these kinds of problems from the outset.

That is a valid reason.


Is there not security options for preventing people from altering your work? I personally have not explored locking my layers so its not something I am familiar with. I think I have read about it though.



The benefits to working with CAD vs. Prints is immeasureable.
Prints I can handle if I'm drafting but trying to translate from an inevitably dimension light set of prints to CAD is such a waste of time.

We don't provide the cad files out of "professional responsibility", but out of professional courtesy. But only with a signed release.

I recognize that. Responsibility may imply other legal obligations that I wasn't trying to portray. Courtesy is a better word.


Archiects and interior designers have a long history of not agreeing from what I've heard since I started at this firm. We are fortuneate to have solid relationships with the ones we normally work with.

Thanks for the responses.