0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
As a former consulting engineer, the allowed timeframe to engineer and produce bid documents is the weakness.
We have had little luck getting the files, and the ones we do get are horrible with ductwork going thru steel beams, piping thru ductwork, ductwork lower than the ceilings, drainage piping is all flat, etc. Fire protection piping not modeled (but it never gets in our way) Paper construction bid documents also seem to be getting worse, missing ductwork and pipe sizes.
I think it also has to do with the consulting engineer not being able and or qualified to produce a constructable model. They don't hold the risk or incentive to produce a accurate/constructable model.
We normally don't have any issues getting the model but have yet to see one worth converting/using.
The ones we do get are horrible with ductwork going thru steel beams, piping thru ductwork, ductwork lower than the ceilings, drainage piping is all flat, etc. Paper construction bid documents also seem to be getting worse, missing ductwork and pipe sizes. As a former consulting engineer, the allowed timeframe to engineer and produce bid documents is the weakness.
And now you know why they will not release their files. It shows how poor of a job they did.They are dumping more of the work into the contractor's lap and making a bunch of money to do it too.
Since contract plans are now typically delivered electronically (via pdf format) they no longer even serve as crude TP.
That being said, the liability issue is non-sense and shows general lack on knowledge on the subject by the firms that don't want to share their models. There is no liability issue because they are only liable for the intent of their work which is design. They are not liable for the derivative works of others if those derivative works were produced using information from the design document for which it wasn't intended. The law in the US is very simple and clear on this.
...mechanical engineer is typically hired to produce a system design. That's not the same thing as a coordinated document used for fabrication and construction. I'm not sure why it surprises people that it often lacks suitability for construction.
In this industry, an mechanical engineer is typically hired to produce a system design. That's not the same thing as a coordinated document used for fabrication and construction. I'm not sure why it surprises people that it often lacks suitability for construction. Mechanical engineering is also an iterative process, not linear like construction. It's a different process in addition to a different deliverable. If you look at the inner workings of a mechanical engineering firm, you'll most likely see they rarely have time to do really great design. They do the best they can within the allowed time. Proposal floats around for some time, then phone rings...you've got a million sq feet of industrial space. Design needs to be complete in 30 days with operational facility in 9 months. No different than there's rarely enough schedule to properly handle detailing and coordination, they have the same issue on the design side. Why would we want them to take into consideration construction slowing them further?I'd rather they didn't model at all. Model it right the first time by qualified detailers using other engineering documents like redlined plans, P&ID's, etc.That being said, the liability issue is non-sense and shows general lack on knowledge on the subject by the firms that don't want to share their models. There is no liability issue because they are only liable for the intent of their work which is design. They are not liable for the derivative works of others if those derivative works were produced using information from the design document for which it wasn't intended. The law in the US is very simple and clear on this.
We get models and are told "This is a fully coordinated, constructible model", then we get into it and it isn't even close to being coordinated and by no means can be constructed as drawn.