Topic: Asbuilts?

[craigr]

Our Company is a Building Automation & Security Company. We are 'obsessive' about doing 'as-builts' after a job is completed. Making sure everthing is correctly documented as to how it was installed & controlled & what parts / devices were used.

Simply for my  curiosity -
Do other industries do this? Do architectural companies do this? Move a wall over 2' on their CAD dwgs after a change in the field, etc....

I'm just curious about other industries documentation.

craigr

[dan19936]

Speaking as an architect, not a chance - no one pays us to do that. Also who is to say the wall moved 2"? If the general contractor sent us a nice set of marked up field changes, we'd keep for record, and if paid, we'd revise the drawings clearly noting it as a record drawing per information supplied by GC.

Dan

[craigr]

So I'm guessing that you don't maintain a library of past jobs for future work &/or customer questions?

I get field dwgs back from our installers & programmers, I then make the changes to our dwgs for 'asbuilts'. After we do our 'asbuilts' we always send several copies to the owners General Contractor, who is then supposed to give several copies to the bldg. owner.

We often have continued projects on the bldg. once we put a system in.

craigr

[M-dub]

We, in the Instrument / Electrical Engineering field ALWAYS do As Builts.  However, some of our clients are a little more lax about it, unfortunately.  Some drawings absolutely MUST be As Built at project closeout, such as P&ID's, which are basically the Bible when it comes to Chemical / Petrochemical facilities.
Let me rephrase that, some of the employees who work for the clients are a bit more lax.  They want to finish the job under or as close to the budget as possible and what's the easiest thing to cut after the job is done out in the field and everything's running?  Exactly... The As Builts!  That just means that extra time (money) must be spent at the beginning of the next job to field check the drawings before proper design work can progress.
In the perfect world, as builts would be done 100% of the time.



side note:  I wish I had As Builts of my house!  Especially my first house... There were surprises behind every single wall! 

[Dent Cermak]

Architectural types not doing "as builts' on projects KILLS us surveyors. They come back later and want us to survey in and layout the new addition. Then theyget  bent out of shape when we don't know they moved that sewer or electrial line they want to tie into.They want me to do an "AS Built" survey for them, but they won't give me the documents showing the changes. ( I ain't gonna dig for them lines to see where they are, and 9 out of 10 times the magnetic locator isn't going to find that plastic pipe.) if you EVER have anything built INSIST that the builder provide you with a set of "As Built" plans. it will save your life later.

[Shinyhead]

I have noticed that in the architectural field that unless something is horribly wrong (and sometimes even then) the original drawings are like something sacred.  I wouldn't really care, but when you have a set of drawings drawn on with a grid (I hate drawings that are on a grid, learn to draw it right) and a tolerance of 1/2", then on top of that they override dimensions so that it all comes out to nice even numbers. We then have to make shop drawings that really work in the real world :realmad:

I have received so many markups from the architect wondering why we don't have the same dimensions they do...    sorry I cant fit 10' of cabinets into a 9' space! And they cant all have 24" wide doors!

And the trend of making these long curvy walls, they show these radius's dimensions on an elliptical or spline like curve, and just don't understand why that is useless to us.  Or best yet, they make a wall like that, with no dimensions or overridden dimensions, then refuse to give you the cad file to try and make sense of it.

The reason they don't do as builds is to be honest, most of them cant really draw what is being built to begin with, let alone alter it to field conditions.

If you are an architect and this tics you off, sorry, but more then 75% of the architectural drawings we get are like this, maybe you are not like this, but more likely you are and don't even realize it.


Sorry, my own personal rant there.
Why pay thousands of dollars for each seat of some of the most powerful design software out there, then OVERRIDE what it is telling you.


And just so you know, I am not talking about the local guys building subdivision houses, I am talking about the big firms that build the high profile high dollar stuff.  I just have to laugh when I read about a project in arch. review talking about the accuracy and feedback from the field.  I would love one of those ego stroke magazines to interview the poor sots that have to build to the drawings that these people produce, they would have a much better idea of how clueless some of these people are. :ugly:

[CADaver]

We only revise the original drawings for "as-builts" when paid to do so.  otherwise the field documentation of the changes are all there is.

[Keith™]

We don't do as built drawings for the exact reasons that have already been stated. Also, in residential, (as opposed to what Den mentioned) we do not typically specify locations of sewer, water or other utilities as we do not know the location of them in the field. As builts are never done UNLESS the changes are structural in nature or change the envelope of the building. In those instances, the plans must generally be modified to appease the building department.

[Krushert]

I have noticed that in the architectural field that unless something is horribly wrong (and sometimes even then) the original drawings are like something sacred.  I wouldn't really care, but when you have a set of drawings drawn on with a grid (I hate drawings that are on a grid, learn to draw it right) and a tolerance of 1/2", then on top of that they override dimensions so that it all comes out to nice even numbers. We then have to make shop drawings that really work in the real world :realmad:

You forgot to mention our classic term we put on every dimension "V.I.F” if it is something different you handle it.

Seriously though, if you are getting hit with above BS, change order them.  My firm gets called in to after the other architect get canned.  But in the same breath we rake the contractor over the coals if he tries to pull a fast one.  So have your ducks in a row.

We have fired drafters, architects for overriding the dimensions repeatedly.  There is no need for this, it just cost everyone money and time.

[Shinyhead]

Oh don't worry about that, I think the "quality" of architectural drawings does more to keep me employed then anything else!

It just the philosophy of it, in what other industry can you make a drawing, but not have the drawing be buildable, and that is accepted as normal?

Don't get me wrong, some architects are VERY good, but they are the extreme exception.

And have no fear, we have no problems turning a profit, I can't name the job, but I did one job that lasted 2 draftsmen over a year and a half, and we billed over $150,000.  And it was a HOUSE!  That's just the shop drawings for the millwork kids.

Funny thing is they were some of the good architects, they knew what they were doing and made some good coin too.

[Jim Yadon]

It comes and goes in my line of work. Occasionally we will get some one who requires a set of as builts. that's the exception any more though. Not like the old days when they were required for every job.

[CADaver]

, and we billed over $150,000.  And it was a HOUSE!  That's just the shop drawings for the millwork kids.

yikes, musta been a house for some greedy guy.

[42]

I'm an Architectural Technologist, we are typically designing projects between £200 000 and £20M. We never do as builts, we will produce record drawings of "Issued for tender", these will include any client, Architect, Engineer or contractor requested changes during the contract period. Unless you have certified marked up drawings from the contractor or have been on site and watched every stage of the build process there is no way we as Architects could produce as builts. It has nothing to do with the tool (AutoCad not the person in the chair) used to produce the drawings in the first place, I could be just as easily using a quill or chalk and blackboard

The only person who can provide an as built drawing of a building is the contractor. They have to certify that many processes carried out within the building as built according to code, they know if all the walls are constructed in the correct place or he specified materials have been used.

As often as not we are in a design and build contract, once the drawings are handed over to the contractor, it is his responsibility to keep records of all changes so that these can be passed on.

[Shinyhead]

The designers managed to get the wife wrapped around thier finger
Every drawer was custom sized to fit a particular appliance, if a new model came out, the entire kitchen would go through a redesign around it.

At one point they ripped out an entire wall and moved it 3" and redesigned 30 pages worth of casework and paneling to accomodate a $300 microwave rather then change to a different model because it came in the "right" color.

But then agian, they have an artificail river in the backyard, complete with boulders shipped in 1000 miles with a MASSIVE pump system so they can have RAPIDS.

Thats ok, they kept hundreds and hundreds of people employed for a long time, including some real craftsmen (wood carvers, master stone masons, blacksmiths, etc) so its really a good thing.

[Shinyhead]

Unless you have certified marked up drawings from the contractor or have been on site and watched every stage of the build process there is no way we as Architects could produce as builts. It has nothing to do with the tool (AutoCad not the person in the chair) used to produce the drawings in the first place, I could be just as easily using a quill or chalk and blackboard

When it comes to the as-built data, I can't argue with that, but to be frank, I rarely see drawings that are buildable.  The attitude seems to be that they are providing what they are after as a guideline, but those pesky details are up to the contractor to work out. This too is fine, except when the shop drawings go to the architect for review and they come back bloody red because it isn't designed they way they envisioned it. 

If you envision a certain design, put it in the drawings!

If you think I can design a reception desk 15' in diameter and fit it into a 16' wide room with 36" clear on each side, please be so kind as to explain how, instead of simply marking up what was submitted and saying see floorplan for dimensions and simply glazing over the note to you saying your dims don't work. Not that you have done this, but I have seen that sort of thing happen over and over again.

An why is it that its ok for drawings by the designer to have overridden dimensions ANYWHERE?  Or better yet, no dimensions at all?