Language for Survey Requirements

[nwray]

Hi All,

My office is taking the time to go through our standard documents for different areas, and one that came up is our Request for Proposal (RFP) form for survey work.  We often hire surveyors for various work (usually related to street improvements), and we are trying to modernize the language used.

I am trying to take the opportunity to get in some language to specify that we will receive digital files in a CAD format, specifically Civil 3D (our current language calls for AutoCAD release 14 or newer!).  What I am thinking of specifying so far is:

• Plans to be in Civil 3D version 2010 or newer
• Area of survey to be a Civil 3D surface
• Use of valid civil 3D objects where appropriate ie: centerlines are presented as alignments, not polylines.

Does anyone have some suggestions of what to ask for with regard to a survey?

Thanks,

Norm

[_Hathaway · Accepted solution]

I have never seen the area of survey statement.

I would state that all files shall be in Civil3d version 20XX format and that the file shall contain an existing surface, breaklines and functional points using point and label styles. If you have additional requirements, include appropriate statements.

[AllenJessup · Accepted solution]

If you're going to go that far. I'd also specify that all field Survey point be included as Civil 3D points.

We don't go this far because many of the consultants that bid on our jobs use Microstation. We just require they submit work that is compatible with Civil 3D. Mostly that means a drawing file, LandXML file and point files.

Allen

[jmayo-EE · Accepted solution]

I would insist on xml files for topography.

I don't want to pay staff to reproduce the surveyors work which I know will never be just as they produced it since there is no way to recreate the surveyors surface edits. Sorry for the run-on sentence. 😉

[_Hathaway]

Why would you have to recreate surveyor's work? We have clauses in our contracts that state the data is supplied as-is, and as soon as someone manipulates our data we are no longer responsible. The wording is more technical than that but you get the point.

[jmayo-EE]

If a surveyor delivers points, linework and contours the engineer will typically have to build a surface for a C3D workflow. This is reproducing the surveyors work. The xml removes the whole proccess and includes the surveyor's surface edits.

[_Hathaway]

Using that scenario, I agree.

If a surveyor is only delivering points, linework and contours, either:

1) They aren't doing their job
2) The scope they are working under lacks the needed detail

There is no way someone that can create the surface as accurately as the ones that obtained the data can. Why would anyone assume that risk?

[AllenJessup]

---

@_Hathaway wrote:

There is no way someone that can create the surface as accurately as the ones that obtained the data can.

---

Considering the surfaces we've gotten. That makes me chuckle. Of course that falls under 1) They aren't doing their job.

We had one job along a stream. There was a high bank on one side. The surface we got showed numerous gullies leading from the adjacent property to the stream. There were no gullies. No beaklines were used in the surface and the shots were not very numerous. So they had edge of stream shots tinning to edge of drive or tree shots 50 feet away.

Things have gotten so bad that we're trying to do all our own Survey work, even though we're short handed. We usually have to redo it anyway. So why pay for it in the first place.

Allen

[nwray]

---

1) They aren't doing their job
2) The scope they are working under lacks the needed detail

---

We've had surveys come in from a few different companies where every item is a basic cad point or line - no actual z elevations, just labels.  When that happens, We basically have to try to re-create a surface from the data they gave us.  That's why I want to firm up our language a bit so that they know exactly what we're looking for.

Norm

[_Hathaway]

All good stuff.

Allen, sorry about your incompetent subs. Certainly check them off the list for future work. 🙂

[AllenJessup]

---

@nwray wrote:

We've had surveys come in from a few different companies where every item is a basic cad point or line - no actual z elevations, just labels.  When that happens, We basically have to try to re-create a surface from the data they gave us.  That's why I want to firm up our language a bit so that they know exactly what we're looking for.

Norm

---

Definitely agree. However. I don't know how many Surveyors in your area are using Civil 3D. I know that less than 50% in my area are. So you have to decide if you want to lock out any Survey firm that doesn't use Civil 3D. We usually look for compatibility through LandXML, 3D breaklines and point files with correct elevations.

Allen

[AllenJessup]

---

@_Hathaway wrote:

Allen, sorry about your incompetent subs. Certainly check them off the list for future work. 🙂

---

That's the beauty of Government bidding. It's not that easy to ignore the ones with low bids. It's not always the ones that are the most competent at their job that get the contracts. It's often the ones that are the best at following the [complicated] bid procedures and plan on doing less.

What I always think is great is that they expect to be paid extra to revise plans when fixing errors we've caught. Most of the time they get it too.

Allen

[_Hathaway]

Interesting that they Bid on topo surveys or projects that require them. Around any state I work in all government work is qualification based which leads to a much better selection.

Of course construction process is all based on low bid...and that's why we dont work on those projects. You're not making any $ when the main goal is to be the cheapest.

[AllenJessup]

Our selection process is both bid and qualification based. Supposedly we're to select one of the 3 lowest bids. We can also disqualify a bid if we can submit why that firm isn't qualified.

The problem is that the Topo and ROW Survey is bundled in the Design contract and the Engineering firm often brings in a sub for that work. So we might not even know which Survey firm will be doing the work. Even if we do. I can't see them dumping a good bid from a qualified firm because of the Survey sub.

We Survey for all our in house design. So that's not a problem. We're also doing more where we provide the site Survey to the Design firm.

Allen

[HansSMS]

Another solution rather than XML is to have the surveyor supply a DWG with 3D faces representing the topo surface. This gets the surface as the surveyor created it to the designer.

I have been exporting CAD data since DXF files were invented (1982 or 1983 from what I remember), in 3D.

Surveyors that submit 2D linework and elevations as text, bad surface modeling etc need a kick in the a..., simple as that. I would have no hesitation serving such surveyors with a suitable blast. They simply are living in the past.

To me, CAD digital data has always been the most amazing opportunity do submit my survey data exactly as I want the client to receive it, this was never quite possible with paper plans. All data can be delivered to ground accuracy, in 3 dimensions, as opposed to paper plot accuracy. Topo surfaces are continuous and not just a bunch of spot levels or contours. Why wouldn't you as a surveyor go this route?

Many surveyors are also stuck in a plan-view mindset (or worse: paper plot). They can produce good looking drawings in plan view, but hit the orbit button and rotate the drawing on its side, and it is a mess of lines spiking from zero elevation on one end to site elevation on the other, half the annotation is at site level, the other half at zero elevation, and underground service lines drawn between manholes are some times at their invert elevations, sometime at zero, or zero one end, site elevation at the other. Query the line length and AutoCAD reports it’s 2000m long instead of 20, because what the surveyor has drawn up. Sloppy as.

Ok, I know…I need to take my meds now…