Beams in a Concrete Setout Plan

[Anonymous]

in the architectural office we create Concrete Setout Plans. These show and dimension slab extents, setdowns, penetrations (to a certain size), and hobs. We want to show this information to ensure our walls, windows, ducts etc are correctly located. We model this information and so can show, dimension and tag it.

We generally do not model beams under the slab unless we have to in order to detail our designs. It is then a subset copy (or remodelling) of what the structural engineer has modelled. Alternatively, if the engineer is not on Revit then the modelling is our interpretation of their 2D drawings.

We are now being asked by contractors to show and setout the beams under the slabs. If we show and dimension another discipline's work we are therefore showing information we did not design and cannot validate. This introduces opportunities for error and liability.

Does anyone know any regulations or have any policies or opinions on this topic please?

Thanking you in advance.

[hossamnet0semo · Accepted solution]

Always refer to your contract is the only way to be sure. If it's in your contract then someone, somewhere, in your office took responsibility for it. If it is NOT in your contract - then you are within your rights to decline to do that work or renegotiate a fee (which should include also the risk) This is certainly a place where Revit (and BIM in general) has the lines blurred between disciplines. I would suggest that if showing the beams is in the contract but the layout is not something you wish to take responsibility for you cover your bottom with some succinct notes on your drawing sheets saying "beam locations shown indicatively only, all beam details and layout refer to engineer (insert engineer name) - Beam locations not to be measured off this plan" (or something along those lines.) If you are using a linked model from structures then you take very limited responsibility for the layout. Or negotiate with your sub-contractor (in this case the engineer) to provide those layouts which you simply XREF or link into your drawings. I would certainly be hesitant to take responsibility for someone elses work but the bottom line will really be your contract obligations. And finally, assuming you are required, contractually, to do the set-out documentation then this should be included in your bid price as additional work or part of additional fees under "variations". At the end of the day you will still be relying on the structural engineer for the layout, as long as your layout conforms with their design you are only taking responsibility for the measurements on the page - if you have some good workflows in place you should be having the design engineer VERIFY and APPROVE those positions as part of your QA checking procedure. As long as you have that QA in place in collaboration with the design engineer, in the worst case scenario if something is not right with the layout, and you have a verifiable QA (get wet signiatures from the engineer on your drawings) then an Audit would put the blame on the engineer for not picking it up during the QA. Assuming you are required to show it, then the best you can hope for is to manage & mitigate your risk as much as possible.

[hossamnet0semo · Accepted solution]

Always refer to your contract is the only way to be sure. If it's in your contract then someone, somewhere, in your office took responsibility for it. If it is NOT in your contract - then you are within your rights to decline to do that work or renegotiate a fee (which should include also the risk) This is certainly a place where Revit (and BIM in general) has the lines blurred between disciplines. I would suggest that if showing the beams is in the contract but the layout is not something you wish to take responsibility for you cover your bottom with some succinct notes on your drawing sheets saying "beam locations shown indicatively only, all beam details and layout refer to engineer (insert engineer name) - Beam locations not to be measured off this plan" (or something along those lines.) If you are using a linked model from structures then you take very limited responsibility for the layout. Or negotiate with your sub-contractor (in this case the engineer) to provide those layouts which you simply XREF or link into your drawings. I would certainly be hesitant to take responsibility for someone elses work but the bottom line will really be your contract obligations. And finally, assuming you are required, contractually, to do the set-out documentation then this should be included in your bid price as additional work or part of additional fees under "variations". At the end of the day you will still be relying on the structural engineer for the layout, as long as your layout conforms with their design you are only taking responsibility for the measurements on the page - if you have some good workflows in place you should be having the design engineer VERIFY and APPROVE those positions as part of your QA checking procedure. As long as you have that QA in place in collaboration with the design engineer, in the worst case scenario if something is not right with the layout, and you have a verifiable QA (get wet signiatures from the engineer on your drawings) then an Audit would put the blame on the engineer for not picking it up during the QA. Assuming you are required to show it, then the best you can hope for is to manage & mitigate your risk as much as possible.

[chrisplyler]

I model my foundation as I expect the Structural Engineer might design it. I even make a mock foundation plan and a few sections/details in order to give to the Structural Engineer to show my design intent, and possibly to give to subs for budget pricing if I need it before engineering work is done.

However, every dimensions is labeled SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS or similar, and the sheets themselves are labeled in big, bold print, CONCEPTUAL...NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.