1. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOP
DRAWING PROCESS
Our Topic is “”
The Committee is a volunteer group of SEAC members and RMSCA members. We meet once a month and work on various topics of mutual interest.
SEAC/ RMSCA Steel Liaison Committee

2. WHY
The process of preparing shop drawings has become the most time consuming and unpredictable part of the fabrication process
We decided to focus on the shop drawing issue for this reason.
There appears to be a disconnect between the expectations of the fabricators and the expectations of the engineers. We are just trying to get to an understanding between the parties.

3. Participating Members of the Committee
Jim Edwards, Quality Steel Services, Inc.
Dave Henley, P.E., Vulcraft
Richard Huddleston, Zimkor LLC
Robert Leberer, P.E., Anderson & Hastings Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Curtis Mayes, P.E. LPR Construction Co.
Nick Miller, LPR Construction Co.
Eric Moe, P.E. Puma Steel
Dave Schroeder, Mortenson
Tom Skinner, P.E., JVA Consulting Structural Engineers
Maynard Trostel, P.E., Puma Steel
Jules Van de Pas, P.E., Computerized Structural Design
Bruce Wolfe, P.E., Structural Consultants, Inc. (CHAIR)
Bill Zimmerman, P.E., Zimkor LLC
These are the participating members.
If I left anyone off the list I apologize.
If you are interested in joining this group. You can do that. Participation is open to all SEAC and RMSCA members.
You do not need to make a long term commitment. Just give Bruce a card and he will put you on his distribution list for meeting announcements.
You do benefit as an engineer from participating in this group. If you really are interested in how your steel structures get built. And want to understand what the fabricators and erectors do to build those structures, I urge you to consider joining us.

4. Disclaimer
SEAC, RMSCA, nor its committees, writers, editors and individuals who have contributed to this publication make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations included in this document.
This document does not replace and is not to be used as an adjunct to the current edition of the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) “Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges” or Case document 962D.
The following is a discussion of the current status of the process of preparing structural steel shop drawings.
This paper was prepared by the SEAC/ RMSCA Steel Liaison Committee, a coalition of Front Range Fabricators, Detailers, Erectors and Structural Engineers (EOR) dedicated to improving the steel construction industry. The intent of this paper is to propose suggestions for improving the structural steel shop drawing process. The process of preparing shop drawings has become the most time consuming and unpredictable part of the fabrication process.
That’s the fine print.

5. Topics PURPOSE of Shop Drawings The Normal Shop Drawing PROCESS
PROBLEMS in preparing and approving the shop drawings
RECOMMENDATIONS to improve the shop drawing process
We broke this issue down into 4 topics.
I will cover purpose and process
My part really is not going to cover anything new. I just explain what we do and why. Setting the background for my colleagues.
Richard will talk about the problems that occur in the process
And Bruce will finish up by providing some recommendations.
We then hope to facilitate a discussion with all of you to talk through some of these issues.
NO WAR STORIES, PLEASE. We all have them. We are really are looking to have a constructive discussion.

6. PURPOSE and PROCESS of Shop Drawings
Each participant has a different Perspective, Role and Contractual Responsibility:
Fabricator /Detailer
Erector
General Contractor or Construction Manager
Engineer
Architect

7. SHOP DRAWING PROCESS DETAILER ERECTOR
GC/CM REVIEWS FORWARDS TO ARCHITECT
FABRICATER PREPARES SHOP DRAWINGS
ARCHITECT REVIEWS FORWARDS TO ENGINEER
GC/CM AWARDS CONTRACT AND PROVIDES CD’S TO FABRICATOR
Everyone is familiar with the process.
Lets look at each of these parties and see what they do.
ENGINEER REVIEWS RETURNS TO ARCH

8. CONTRACTS & STANDARDS
THE AISC CODE OF STANDARD PRACTICE AND THE VARIOUS AIA/ASCE STANDARD CONTRACTS ALL CONTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW OF SHOP DRAWINGS

9. Shop Drawings – AISC COSP
4.2 Fabricator Responsibility
Except as provided in Section 4.5, the fabricator shall produce Shop and Erection Drawings for the fabrication and erection of the Structural Steel and is responsible for the following:
(a) The transfer of information from the Contract Documents into accurate and complete Shop and Erection Drawings; and
(b) The development of accurate, detailed dimensional information to provide for fit up of the parts in the field.
READ

10. CHANGES – AISC COSP 4.2 Fabricator Responsibility
When the Fabricator submits a request to change Connection details that are described in the Contract Documents, the Fabricator shall notify the Owner’s Designated Representatives for Design and Construction in writing in advance of the submission of the Shop and Erection Drawings…

11. Approval AISC COSP
Except as provided in Section 4.5, the shop and Erection Drawings shall be submitted to the Owners Designated Representatives for Design and Construction for review and approval. …returned in 14 calendar days…

12. Approval AISC COSP
Approval…or…approval subject to corrections noted and similar approvals shall constitute the following:
Confirmation that the Fabricator has correctly interpreted the Contract Documents…
Confirmation that the (Engineer) has reviewed and approved the connection details shown on the Shop and Erection Drawings and submitted in accordance with if applicable; and
Release by the (Engineer) and (CM) to begin fabrication using the approved submittals

13. AIA STD. CONTRACT- CONSTRUCTION
Shop Drawings…The purpose of their submittal is to demonstrate for those portions of the work for which submittals are required the way the Contractor proposes to conform to the information given and the design concept expressed in the Contract Documents.

14. GC AIA STD. CONTRACT -CONSTRUCTION
The Contractor shall review, approve and submit to the Architect…submittals required …
The Contractor shall perform no …Work…requiring submittals until the submittal has been approved by the Architect…
By approving… Shop Drawings… the Contractor represents that the Contractor has determined and verified materials, field measurements and field construction criteria…and has checked and coordinated the information contained with such submittals with the requirements of the Work and of the Contract Documents.

15. GC AIA STD CONTRACT –CONSTRUCTION
(d) The Contractor shall not be relieved of responsibility for deviations from the…CD’s by the Architect’s approval of Shop Drawings…Unless the Contract has specifically informed the Architect in writing of such deviation…The Contractor shall not be relieved of responsibility for errors or omissions in the Shop Drawings…by the Architects approval.

16. ACEC STD. CONTRACT for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ENGINEER’S CONTRACT
Review and approve or take other appropriate action in respect to Shop Drawings…but, only for conformance with the information given in the CD’s and compatibility with the design concept of the completed Project as a functioning whole…

17. ACEC STD. CONTRACT Engineer’s Approval
NOT – “will not extend to means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction or to safety precautions and programs incident thereto.”

18. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE

19. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE / FABRICATOR
The Fabricator and GC negotiate the contract. Once an arrangement is made, the Fabricator compares the bid/ pricing drawings to the final Contract Documents.
Detailing is usually started right away. Then the Fabricator, Erector and GC discuss the fabrication and erection sequence.

20. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE / FABRICATOR
When questions arise or conflicts are found during the preparation of the shop drawings, questions are asked via RFI’s to determine direction.

21. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE /FABRICATOR
Multiple copies of the shop drawings are submitted to the GC. In order to help expedite the review turn-around time, a concurrent copy sometimes is sent to the EOR and/or Architect, with the GC’s permission, to help expedite the process.

22. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – GC
The General Contractor
Verifies that the Subcontractor understands the submittal requirements.
Obtains a schedule for submittals from the subcontractors
Reviews the submittal
Forwards the submittal (if acceptable) to the AE.
Returns submittals back to the subcontractor after AE review
Tracks status of submittals

23. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – GC
GC Review
To confirm that the system is in general conformance with the Contract Documents and the GC/ Sub-contractor agreement and to also coordinate with the other affected trades.

24. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E
The Architect sends the shop drawings on to the EOR. In practice, the Architect often performs their review simultaneous with the EOR or after the EOR and adds his comments.
The EOR reviews and makes comments … keeps one set, and returns the remainder back to the Architect.

25. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E
REVIEW PRACTICE
The level of detail involved in the Engineer’s review varies greatly from firm to firm or project to project.
FIRM(A) General review of member sizes, connection types and major building dimensions

26. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E
REVIEW PRACTICE
FIRM(B) Detailed review of each part, verification of member size, overall length, material type, verification of each connection, weld sizes, hole sizes, hole locations verification of no paint at SC connections, primer.

27. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E
REVIEW PRACTICE -WHO REVIEWS THE SHOP DRAWINGS?
The design engineer.
Another similarly qualified engineer.
The CA department.
The most junior member of the team.

28. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E
The typical actions by the A/E are:
Approved / No Exceptions Taken
Approved as Noted / Exceptions as Noted
Revise and Resubmit
Rejected
The first two actions allow the Fabricator to proceed and fabricate the material without a re-submittal. The latter two require re-submittal.

29. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E
the Fabricator/Detailer reviews all comments, contacts the appropriate party with questions and/or RFI’s, and … completes or corrects them for fabrication.
Drawings are released to the shop. Final “For Construction” copies are sent to the GC. The Erector is sometimes copied at this time.

30. ACTUAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – A/E
The “For Construction” shop drawings are sometimes not given to the field erection crew until the first delivery truck arrives at the job site.

31. PROBLEMS In Preparing Shop Drawings
Rocky Mountain Steel Construction Association
Structural Engineers Association of Colorado
Steel Liaison Committee
PROBLEMS In Preparing Shop Drawings

32. Incomplete Contract Documents
Common concerns voiced by Fabricators
Dimensions do not close.
Structural components are not located in plan or in elevation.
Details are not complete or specific to the project.
Design Drawings and Specifications are in conflict.
Structural drawings are not thoroughly coordinated with
Architectural or Mechanical drawings

33. “architects drawings can not be used for construction”
Inconsistent industry guidelines for production of
drawings
For shop drawings: AISC “Code of Standard Practice for
Buildings and Bridges”, 3/18/05, 3.1.
For Design Drawings: SEAC “A Guide for Consulting Structural
Engineering Services in Colorado”, 10/04, 4.G.1-4.
AIA Monthly Periodic “Best Practice in Risk Management”
September 2005 States:
“architects drawings can not be used for construction”

34. The Architect is responsible for control
dimensions and elevations. Common problem
areas are:
Geometry in plan and elevation
(2) Stair dimensions
(3) Canopies and entrances
(4) Edge of slab or roof deck
(5) Mechanical unit sizes, weights, locations and openings
through the structure.

35. Request For Information
Often, RFI’s may result from unanswered questions.
The timing of the shop drawing submittal can be delayed by this part of the process.
Numerous RFI’s can be indicative of unclear or incomplete Contract Documents.
Time and possibly the cost required to prepare the shop drawings will likely increase.

36. Poor Communications
The shop drawing submittal and review process is often
unclearly specified. Because of this, the GC and/ or Architect
decide on a project specific process.
Different EOR offices have different practices with regard to the
timeliness and completeness of their review methods.
The construction schedule sometime changes and the affected
parties are not informed.
The Fabricator’s schedule requirements are unknown to the
other parties.
The reviewers have no idea how large the submittal packages
will be.

37. Shop Drawing Review Comments
Can be vague, unclear, cryptic or unreadable.
May not adequately address or completely answer questions
raised.
May make changes outside of the scope of work, thus affecting
cost and schedule.
May be deferred to a downstream reviewer and thus may go
unanswered.
May be specifically avoided due to a concern on the part of the
EOR that he will become liable for fit up when answering a
dimensional question.

38. Coordination With Other Trades
The burden of coordination responsibility is often placed on the
Fabricator by the GC.
The Fabricator is generally not provided with needed
documents and is not generally equipped to effectively
coordinate with other trades.
Timing of coordination can be an issue, since other trades are
working under their own schedule.
The Fabricator usually does not have contractual authority over
the other trades, which dilutes obligations, incentives and
cooperation.

39. Suggested Solutions In Preparing Shop Drawings
Rocky Mountain Steel Construction Association
Structural Engineers Association of Colorado
Steel Liaison Committee
Suggested Solutions In Preparing Shop Drawings

40. RECOMMENDATIONS to improve the shop drawing process
A. Complete Contract Documents are necessary
AISC COSP
Customized specifications
Mechanical openings
EOR compensation for mechanical changes
Specify unusual loads for the joist supplier
Flexibility concerning connections

41. Improve Communications
1. Pre-Detailing Conference
Face to face meetings
Who should attend
Come prepared
Establish procedures
Discussion of Fabricator issues

42. Improve Communications
2. RFI’s (10/05 MSC and the AISC COSP 4.6)
Ask & answer in a timely way
Only ask about issues not addressed in CD’s
Address only one question or issue
Ask a “yes” or “no” question, with a proposed sketched solution
e. Answers must be clear
f. Follow up phone call
g. Don’t use for changes or substitutions

43. Improve Communications
3. Construction Schedule
GC should provide
Key Fabricator milestone dates are needed
Advise EOR of arrival date of shops
Advance copy

44. Suggestions For Improving Shop Drawing Review Comments
Route one record set of shops for review
Readable comments, addressing all questions
Do not finish design on the shop drawings
Go over comments with the Detailer
Reviewer should talk with affected parties
Changes should be separately documented
Comments should refer Detailer to specifics in CD’s

45. Coordination With Other Trades
GC is responsible for coordinating the trades