***THREAD BLOAT WARNING!!!***
This reply is long and word-ee, written semi nerd-ee (hee-hee). Scroll thru to find more relevant areas, or be lost to the
"Curse Of Never-Ending Text" forever!!!
<enter sinister laughs>
Now for something totally different:
has posted relates to this topic really well (IMO, that is!...).
In all the Project Spec. Manuals I read / have read / will read, Division 16's "Boilerplate" wordage includes the required stuff
for Final Commissioning on the Project, and they all contain the same inclusions, prior to turn-over (and final payment).
Wordage includes what Bjarney
has listed above - which covers Testing and Balancing (TAB) on Equipment either:
* Provided & Installed by the EC,
* Owner Provided - Contractor Installed,
* Provided & Installed by others-Wiring & Conduit by EC.
Along with TAB, Div. 16's Final Commissioning includes a "Clean And Legible" copy of the As-Built set(s), Documents and
Manuals for Electrical Equipment, and spare parts (typically 1% of installed items, but not less than one) such as Receptacles,
Lamps, Ballasts, and of course - Fuses.
More and more are requesting As-Builts to be in a CAD format, then submitted on Disk Media (Floppy, CD-R, or if you're really
good at hacking, an extremely complex Abacus
...). Some ask for both a Hard Copy and CAD files. Typical specs would be:
* Minimum Hard Copy Media Size: D (arch)
* Media type: Vellum (Translucent Bond sometimes may be an alternate)
* Color Scheme: Red for As-built markups (if multiple system types are As-built, each system gets specific color)
* CAD format: AutoCAD Release 2000 (many still hold this as R14 format, which is good for me!).
There are a few more requirements in Div. 16 for Fin. Comm., which need to be dealt with prior to the EC's obligation being
fulfilled. One seemingly apparent item would be Final Electrical Inspection signoff per the local DBS. Another is completing
items on "Punch Lists", made up by the Architect or Client's Inspection staff.
The GC can successfully "Turn-Over" the project to the Client, when all trades have their Final Commissioning accepted by the
Client / Client's Representatives (Architect and Client's Inspection staff).
A note to add about plans:
In one of the Chapters (I cannot recall the Div. number) - and within the stand alone Final Commissioning Documentation, the EE
is to submit the latest working set of E Sheets in CAD and Hard Copy formats. The same goes for all other Engineers
(Mechanical, Plumbing, Structural, etc.).
Some ask for all sets - from preliminary sets to the last revision set, others ask for the most current revision set.
All ask for copies of other related Construction Documents that involve the Engineer (or supplied to the Contractor by the
Oops, almost forgot to include Client Training! (training and demonstration of control systems, etc.).
To me, this protocol is a good thing. Gives the Client as much relevant data possible, and follows a Logical design structure
format. Doing this in an efficient + effective manner is the goal I am striving for, yet this matter of thinking is not something
that is relevant to every person or project - it's only relevant to those who need it.
The Project Manuals I deal with are for both new Construction Projects (new Structures), and work on Existing Structures
(Remodels, Tenant Improvements, Upgrades, etc.).
Referencing the As-Built items of installed stuff is a very good thing, but is only as good as:
1: The Person(s) Recording The Documentations,
2: The Person(s) Compiling The Documentations,
3: The Person(s) Responsible For The Logistics Of The Documentations,
4: The Person(s) Interpreting The Documentations For Reference,
5: The Person(s) In "Control" Of "What Does/Does Not Get Done".
If one (or more) of these Parties fails to do their task properly, all fail!
As everyone here already knows, I like Documentation! When Final Commissioning time is near, I submit all kinds of data to the
Architect / Client (& / or other Rep's if requested).
As-Builts of all systems we dealt with are compiled to a multi page CAD set, then submitted in both Hard Copy and Disk
Using the current version of the Architect's Building layout as a Base Plan, I keep it "clean" and only attach it to the drawings
as an XREF (External Reference - meaning the base plan is not drawn on, but is visible below the layers of the E drawings).
Sometimes I will use the Architect's title Block (also via XREF), but normally use my own page template + title block, and add
their info to a typical stamp area (logo stamp, not PE stamp).
My Plotter (err... I mean Large Media Format Printer!... actually a very large HP Color Inkjet Printer!) can accept upto D size
Media, so hard copies go out in that size.
Disk copies are now on a single CD-R, where as prior to the influx of recordable CD Media, multiple floppy disks were used -
which data was spanned across them via compression software (PK ZIP).
Submitted many via E-Mail, and a few via website.
For all text Documentation (manuals, etc.), if they are available in an Electronic format, I submit both a hard copy and disk
Been "Somewhat" successful in compiling hard copies to an Electronic copy, via scanning techniques.
OCR works well... after the App' has been properly tweeked and used a lot!
OCR is not 100% fail-safe! I still find very odd and funny "Translations" on almost every document - the worst being an
Italicized Serif font scanned to Adobe Acrobat.
Even with as much information I can possibly submit (and if all the other trades are submitting their stuff the way I am), there's
nothing preventing all the data to be rendered totally useless when major renovations are performed afterwards. Sometimes
even minor alterations can seriously affect the complete Construction Reference set.
These alterations should be noted properly, and compiled to the Construction Drawings + Data Records Set(s) if one plans to
have accurate As-Built records of a given project.
What detours this protocol is most often $$$! i.e.: "We can save X Dollars by not requesting Construction Documentation from
the GC (from their Subs + Vendors). Besides, who _Really_ needs it anyway!?!?!?"
Admiringly, not every project requires a fully detailed record set from all trades + vendors - nor the Logistics involved with
large records. Some Medium sized projects need only simple documentation.
Small projects may not need any documentation records at all!
What level of record documentation is actually needed - or is effective for notation, should be determined by a knowledgeable
representative, and that person(or persons) should assist wherever possible to keep the projected goals as accurate as
This includes support to the Contractors, Architect and Engineers; and as much as I may get in hot water with fellow persons
in the design & management areas (EEs, PMs, Estimators, Consultants, Document Authors, etc.):
--->Get rid of the "Boilerplate Specs"!<---
I mean actually delete the Template file which contains boilerplate specifications!
Instead, create specifications and requirements which are more accurate to the project they are attached to.
I say this from the In-Field aspect, as viewed by the Installers.
The text of so many specifications shown within plansets (and some project manuals) is, at times, laughable. This results in the
Field Installation Personnel (people actually building the place!
...) becoming less and less likely to read specs.
I have had quite a few experiences where people I am working with, in the field and office, have no idea what the specs want.
Others are unaware the specs exist in the first place!
So to wind this message up finally
, it's upto all parties involved with a given project, to compile accurate, usable record
documents. How much detail is to be included will rely on whatever is specified by the Client's Reps, The AHJ, and is very
Not that this is an accurate picture for every facility, but it is rather common for the projects I deal with.
Sorry for the excessive rambling, just typing my general thoughts for consideration.
Hopefully, this will be of assistance.