ECN Forum
Posted By: ITO The new cost of doing business - 11/28/06 10:26 PM
Anyone else notice that Architects, Engineers, General Contractors, and Owners, and are shirking more and more of their work and responsibilities on us?

Examples:

1) Sometimes they require CAD drawn as-builts while simulationsly demanding a fee for the CAD backgrounds; its double dipping. The owner paid for these drawing and anyone doing the work should have access to the drawings. Just recently on a POLO store, I had an architect tell me I was responsible for the lighting layout, and that I should submit shop drawings for his approval in CAD, and btw the fee is $250 per page.

Add $2,000 to bid

2) The engineer will put out a boilerplate design for a retail store based on the architects backgrounds and have never visited the site, and still have the balls to seal the plans. They then tell you it’s your job (while bidding) to verify that it will work and is correct, so we are put in the role of engineer in that we have to verify and in some cases re-engineer someone else’s work. Keep in mind this is all done in the bidding stage and you don’t get paid to for doing their work.

Add $500 to bid

3) The owners for some retail chains will furnish the lighting package and expect you to unload their truck, inventory, store, and file any freight claims for their fixtures. Keep in mind this is what overhead on a fixture package is supposed to cover, and if you include it in you bid, you might be high. Oh and don’t forget to include any “appurtenances” for making these fixtures work, like stems and hangers. Hey why buy that stem kit for those high bays, when you can make your electrician fabricate them for free?

Add $2,500 to bid

4) Do you know what a “Completed operations endorsement CG 2010 & CG 2057 Requirement” is? You should it cost you $500 every time a GC asks you to pick it up in their contract. Read the fine print, it’s something they just started sneaking in.

Add $500

5) Duct detectors, do you know who furnishes them? That’s funny neither does the engineer, but he sealed the plans anyway.

Add $300 each

6) Back in the day, when a GC wanted a price they gave you a call and sent a set of plans. Now they either send you a CD or a link to where you can DL them and you pay the printing. I have a plotter but it its more than 10 pages its cheaper to use a reprographics shop.

Add $150 to bid

7) Fire stopping, used to be picked up by one sub for the whole job, now we get to do our own.

Add $500 to bid. (more for bigger jobs)

8) Remember when a GC used to have a superintendent, a carpenter and a clean up crew? Now we have composite clean up crews and a PM that thinks he knows how to run a job with a three week look-ahead schedule.

Add $2000 (a LOT more for a big job)

9) That superintendent the GCs used to have could use a transit and do layouts and coordinate the trades. Ask that PM what a transit is and see what he says. I just did a strip center and the GC insisted all layout, control points and grade were my responsibility. While I don’t mind doing my own layout, establishing a control point and grades is just not something we do as a profession.

Add $5,000 for surveyor

10) Temporary power means lights and receptacles to OSHA standards, it does not include “task lighting” and it certainly never includes “consumption”.

I don’t even know what to add for all the electric bills on a job but this has not stopped some GCs from trying to charge me for them.

11) When did we become phone and data installers? Especially when it’s not really shown on the plans.

I could go on and on.

Add all that up, put in your next bid and see if you get the job…
Posted By: LK Re: The new cost of doing business - 11/29/06 01:03 AM
"Add all that up, put in your next bid and see if you get the job…"

As long as contractors are willing to go along with this sort of thing, it will most likely be around for a long time, the practice of paying for prints, to bid is called print money, money for office parties,etc. They are really slick, charge the client for bid package, then charge to distribute it, only in the good old USA.
Remember they are giving you the privlige to bid on their job, you should be thankful and add a tip to that money.

I think they have it backwards, since your expending your valuable time to bid the work, they should be paying you the fee, not the other way around, what next reverse bidding?




[This message has been edited by LK (edited 11-28-2006).]
Posted By: ITO Re: The new cost of doing business - 11/29/06 01:39 AM
Mostly it's the out of town guys who pull that one. The bigger GCs in town usually send a set of prints, and to be fair it’s a market issue. When you chase a job, you pay for prints; when you got way more work than you can handle it seems like a new set a prints to take-off show up every day.
Posted By: REW Re: The new cost of doing business - 11/29/06 02:06 AM
You forgot the the biggest doozie of them all, the "pay if paid" clause. Some (mine) states allow the GC to insert and enforce the pay if paid clause which allows the GC NOT to pay you until they are paid. The GC now has very little finacial liability for the project, but they sure as heck still tack on $$$ to your bid and each change order.

There are two ways to stop this though:
1: get out of business or
2: find a niche and do that work well. When a contractor calls and asks for a bid, tell them to overnight (at their expense) the plans, and explain your payment terms such as 30 days from Invoice, no "pay if paid" clause, no additionally insured without extra costs, and that you will only sign an AIA contract (they are considerably more fair to both parties). If they don't like your terms, tell them to keep their prints.

If you did submit a bid and was "awarded" the project, remember that you are not obligated to sign any agreement that you are not comfortable with. Just like the bid, negotiate the Contract if you don't like it.
Posted By: ITO Re: The new cost of doing business - 11/29/06 02:22 AM
The "pay if paid" clause may not be legal here, because I have not seen it yet.

There just cant be enough said about exercising your lien rights.

Yeah good luck on the AIA thing, the big GCs just wont do one with us, they all have their “standard” contract, take it or leave it.
Posted By: REW Re: The new cost of doing business - 11/29/06 04:34 AM
And that is why I left that segment of the market.

There is just too much bs with the GCs. Always wanting it faster, cheaper, and paying you later and later.
Posted By: ShockMe77 Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/01/06 12:26 AM
"When did we become phone and data installers? Especially when it’s not really shown on the plans."


Tell me about it.

Does the phone guy install ceiling fans?
Posted By: PE&Master Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/03/06 03:55 AM
You have to watch the AIA forms also. Like the clause in the last one I got said it I didn't keep up with the job they can fire me, make me pay for the new EC, let him use all my tools, materials, and equipment that is on site until the work is done, oh and not pay me at all.

Scratch through the parts you can't sign up for - and initial each edit before returning them signed.
Posted By: REW Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/03/06 04:44 AM
But if you had the schedule before the contract was signed, as you should, that part of the contract seems fair to me. The AIA contracts are supposed to be fair to both parties.
Posted By: iwire Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/03/06 03:20 PM
Quote
But if you had the schedule before the contract was signed, as you should, that part of the contract seems fair to me.

Sure....as long as the EC can take the GCs stuff and hire another GC at the original GC expense if the original GC fails to meet the schedule. [Linked Image]
Posted By: ITO Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/04/06 02:30 AM
Schedules change, and if you dont have a PM to monitor and document these changes, you could find yourself getting screwed by this "fair" document.
Posted By: ITO Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/04/06 02:56 AM
My personal favorite is the “three week look ahead schedule”. How this works is you are on a job that is supposed to run 6+ months and there is some schedule “slippage” and the project is basically way far behind.

Now anyone that has ever been on a big job understands that the contractors that cause slippage are generally the same contractors who finish up their work LONG before the project is complete, and leave the electrician who is generally one of the last contractors on the job “responsible for holding up the whole job”.

Example, the civil contractors delay moving the spoils off the project until they have another job that needs fill; meanwhile you are having to work around huge piles of spoils for your underground driving your costs through the roof, as concrete guys cant even start. By the time the slab is pored and the tilt wall goes up, you are 6 weeks behind schedule and cant even go in the building until the steel is up and the roof is on but the fire protection contractor can because he can put his pipe in before the building is dried in, which means you work around his existing pipe on top of being behind schedule the day you finally get access to the dried in building.

So here you are 6 weeks behind and you have not really even started yet, and along comes the smart-ass GC PM with a simple fix, in the form of a short goal informal schedule to help you get caught up. You see if they produce an updated complete schedule reflecting the actual job conditions, you have an opportunity to bill for impact, but with the informal “three week look ahead” it’s a bit harder to prove impact, even though it would require you to man up a 100 men for 3 days to follow it.

That’s all a GC really needs, is 1000 electricians for one day to get caught up and all.

What you cant find 1000 electricians for one day, well then they pull the “we will just hire some other guy to finish it for you, at your expense” bull...

Just for the record anytime a GC has EVER called me and asked me to finish someone else work, I tell them to go get forked.

(Webmaster: small edit to maintain PG Rating)

[This message has been edited by Webmaster (edited 12-04-2006).]
Posted By: NJ_WVUGrad Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/04/06 04:28 PM
Speaking from the POV someone who used to be on the engineering/drafting side and just switched roles and started my apprentice ship I can make a few observations

1) Charging for CAD Backgrounds - A lot of time and overhead goes into creating the backgrounds. Anyone doing the work should have access to the drawings - absolutely. But only the physical drawings. Why should the engineer/achitect give away his product for someone to turn a profit.

I do agree that many AE's "sell their stamp" and let real crap get out there.

Too many times though - by the time the job starts construction. The AE has been beat up on by the Customer and the GC that they can be really unresponsive.

Many times the same stuff that the GC does to aggravate the indivdual trades - aggravated the AE before the project got off the ground.
Nickel/diming and the whole "do we really need this" or "can't we just do it this way" etc etc.

"Stuff" roles downhill....
Posted By: ITO Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/04/06 06:56 PM
How providing your asbuilts in cad turning a profit?

I would much rather give them my red lined job set then pay to have them drafted in CAD.

For the record it does not cost anything to email CAD backgrounds, while printing a clean set for hand markup does.
Posted By: NJ_WVUGrad Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/04/06 07:26 PM
That I understand, IF the Arch/Engr is the one demanding the As-Builts in AutoCAD - Then they should provide the backgrounds.

However, If it is the GC demanding the As-builts in AutoCAD (and trying to cut-out the Arch/Engr) then I can see charging for backgrounds.

I would disagree that it is free to email CAD files. The Arch/Engr usually has to go through some extensive "cleaning up" of the backgrounds to make them ready for backgrounds.

Depending on their CAD sophistication the drawings can have some embedded proprietary CAD routines/Blocks that the Arch/Egr would not want getting out.

Also, Many CAD backgrounds are just that, backgrounds - with the individual systems (Sprinkler, electric, etc) drafted on top of them in AutoCAD.

Any times that I have been involved in a situation that required CAD backgrounds being sent to third-parties - the per drawing charge always ended up covering the time CAD drafter/designer spent handling phone calls, emails etc from the third-party about the files/drawings.
Posted By: ITO Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/05/06 01:00 AM
I have 9 years experience drafting in AutoCAD, and am more than proficient. It takes all of 2 minutes to do a “pack and go” of a background while it takes 4 minutes to plot it on a HP1050C. After having done many design build, design assist and many as-builts, I have a high degree of certainty that cost wise, $250 a page charged to the contractor is a rip off, especially when they write it in their own specs you will require them for closeout and especially since they have already been paid to produce them for the owner.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain… I respectfully disagree about any proprietary routines and blocks being kept a secrete, that is R14 mentality and it just does not apply to as-builts, especially since a save as block, or DWF file also only takes about 2 minutes to run, and all clean up was done pre DD 90% issue.

Don’t mean to come across as snarky, I have just been there on done it on the design/engineer side and once you look behind the curtain it aint all that magical anymore, and any designer/CADD operator that cant whip out backgrounds for as-builts needs a CADD refresher course and should brush up on how to tell more believable stories.

Just my 2 cents, not trying to flame anyone, but I have a lot of bad energy from being ripped off in the past for this very issue, and in one particular case these backgrounds cost me $7,000, when all they did was copy the directory to a CD…proprietary routines and all.



[This message has been edited by ITO (edited 12-04-2006).]
Posted By: iwire Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/05/06 04:41 PM
ITO first I should make clear I do not run any company, I am an employee

That said I agree with much of what you say and while I don't see the office end of things I do see the issues in the field.

As far as $7000 for your backgrounds I wonder if you should provide an alternate price to the owner. One price showing the purchase of $7000 backgrounds and one without.

It strikes me that the owner of the project may not be impressed with a $7000 charge for services he already paid the designer for.

Just a thought....

Bob
Posted By: NJ_WVUGrad Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/05/06 05:28 PM
ITO

All very good points - and I do agree.

I did not see in the original post that the Arch/Engr is requiring the As-Builts be submitted in CAD in their spec.

If thats the case then I agree that the per page fee is a rip-off - and I whole heartedly agree with Iwires approach.

I can accept being "flamed" when they are well versed and articulate in the subject as you seem to be.

I guess I am just surprised that an A/E would want As-Builts in CAD. It just seems to me that it would create double work for them.

Back to the original topic -

I cannot tell you how many meetings I have been involved with where all the client wants to pay for is a "typical" or "boiler plate" design.

It puts undue pressure and additional scope on the subsequent trades.

It puts a good engineer in an uncomfortable spot and allows a incompetant engineer to hit a home run and keep putting out crap.
Posted By: LK Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/05/06 05:58 PM
Quote "I cannot tell you how many meetings I have been involved with where all the client wants to pay for is a "typical" or "boiler plate" design.

It puts undue pressure and additional scope on the subsequent trades.

It puts a good engineer in an uncomfortable spot and allows a incompetant engineer to hit a home run and keep putting out crap."

You hit the nail on the head, Pushing off design details, is in my opinion very un-professional.
Posted By: ITO Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/05/06 06:56 PM
There are plans, specs, and a contract based on a hard bid. If the plans say that closeout documents must be provide electronically, then you put money in for CAD work and leave it at that. If the Engineer wants to later charge for the back grounds there is little recourse other than to pay them. Considering they can hold up your retainage, it is akin to black mail.

Now here is the real kicker: It is standard practice to GIVE these backgrounds to the Mechanical, Fire Protection, and Fire Alarm contractors for shop drawings.

I have a list of repeat offenders on my wall for future bids and I often itemize this charge on our proposals if I know the owner will see it; for the rest I put this little caveat on our proposals:

Excluded: Fees from architect and or engineer to obtain CAD files if As-Builts and or shop drawings are required in electronic format.
Posted By: LK Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/05/06 08:00 PM
"Now here is the real kicker: It is standard practice to GIVE these backgrounds to the Mechanical, Fire Protection, and Fire Alarm contractors for shop drawings."

Is that any supprise, I had to pick up some material from a secutity contractor, the subject of plans came up, when i told him we had to pay for the plans, he thought i was kidding, said they even hand delivered the plan sets to him, i guess electrical is an easy mark.
Posted By: Jps1006 Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/05/06 09:06 PM
Maybe slightly off this topic, but still within the realm of bad plans, an email solicitaion I received made me think of this thread.
http://www.lorman.com/seminars/teleconference.php?sku=373546&cd=13050:0:1:1:7
Posted By: ITO Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/05/06 09:30 PM
Yeah I have had to learn to be part lawyer, and part poker player.
Posted By: REW Re: The new cost of doing business - 12/06/06 01:10 AM
moved to correct thread

[This message has been edited by REW (edited 12-05-2006).]
© ECN Electrical Forums