Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Multiple reviewers and shop drawing submittal stamps

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default Multiple reviewers and shop drawing submittal stamps

    There are many examples of Bluebeam being used for Transmitting Shop Drawings i.e. being sent out from the contractors office (following the GC's review) and broadcast to the design consultants for review via Bluebeam Studio Sessions. This of course provides a terrifically efficient method of distribution, collaboration and collective simultaneous review...which definitely shortens timelines and costs compared with shifting paper mountains via courier of days gone by. However, I wonder if things could be improved even further? I'm thinking about shop drawing review stamps by multiple consultants. I'd like to start a thread to find out what people think about the design office stamping part of the process and if there are any new and interesting ideas about how to streamline this end of the business. Let's assume status quo is multiple consultants applying their dynamic review stamps in Bluebeam Studio Sessions, to each sheet of the submittal.

    Is it necessary for reviewing consultants to review and set status for every single submittal sheet? Should they use their own submittal stamp...or could there be a standard block of checkboxes applied to each shop drawing?...the architects have different wording on their submittal stamps from the structural engineers. Can the submittals be set up so that a single sheet at the front of the submittal set covers the legalese of the designers' review, yet the other sheets only need a small matrix that indicates the status assigned by each of the reviewers. Can the contractors be asked to leave a clear area on their submittal sheets for the consultants to use for review status stamping? Are stamps on each sheet really necessary..we can already track to the very person and the very minute that a mark was made on a shop drawing (if it's not flattened of course).

    There are document management systems such as Constructware, Sharepoint and Newforma, which may go some of the way to solving this. However I've worked on projects where shop drawings have been distributed via document management systems. Status assignment was submitted to the system's database..yet the designers still insisted (as required by their governing institutions) that they had to apply their submittal review stamp with signature (which is usually a jpeg of someones John Hancock)....lots of redundancy and duplication....there does not seem to be a standard. It reminds me of the days of pen plotters...there is something fundamentally wrong when we have incredible electronic tools at our disposal, yet we are duplicating effort and blindly mimicking (and indeed faking) a paper based process which is not much better than it was 30 years ago.

    I'm not disputing the need for stamping shop drawings and setting status. However, I am hoping to promote some out of the box thinking (hopefully employing Bluebeam) about a more effective and efficient solution for multiple consultants to apply and administrate shop drawing review submittal status stamping.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    3

    Default shop drawings review

    I am based in Lansing, MI and have worked with the same fabricator/erector and detailer for the last 10 years. To me the concept of shop drawing review all seems lethargic and painfully slow. Seems like as a whole the industry just don't want to get rid of the paper. We use SDS2 for connection design and model can be sent to Engineers and they could electronically review everything, but they still ask for PDF copies, which to me is a complete waste.

    Every GC you go through these days have their file information storing system where you are sending out piles of PDF's back and forth. Not to mention then you have to track all the files which have been sent out and follow up on them.