As-built or as constructed?

Do you mark your drawings as-built or as constructed? In the oil and gas pipeline world, we've been marking our alignment and bore design drawings as "as constructed". But my ME is telling me that mechanical detail drawings (and anything else submitted with an as-built mechanical set) are always marked as "as-built". What is correct, and what is the difference between as-built and as constructed?

As built is used for components that have been manufactuerd/fabricated.

As constructed would be for all the manufactured items to be assembled together in its final place. e.g. assembled on site.

Hopefully this makes sense.

In the architectural/MEP world, I've never seen "As constructed". It must be a regional thing.

Here with the local surrounding counties it is "As-Built"

The current standard i work with has "as built" to indicate final conditions of assets in the field.

In the architectural/MEP world, I've never seen "As constructed". It must be a regional thing.

I believe that's the whole point of this post

I worked one place that wouldn't use "As Built" and instead would use 'per contractor red-lines' (or something along those lines). They felt putting 'as-built' on the drawing had opened them up to problems where not every thing that had been built was on the drawings, so 'per red-lines' gave them an out and took the liability away from them. I have been doing that ever since.

I've heard similar thoughts when adjusting MEP design documents to the changes made during construction. "As Built" does imply an amount of accuracy that does not exist in design documents.

On a side note, I've been instructed to edit our design documents and just eliminated any references to "new" work and stamped them "As Built". I did not feel right about that at all.

I did a job that all they wanted was the As built "stamp" added. I definitely felt odd as it was a third party who did the work, but i made sure that it was spelled out that the revision of the document were made at the direction of the requester and I had not and would not verify field work. But i too felt uneasy just throwing that on there.

On the receiving end where i work now the "as built" is one of the finished products of the construction. We hold out from taking documents that are issued from construction or issued for approval etc. We hold payment until (or try to) we receive design documents updated to "as built." If those documents are not accurate to the field work (within reason) the contractor gets put under review.

In the road construction world the "as built" often means that standing there it looks like the piece of paper in your hand. Rarely is the levels and offsets actually checked by an independant source. The only time that we find a diffrence is say when we add on to a existing piece of infrastucture and a new field survey is carried out. Most times they are close but stuff like the new kerb was built 100mm to the left.

In saying that though our water and sewers are resurveyed after construction and tolerance acceptance applied.

In freeway projects, we don't do them, quality control is apllied with audits created by carrying out random spot checking and comparing to plans for design tolerance, ie dont check the level at chainage 1250 do it 1235.5.

Doesn't really matter between "As-Built" or "As-Constructed", both are actually interchangeable, I would say "As-Recorded" (some have started going to this) means the same as well, it is all pretty much up to the boss, though, whether your boss or the client.

Most companies are being urged to use a different term "Record Drawings" due to some liability issues with the other terms, you will also see disclaimers on drawings with the other terms.

Here's an excerpt from the American Institute of Architects Best Practices document (BP.10.10.04):

"Risk management advisors recommend that architecture and engineering professionals use the term “record drawings,” saying there is no such thing as an “as-built” drawing or document (Schinnerer, 2002). Because portions of record drawings are based on information provided by outside sources, architects cannot be expected to verify the information (Schinnerer, 2002). Victor O. Schinnerer & Co. recommends including a provision in the professional services contract that acknowledges this understanding. For examples of this language, see Best Practice, “Certifying As-Built or Record Drawings.”"

Leave it to legal teams to complicate things.

My disclaimer reads as follows...

"Any resemblance to the actual design drawings is purely accidental."

Doesn't really matter between "As-Built" or "As-Constructed", both are actually interchangeable, I would say "As-Recorded" (some have started going to this) means the same as well, it is all pretty much up to the boss, though, whether your boss or the client.

 

Most companies are being urged to use a different term "Record Drawings" due to some liability issues with the other terms, you will also see disclaimers on drawings with the other terms.

 

Here's an excerpt from the American Institute of Architects Best Practices document (BP.10.10.04):

Ive seen similar diction in the transmittal. For their purposes the delivered records include the transmittal so the drawings in essence are considered almost like an appendix to the delivered document list. I was under the impression this was an accounting classification or contractual language. Interesting to see this Best Practices take.

Perhaps i'm missing the the point of the section but its almost like they are waiving responsibility for using a bad contractor. This seems like a terrible precedent to create.