Site Prep is posting reader responses to Harry Ward's two columns on requiring licensure for data prep. Click to read Part 1, Part 2 and the wrap-up article.

Send your responses to the editor at jensenk@bnpmedia.com.

The Importance of Field Education

I am a surveyor with 20 years’ experience divided equally between the office and field, ten years of which has been in heavy construction. I have been working with a large earthmoving construction company for five years--and most of that five years has been a re-education.

As it stands now, most of the site prep work we do is done internally. However, there are individuals who hire out this work and are fairly good at it. The problem with requiring a licensed individual to do the work is most do not have the experience needed to prepared the data the way it truly needs to be done. There are offsets and safety slopes required that most surveyors outside of the construction company do not understand. (This is evident by offset hubs placed at 10 foot for a 20-foot open cut. As an example, these should have been placed at 32 feet minimum with a 4-foot bucket.)

The largest problem we run into is poor engineering. And believe it or not, these companies will not respond to our questions or give inadequate answers. The designs we work with have improper slopes to move water, do not allow for the construction tolerances needed or sloping to do the work safely.

Today's engineers need a field education and the help of surveyors reviewing site plans to remove the blunders and errors, for it has become my job to redesign plans to ensure they will function when built.

--Ron Matthews

Adjusting to High-Tech Construction

I have been working with machine control, 3D data models and construction stakeout for 6 years now for Independence Excavating Inc out of Cleveland, Ohio. Most of my background is in CAD software, but my time with Independence has [given] me experience in construction layout and construction managing from the field side. Take note that I am not a licensed surveyor or engineer. I currently handle machine control setups, build data prep models and maintain jobsites for machine control accuracy.

After reading through both Part 1 and Part 2 of the column, I sat back and thought of the experiences and problems I have faced with design engineers, developers and other subcontractors. I realized that the issues that were pointed out in [Harry Ward's] column were somewhat on the same level as what we face day-to-day.

The biggest problem we are faced with as a company from jobsite to jobsite is getting the proper data needed from the design engineer in order to build an accurate 3D model. In my experience, there has never been a project where I didn’t need to contact the engineer directly (or through the owner/developer) to obtain more information. However, on most occasions the two parties are willing to cooperate. But in a few instances they have not--and at that point we have had to take matters into our own hands. My firm, however, does have a licensed PS in-house [whom] I work with exclusively on all machine control based projects. Together, both of us work to obtain accurate site control and setup. We both would agree that the most important part of setting up a job for machine control comes from the initial site setup--whether it is in the site calibrations or the data model itself.

[Harry Ward] mentioned, “If design firms and their engineers and surveyors are going to partake in data modeling, they need to obtain the construction knowledge and CAD skills to prepare millimeter-accurate data models.” This statement says it all for anyone who has been in this business and knows how this business works. If a person or persons building a data model can’t visualize how a site is suppose to look at completion, then how can they possibly build it from a set of 2D CAD lines or hard copies? In my opinion, it can’t be done accurately enough to satisfy an owner’s expectations or a contractor’s expectations.

In closing, I enjoyed reading and relating to this column. It has expressed all truthful points that have risen in this new high-tech portion of the industry. I can only hope that the people who are in the industry take some points from it and try to adjust to the rapid changes that we have seen throughout the past few years.

--Todd Moyer
Indpendence Excavating Inc.

Experience is Needed to Cater to Contractor's Site Model Needs

This letter is in response to “Requiring Licensure for Data Prep, Parts 1 & 2.” My name is Brett Smith. My partner Robert Kirker and I are equal owners of Dirt Pro LLC and are located in Gilbert, Arizona.

Dirt Pro LLC is an outsource firm for 3D site models for machine control as well as grading and paving take-offs. Neither of us is a licensed engineer or land surveyor. We both worked for a large grading, excavating, paving and concrete firm out of Phoenix, Arizona for a combined 15 years.

Robert was responsible for the entire machine control process at our previous company. We always had machine control systems running on at least four projects simultaneously. He built the models, shot site calibrations, loaded the files into the machines, taught the operators how to run them, etc. In addition to machine control, Robert also managed and participated in thousands of grading and paving take-offs. I also assisted in the machine control process and handled the majority of the grading and paving take-offs. We worked on many different types of projects, including residential subdivisions (anywhere from 10 to 1,500 lots), commercial retail and business sites (anywhere from 5 to 100 acres), golf courses, roadways, large excavations, custom lots, etc.

The reason we opened Dirt Pro LLC was that we understand the importance of exact 3D site models for machine control and accurate grading and paving take-offs. We have witnessed the heartaches caused by poor data preparation and inaccurate grading and paving take-offs. 3D site models for machine control need to reflect the site at finished grade. Paper plans reflect what the finished site will look like for the most part but lack very important details like subgrade areas, stepped pads versus raked pads, overbuilds, etc. All of this information has to be incorporated into the 3D site model or else it is incomplete.

Most local engineering firms in Arizona do not produce any type of 3D data or DTM files. The few we have seen over the years have had inaccurate and/or conflicting information and in no way could be transferred or converted to machine-ready files. We understand this information because we come from a contractor background. Most of what we know has come from experience and cannot come from a class. We also understand the capabilities of the equipment that will be running on the site and incorporate realistic grading scenarios into the 3D site model.

As for the requiring of licensure in data preparation we are extremely against it. A site is not automatically certified upon completion of the grading if machine control is in use so why should there be any type of licensing? The machine control equipment is purchased by the contractors and therefore should be managed and run by the contractors in whatever fashion they see fit. If a contractor uses an incorrect 3D site model and loses valuable time and money fixing the mistakes, then it is either the contractor’s or outsource firm’s responsibility. Machine control is simply a tool used by contractors to more effectively manage and finish their site. It doesn’t matter if a contractor uses machine control or not when it comes to the certification of the site. If the finished site is not built to the correct grade and within the required tolerance, then it has to be refinished.

It is not feasible to propose that either engineers or land surveyors should be responsible for the complete data preparation process. Every contractor needs different file types, different overbuilds, different colors to appear on the screen inside the machine, etc. We had an operator at our previous company who was partly colorblind and we spent hours on his project trying to change colors so that he could be as effective as possible. Many operators like their 3D site models to be built to the top of design elevations, allowing them to make manual adjustments to reach subgrade. There is no way that engineering and/or land surveying firms could cater to the detailed needs of thousands of contractors!

It has taken Robert and me more than 15 years to understand not only the technological processes but also the realistic processes of site development. At Dirt Pro LLC we carry professional insurance (also known as error and omissions insurance) to protect not only us but the contractor and developer as well.

--Brett Smith & Robert Kirker
Owners, Dirt Pro LLC

Modeling in the American Marketplace

I have known Harry for many years and have come to respect his articles for both Site Prep and POB, especially when those articles are on the subject of machine control technology.

As we all know, many things change dramatically from state to state. Coming from the UK originally, I am of the opinion that it would be great to have some consistency across the country on this issue of machine control modeling, and I am all for a national site grader exam that could be tied to both the PE or LS. With that said, my response to Harry’s article is based on my local Virginia experiences and those market forces at work here.

Virginia is a state that allows contractors to stake their own work, with some notable exceptions. So those of us licensed to practice surveying in Virginia have had to compete with contractors doing their own staking for many years, therefore competing with them on building models in the future is fine by me.

My attitude is simple: if you can do a better job of developing accurate models for your clients and offer them qualified assistance in implementing those models in the field (i.e., you have some familiarly of the constructability of your models over a given site and can create value-added service that both contractors and owners need in today’s marketplace), can price it correctly and deliver your data on time, your business will be successful.

One of the most important lessons that I have learnt over the last five years of doing this is to be ready, willing and able to help the contractors you know embrace this technology. It’s a scary enough time, when one of the three primary vendors attaches a 3D grading system on a D8 dozer or motor grader and they have to deal with all those foremen who aren’t quite sure if this was the right direction for the firm. If you can help find where it will make them money, and trust me, ladies and gentlemen of the construction industry, IT WILL MAKE YOU MONEY, both your businesses will grow.

--Stephen C. Letchford, LS
Timmons Group

Require a Specialized License

I couldn't agree more [with Harry Ward] that engineers and surveyors who want to work in data prep should have construction experience. Individuals that don't understand earthwork and grading have no business preparing working DTMs for projects. I do think that requiring a licensed person to supervise preparation of the models is absolutely necessary—to protect the client or project owner and the contractor. It’s unfortunate that most designers have no clue about the quality requirements of their site designs, but it is a fact of life.

In my business, I compete against many other engineers and contractors for design work. There are a number of good programs, including some by Carlson, that can create an excellent DTM. However, most firms don't even understand the power of the system and just draw contours using the computer the same as they did with a scale, calculator and pen.

The simple fact is that most owners buy design services based on price or reputation. They really don't appreciate the work that goes into the translating of a "picture" into a project on the ground. Just like many surveyors/engineers do not provide quality stakeout, they will not produce a quality DTM. But just being able to afford the software and manipulate the data doesn't guarantee quality. I have 30+ years of mixed experience in surveying, design and construction, and I am a qualified operator as well (dozer, scraper, backhoe), but the marketplace governs my ability to get work, including data prep.

I say yes to requiring licenses, but perhaps a specialized license should be required.

--William W. Witman, PE

Embrace the Technology

We operate 25 GPS systems on both machines and foreman systems and have used this technology since 2000. I will say what the rest of you are afraid to.

The demand by surveyors or engineers to control this technology in order to ensure quality has one fundamental flaw. Most of us in the early days went to this technology as a means to verify and document mistakes on plans and to be free from the delays and mistakes by surveyors and engineers. And from what I hear around the country, the problem of poor quality plans is worse today than seven years ago. Don’t mistake me as being critical of engineers because we all know how complicated their job is, and I for one don’t want their headaches. Engineers should embrace this change as a way for them to be free to spend more time on developing quality plans and let go of the lowest tech item in their arsenal (staking).

Contractors beware, you must fight this issue. We were fought by the major engineering firms in Colorado in the early days but the progressive firms came to see the benefit to them and the removal of liability of field staking. Today every major contractor in our market has followed our lead and has or is acquiring GPS capability.

As to mistakes on models, just like an incompetent contractor whose operators can’t properly make grade or run a job, he should go out of business. This technology is helping to eliminate some of the good ol’ boy hicks who have always plagued this industry. These are the guys pushing for this regulation because they can’t embrace the computer age.

We have always done our own modeling in-house and recently got the U.S. Corps of Engineers to change their policy and release electronics to embrace the new technology they invented. This saved the government and taxpayers millions.

There are those who want to stay in the horse-and-buggy days but as for me, I’ll embrace the new millennium.

Jeff Dwire
DWIRE Earthmoving & Excavating

A Call for Specific Testing

As a former representative of machine control equipment/training/modeling for more than four years (and more than 400 models created specifically for machine control), I was for anyone creating 3D models because I found it very difficult to find/train anyone from engineers to field construction guys to create accurate models in a timely manner. Some get it, some don't and I don't believe some things can be taught in school/classes that are needed to create good models. For example, these include visualizing in your mind of what you are modeling, being able to correctly manipulate the surface in a timely manner, identifying errors/omissions and generating suitable changes, understanding construction layout, engineering/surveying practices, etc.

My thoughts, now that I'm building models on my own, are ONLY registered engineers/surveyors should be able to create 3D models for construction purposes, IF and ONLY IF there is a test (like the eight-hour PE exam) to show your competence in modeling (not CAD drafting). Maybe there could even be a new Engineering/Surveying Category for strictly 3D modeling - Civil, Mechanical, Structural, Electrical, etc. Basically, any engineering group could be certified for their type of modeling.

I have a few examples of detailed models on my Web site showing the type of detail needed in modeling for various types of sites and associated linework files to define where you are on your site. Most people think they can model, but they just don't understand the detail the machines/rovers need to maximize their potential. I like to tell people these machine will cut a bad model accurately so you need a precise model.

I think I read before someone said "you need an engineer, surveyor and a super CAD person to create a supermodel" ... but I believe this needs to be ONE person (me?).

--Thad Glankler, P.E.
Glankler Data Services LLP

More Structure is Necessary for Quality Control

I have read your articles, and I do have sympathy for the engineers and surveyors who lose business because of new method practices by construction companies. I have been involved in take-offs and/or modeling since the late ’80s. I started on the grading contractor side in the field as a grade checker. I currently work as an estimator/PM for a grading contractor in Southern California. I have worked on the engineering/surveying side as a designer draftsman/CAD and as a survey party chief. I have an LSIT since 1994 and have been formally educated in a surveying program from a local college.

One of my duties here is to ensure quality control in the models for the field in GPS grade checking and machine control. We do have an LS/PE on staff for oversight, and do believe it is a necessary practice when the quality of engineering does not exist and civil interpretation is needed, or when control is needed that is not being provided due to lack of cooperation from the site surveyor or engineer.

As far as a professional service that offers models to be prepared and made for contractors; oversight should be by someone licensed if done out-of-house; however, GPS is nothing more than technology. Would this apply to the use of a scale on a set of plans and a laser? The means and methods of each contractor vary, and each software package varies as well. A generic model of the site may not be what a contractor wants at all. Models based on activities of work. Confinements/restrictions based on a contract between the owner and the contractor play a part in how a model is derived. I really don't believe an LS who builds a model for construction will relieve the risk and liability of a contractor who uses that model. Most models undergo manipulation in the field to be useful, which is a very dynamic part on the construction side.

Some sort of submittal between the owner, engineer and contractor is needed or needs to be standardized that will meets the needs of the project. Many engineers produce CAD drawings with linework that should not be considered engineered and is very ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Perhaps an ANSI standard or similar certification could define how points and methods are passed back and forth from engineer to surveyor to contractor; this could be monitored by the owner or anyone responsible for the contract of the project or quality control of the project.

As technology moves forward and more machines become integrated as a single entity working together on the site; this will cause surveyors and out-of-house data prep services to be used less. In-house management of the site will be necessary, and an onsite tech who knows how to model as well as implement GPS will be needed.

Some sort of structure will be needed so that work practices and methods done by a contractor will be acceptable to the surveyor of record and vice versa.

--Jon Neville
Mountain Movers