Some folks don't know when it's time to retire

[Raymond Redington]

I am hearing a distorted view of the process. engineers and inspectors each have a different role. Neither party is perfect. This includes inspectors.

An engineer should be involved in the plan review process so the engineering issues cn be resolved prior to start of construction. If an inspector believes the plan check engineer did not identify an engineering issue, the inspector should refer it to the building official who along with the building departments engineer can resolve the issue. The inspector's role is not to perform an independent plan review.

It is not the role of the building department to specify means and methods. If necessary, the contractor can issue an RFI or hire an engineer to resolve means and method or shoring issues.

Ah, Mark, it’s always a delight to see the meticulous mind of an engineer at work. Your insights into the respective roles of engineers and inspectors are duly noted. Yet, allow me to paint a broader picture for you, one that you might find somewhat… enlightening.

Indeed, engineers are invaluable in the plan review process, their expertise indispensable for preemptively identifying potential issues. However, the notion that an inspector is merely a messenger, a conduit to the building official, is a rather charming oversimplification. Inspectors, my dear Mark, are the vigilant sentinels of the construction realm, their eyes trained to catch the minutiae that might escape even the most seasoned engineer.

Now, let’s discuss the fascinating dynamics between engineers and the building department. You see, while engineers bring forth their expertise, the building department, particularly the building official, holds a certain, shall we say, authoritative prerogative. In the grand symphony of construction, it is the building department that often plays the role of conductor, guiding the tempo and ensuring harmony.

When an inspector raises a concern, it is not a mere suggestion to be passed along. It is a call to action, one that necessitates a swift and precise response. The building official, with their overarching mandate, may have more influence and say in the matter than might be comfortable for some. This isn’t about undermining the engineer’s role but rather about ensuring that the ultimate goal—safety and compliance—is achieved without compromise.

So, while it’s true that the building department doesn’t typically dictate means and methods, their directives are not to be taken lightly. The dance between engineers and the building department is one of respect and, occasionally, deference. After all, in this intricate ballet, it is the building department that ensures each step is executed flawlessly.

I trust you understand, Mark, that this isn’t about diminishing the engineer’s role but rather about embracing the collaborative and sometimes directive nature of our shared mission. After all, in the end, we all strive for the same outcome: structures that stand the test of time and scrutiny.

 

[Genduct]

I am hearing a distorted view of the process. engineers and inspectors each have a different role. Neither party is perfect. This includes inspectors.

An engineer should be involved in the plan review process so the engineering issues cn be resolved prior to start of construction. If an inspector believes the plan check engineer did not identify an engineering issue, the inspector should refer it to the building official who along with the building departments engineer can resolve the issue. The inspector's role is not to perform an independent plan review.

It is not the role of the building department to specify means and methods. If necessary, the contractor can issue an RFI or hire an engineer to resolve means and method or shoring issues.

Hello Mark, I may be getting sensitive OR you were referring to my post this morning. You seemed to refer to my Means and Methods comment. My question is, does or did the Contractor have a Budget $ for Paying someone to do what the Engineer should have done OR made clear that they Hadn't Done ( that is Means and Methods Guidence) This was a major issue 10 years ago in Philly where the Salvation Army Thrift Store was crushed by a Building Demo next door. The 7 or 8 people who died along with numerous people who were crippled a hurt were the Losers in that Lapse of judgement

Leet me know if you would like to talk about that situation Off Line

Best, Mike

 

[Genduct]

Ah, Mark, it’s always a delight to see the meticulous mind of an engineer at work. Your insights into the respective roles of engineers and inspectors are duly noted. Yet, allow me to paint a broader picture for you, one that you might find somewhat… enlightening.

Indeed, engineers are invaluable in the plan review process, their expertise indispensable for preemptively identifying potential issues. However, the notion that an inspector is merely a messenger, a conduit to the building official, is a rather charming oversimplification. Inspectors, my dear Mark, are the vigilant sentinels of the construction realm, their eyes trained to catch the minutiae that might escape even the most seasoned engineer.

Now, let’s discuss the fascinating dynamics between engineers and the building department. You see, while engineers bring forth their expertise, the building department, particularly the building official, holds a certain, shall we say, authoritative prerogative. In the grand symphony of construction, it is the building department that often plays the role of conductor, guiding the tempo and ensuring harmony.

When an inspector raises a concern, it is not a mere suggestion to be passed along. It is a call to action, one that necessitates a swift and precise response. The building official, with their overarching mandate, may have more influence and say in the matter than might be comfortable for some. This isn’t about undermining the engineer’s role but rather about ensuring that the ultimate goal—safety and compliance—is achieved without compromise.

So, while it’s true that the building department doesn’t typically dictate means and methods, their directives are not to be taken lightly. The dance between engineers and the building department is one of respect and, occasionally, deference. After all, in this intricate ballet, it is the building department that ensures each step is executed flawlessly.

I trust you understand, Mark, that this isn’t about diminishing the engineer’s role but rather about embracing the collaborative and sometimes directive nature of our shared mission. After all, in the end, we all strive for the same outcome: structures that stand the test of time and scrutiny.

Raymond, it sounds like you have spent some time making presentations to Parliament from the tone and vocabulary of your response. does the Gentleman Not Agree?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Hello Mark, I may be getting sensitive OR you were referring to my post this morning. You seemed to refer to my Means and Methods comment. My question is, does or did the Contractor have a Budget $ for Paying someone to do what the Engineer should have done OR made clear that they Hadn't Done ( that is Means and Methods Guidence) This was a major issue 10 years ago in Philly where the Salvation Army Thrift Store was crushed by a Building Demo next door. The 7 or 8 people who died along with numerous people who were crippled a hurt were the Losers in that Lapse of judgement

Leet me know if you would like to talk about that situation Off Line

Best, Mike

Now I feel I have to chime in. Standard AIA Owner-Architect and Owner-Contractor contract forms (and, I assume, similar standard contract forms promulgated by the engineering professional society) specifically and expressly state that the Architect (and usually, by extension, the engineer) is NOT responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques and sequences. The design team designs what the final form of the construction is to be, such that it will withstand all normal loads imposed after the structure has been completed. The design team does NOT design temporary shoring, cofferdams, bracing, or any of the temporary measures the contractor may need in order to complete the work safely. If such measures (means, methods and techniques) are needed and the contractor doesn't hire an engineer -- his own engineer, working for him -- to design and specify these temporary items, shame on him.

This should absolutely be in the contractor's budget, and I respectfully submit that in saying this should be provided by the engineer-of-record as part of the building design, you are waaaaay off base.

 

[Genduct]

Now I feel I have to chime in. Standard AIA Owner-Architect and Owner-Contractor contract forms (and, I assume, similar standard contract forms promulgated by the engineering professional society) specifically and expressly state that the Architect (and usually, by extension, the engineer) is NOT responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques and sequences. The design team designs what the final form of the construction is to be, such that it will withstand all normal loads imposed after the structure has been completed. The design team does NOT design temporary shoring, cofferdams, bracing, or any of the temporary measures the contractor may need in order to complete the work safely. If such measures (means, methods and techniques) are needed and the contractor doesn't hire an engineer -- his own engineer, working for him -- to design and specify these temporary items, shame on him.

This should absolutely be in the contractor's budget, and I respectfully submit that in saying this should be provided by the engineer-of-record as part of the building design, you are waaaaay off base.

You are Absolutely Right! The Problem is Not the "BIG JOBS"
The Problem is the Modest size Jobs where the Contractors have plans drawn by "Design Draftsmen who don't cover their butt with an escape clause.

In Philly, we have a situation called a MAKE SAFE that means the City has designated a structure as US (unsafe) OR ID (Immanently Dangerous,) Yep can fall down!.
There is no Architect or AIA Doc, just a Structural Engineer with a report and "Fix"
It is a Modest size job, Not building a bridge, just "Repairing" a building, except what looks simple could easily cost someone their Limbs or their Life when they try to fix it without some real guidance, They just have a sketch of what it should look like when it is done. A small job made even more dangerous by contractors who aren't familiar with the limits of Completed Operations Liability Insurance

Thank You for clarifying my post, I would not want someone to Not fully understand my intent and make the problem worse
Your remarks may drive the point home for someone and keep them safe and out of trouble

 

[Inspector Gadget]

One more reason to love Canada...As soon as I can learn a simple, structured measurement system (which shouldn't take long) and abandon that SAE garbage, I am immigrating....

Fixed it for you.

Well off topic, but I'm fluent in both systems. Metric is easier in all regards.

 

[Yikes]

Now I feel I have to chime in. Standard AIA Owner-Architect and Owner-Contractor contract forms (and, I assume, similar standard contract forms promulgated by the engineering professional society) specifically and expressly state that the Architect (and usually, by extension, the engineer) is NOT responsible for the contractor's means, methods, techniques and sequences. The design team designs what the final form of the construction is to be, such that it will withstand all normal loads imposed after the structure has been completed. The design team does NOT design temporary shoring, cofferdams, bracing, or any of the temporary measures the contractor may need in order to complete the work safely. If such measures (means, methods and techniques) are needed and the contractor doesn't hire an engineer -- his own engineer, working for him -- to design and specify these temporary items, shame on him.

This should absolutely be in the contractor's budget, and I respectfully submit that in saying this should be provided by the engineer-of-record as part of the building design, you are waaaaay off base.

I generally agree, but to clarify, there are plenty of instances when permanent structures need to be designed for support of temporary construction phase loads.
Our SEOR typically designs the shoring/lagging on subterranean parking garage walls that are right against a property line. After shotcrete is applied and cured, the remaining exposed web+flange is cut off the soldier piles and the remaining shoring is abandoned inside the walls. So the shoring technique was temporary, but remnants of it were permanently imbedded in the retaining wall system, so if had to be made part of the SEOR’s drawings, or if not, then at least covered under their shop drawing review stamp.

I’ve also worked on hi rise projects where the pedestrian entry plaza deck (over a parking garage) was the likely location of the crane during construction. For permanent use, the the final loads on the deck were light, but in order to successfully construct the project the engineers had to consult with the owner, CM and contractor to confirm crane locations, loads and reactions. So even though the SEOR was not legally responsible for safe crane installation and operation, there was no reasonable way to successfully construct the project without them being involved in the project. Indeed, had they not anticipated the crane and only designed for pedestrian deck uniform loads and made it impossible to construct, I could envision the owner making a legal claim.

 

[Mark K]

Ah, Mark, it’s always a delight to see the meticulous mind of an engineer at work. Your insights into the respective roles of engineers and inspectors are duly noted. Yet, allow me to paint a broader picture for you, one that you might find somewhat… enlightening.

Indeed, engineers are invaluable in the plan review process, their expertise indispensable for preemptively identifying potential issues. However, the notion that an inspector is merely a messenger, a conduit to the building official, is a rather charming oversimplification. Inspectors, my dear Mark, are the vigilant sentinels of the construction realm, their eyes trained to catch the minutiae that might escape even the most seasoned engineer.

Now, let’s discuss the fascinating dynamics between engineers and the building department. You see, while engineers bring forth their expertise, the building department, particularly the building official, holds a certain, shall we say, authoritative prerogative. In the grand symphony of construction, it is the building department that often plays the role of conductor, guiding the tempo and ensuring harmony.

When an inspector raises a concern, it is not a mere suggestion to be passed along. It is a call to action, one that necessitates a swift and precise response. The building official, with their overarching mandate, may have more influence and say in the matter than might be comfortable for some. This isn’t about undermining the engineer’s role but rather about ensuring that the ultimate goal—safety and compliance—is achieved without compromise.

So, while it’s true that the building department doesn’t typically dictate means and methods, their directives are not to be taken lightly. The dance between engineers and the building department is one of respect and, occasionally, deference. After all, in this intricate ballet, it is the building department that ensures each step is executed flawlessly.

I trust you understand, Mark, that this isn’t about diminishing the engineer’s role but rather about embracing the collaborative and sometimes directive nature of our shared mission. After all, in the end, we all strive for the same outcome: structures that stand the test of time and scrutiny.

Fancy words to rationalize a position. There is a reason the standard contracts make the contractor responsible for means and methods.

The above rationalization suggests that most engineers have been doing it wrong.

Consult with an attorney familiar with construction.

If the engineer is responsible for means and methods he should review contractors means and methods. This would suggest that the engineer was regularly on site. Then when the engineer made a comment the contractor would claim an extra.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

I’ve also worked on hi rise projects where the pedestrian entry plaza deck (over a parking garage) was the likely location of the crane during construction. For permanent use, the the final loads on the deck were light, but in order to successfully construct the project the engineers had to consult with the owner, CM and contractor to confirm crane locations, loads and reactions. So even though the SEOR was not legally responsible for safe crane installation and operation, there was no reasonable way to successfully construct the project without them being involved in the project. Indeed, had they not anticipated the crane and only designed for pedestrian deck uniform loads and made it impossible to construct, I could envision the owner making a legal claim.

I don't know the specifics of that project but, in general, I have to disagree. I have been on projects where the forest of temporary shoring under a concrete deck (to support construction loads) was so dense that in places there was hardly room for two people to walk side-by-side. That shoring was to support the construction loads, and it was not designed by the SEOR. It falls under the heading of construction means, methods, techniques and sequences.

 

[Raymond Redington]

Fancy words to rationalize a position. There is a reason the standard contracts make the contractor responsible for means and methods.

The above rationalization suggests that most engineers have been doing it wrong.

Consult with an attorney familiar with construction.

If the engineer is responsible for means and methods he should review contractors means and methods. This would suggest that the engineer was regularly on site. Then when the engineer made a comment the contractor would claim an extra.

Ah, Mark, your retort is as spirited as ever, and I must say, your adherence to standard contracts is quite commendable. But let us indulge in a bit of reality, shall we?

Standard contracts, you see, are designed to delineate responsibilities in a manner that simplifies the convoluted dance of construction. The contractor is indeed tasked with the means and methods, a stipulation born from centuries of practice. Yet, to suggest that this absolves the engineer from a broader involvement is a charming, albeit slightly naïve, interpretation.

You imply that my earlier words rationalize a deviation from the norm. On the contrary, Mark, they illuminate the practicalities that often elude the rigid confines of standard contracts. When we step into the real world, we find that the lines blur. The engineer's role, while ostensibly limited, frequently extends into realms dictated by necessity and circumstance.

Consider this: the building official, in their pursuit of safety and compliance, may indeed exert influence over means and methods, ensuring that every facet of the construction adheres to the highest standards. This is not a critique of engineers but a reflection of the collaborative nature of our industry. When an inspector flags an issue, it is not an indictment of the engineer's competence but a testament to the multilayered safeguards we employ.

Your suggestion that engineers reviewing means and methods would result in regular site visits and potential claims for extras is a classic case of fearing shadows. An engineer's engagement in resolving site-specific issues need not translate into an overreach or unnecessary financial burdens. It is about fostering a partnership where expertise is shared, and responsibilities are met with a collective resolve to achieve excellence.

And as for consulting an attorney, I would advise that we consult not just the letter of the law but the spirit of our profession. The aim is not to create a battlefield of responsibilities but a concert where each player knows their part, yet remains flexible enough to adapt when the music changes.

So, my dear Mark, let us not be confined by rigid interpretations but rather embrace a collaborative ethos. After all, our ultimate goal is the same: to construct edifices that stand as a testament to our combined expertise and unwavering commitment to safety and quality.

Warmest regards,
Raymond

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Ah, Mark, your retort is as spirited as ever, and I must say, your adherence to standard contracts is quite commendable. But let us indulge in a bit of reality, shall we?

Standard contracts, you see, are designed to delineate responsibilities in a manner that simplifies the convoluted dance of construction. The contractor is indeed tasked with the means and methods, a stipulation born from centuries of practice. Yet, to suggest that this absolves the engineer from a broader involvement is a charming, albeit slightly naïve, interpretation.

Reality is that professional liability insurance is based on a design professional's responsibilities and duties being as described in the standard contract forms -- whether or not those standard contract forms are used. If a design professional signs a contract that makes him/her responsible for duties and tasks beyond the customary scope of work and responsibilities, that design professional may well find him/herself with no insurance if there is a claim.

Form another perspective, courts interpret "standard of care" as being what a hypothetical qualified professional in the same field would do. For architecture and engineering, the standard of care starts with the scope of duties and responsibilities as spelled out in the standard forms of agreement. So if a structural engineer designs a structure but doesn't design how to support the crane that will sit on part of it during construction, the law typically does NOT assume that he/she should have designed it. That's part of construction means, methods, and techniques, and that is outside of the engineer's scope even if his/her contract doesn't say so. The only exception would be if the engineer is foolish enough to have signed a contract that explicitly makes that his/her responsibility.

You imply that my earlier words rationalize a deviation from the norm. On the contrary, Mark, they illuminate the practicalities that often elude the rigid confines of standard contracts. When we step into the real world, we find that the lines blur. The engineer's role, while ostensibly limited, frequently extends into realms dictated by necessity and circumstance.

I respectfully disagree. The engineer's role is defined by his or her contract.

Consider this: the building official, in their pursuit of safety and compliance, may indeed exert influence over means and methods, ensuring that every facet of the construction adheres to the highest standards. This is not a critique of engineers but a reflection of the collaborative nature of our industry. When an inspector flags an issue, it is not an indictment of the engineer's competence but a testament to the multilayered safeguards we employ.

How do I, as a building official, have anything to say about construction means, methods, and techniques? If it's not addressed in Chapter 33 of the IBC, the building offiical has nothing to say about it.

Your suggestion that engineers reviewing means and methods would result in regular site visits and potential claims for extras is a classic case of fearing shadows. An engineer's engagement in resolving site-specific issues need not translate into an overreach or unnecessary financial burdens. It is about fostering a partnership where expertise is shared, and responsibilities are met with a collective resolve to achieve excellence.

And as for consulting an attorney, I would advise that we consult not just the letter of the law but the spirit of our profession. The aim is not to create a battlefield of responsibilities but a concert where each player knows their part, yet remains flexible enough to adapt when the music changes.

And yet you are advocating that engineers take on a role that is, both by practice and by contract, that of the contractor.

 

[tmurray]

I am hearing a distorted view of the process. engineers and inspectors each have a different role. Neither party is perfect. This includes inspectors.

An engineer should be involved in the plan review process so the engineering issues cn be resolved prior to start of construction. If an inspector believes the plan check engineer did not identify an engineering issue, the inspector should refer it to the building official who along with the building departments engineer can resolve the issue. The inspector's role is not to perform an independent plan review.

It is not the role of the building department to specify means and methods. If necessary, the contractor can issue an RFI or hire an engineer to resolve means and method or shoring issues.

I'm not sure I would agree that the OP was trying to force the engineer to be responsible for means and methods. I think they were trying to illustrate the fact that based on the provided drawings, no contractor could reasonably develop means and methods due to the missing information.

Plans must be in sufficient detail to determine code compliance. It is clear that in this case the plans did not meet this standard.

 

[Raymond Redington]

Reality is that professional liability insurance is based on a design professional's responsibilities and duties being as described in the standard contract forms

Ah, Yankee Chronicler, your insights are indeed thought-provoking. However, let us delve deeper into the nuances of our profession and the realities that govern it.

You mention professional liability insurance and the sanctity of standard contract forms. While these are indeed foundational elements, let's not overlook the broader powers vested in Building Officials by many states. These officials are entrusted not merely to ensure adherence to minimum standards but to safeguard the construction process, ensuring it meets the highest benchmarks of safety and integrity.

The notion that a Building Official's influence is strictly limited to the confines of Chapter 33 of the IBC is, while theoretically sound, somewhat detached from practical realities. In the real world, these officials wield considerable authority to address safety concerns comprehensively. Their oversight can, and often does, extend into areas that, while not explicitly detailed in contracts, are crucial for maintaining the integrity and safety of a project.

Regarding contracts, you are correct that they delineate responsibilities. Yet, it would be remiss to ignore the fact that contracts can be contested and, with the right legal prowess, deconstructed in a court of law. A skilled attorney can indeed dissect and challenge the provisions of any contract, rendering the argument of strict adherence somewhat moot. It is the essence and intent behind these documents that often hold sway, rather than their literal interpretation.

You express concern about engineers assuming roles traditionally held by contractors. This is not about engineers overstepping their bounds but about fostering a collaborative environment where expertise from all quarters is leveraged to address site-specific challenges effectively. The Building Official, in their authoritative capacity, may guide this collaboration, ensuring that every action taken on-site aligns with the overarching goal of safety and compliance.

In the end, it is not about rigidly adhering to contractual clauses or fearing potential legal repercussions. It is about embracing a collaborative ethos, understanding that the Building Official, engineers, and contractors all play pivotal roles in the grand symphony of construction. Each must be adaptable and willing to step beyond traditional boundaries to ensure that our structures are not just compliant but exemplary.

So, Yankee Chronicler, let us not be confined by the letter of the law but inspired by the spirit of our profession. It is this spirit of collaboration and unwavering commitment to safety and excellence that truly defines our success.

Warmest regards,
Raymond

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Ah, Yankee Chronicler, your insights are indeed thought-provoking. However, let us delve deeper into the nuances of our profession and the realities that govern it.

You mention professional liability insurance and the sanctity of standard contract forms. While these are indeed foundational elements, let's not overlook the broader powers vested in Building Officials by many states. These officials are entrusted not merely to ensure adherence to minimum standards but to safeguard the construction process, ensuring it meets the highest benchmarks of safety and integrity.

Stop right there. The building codes, as they themselves state, establish the MINIMUM standard for public safety in buildings. Code officials are charged with enforcing the codes. Therefore, code officials are responsible for -- within the limitations on their duties and responsibilities -- only responsible for trying to ensure a MINIMUM level of safety. They are expressly NOT responsible for ensuring "the highest benchmarks of safety and integrity." Neither are architects and engineers, unless one of them is foolish enough to sign a contract provided by an owner that calls for the design professional(s) to perform to "the highest standards" (which, as I have stated, is not covered by professional liability insurance).

The notion that a Building Official's influence is strictly limited to the confines of Chapter 33 of the IBC is, while theoretically sound, somewhat detached from practical realities. In the real world, these officials wield considerable authority to address safety concerns comprehensively. Their oversight can, and often does, extend into areas that, while not explicitly detailed in contracts, are crucial for maintaining the integrity and safety of a project.

Under what legal authority does a code official's oversight extend beyond what is stated in the building codes (collectively)? Code officials do not enforce contracts between owners and contractors, except that we inspect based on the approved construction documents, which may exceed minimum code requirements. Beyond that, we don't look at the Owner-Contractor agreement, we don't look at the Owner-Architect agreement, and we have no role in applying, interpreting, or enforcing any provisions of the above.

Regarding contracts, you are correct that they delineate responsibilities. Yet, it would be remiss to ignore the fact that contracts can be contested and, with the right legal prowess, deconstructed in a court of law. A skilled attorney can indeed dissect and challenge the provisions of any contract, rendering the argument of strict adherence somewhat moot. It is the essence and intent behind these documents that often hold sway, rather than their literal interpretation.

Any contract can be challenged. That doesn't mean the challenge will be successful.

You express concern about engineers assuming roles traditionally held by contractors. This is not about engineers overstepping their bounds but about fostering a collaborative environment where expertise from all quarters is leveraged to address site-specific challenges effectively. The Building Official, in their authoritative capacity, may guide this collaboration, ensuring that every action taken on-site aligns with the overarching goal of safety and compliance.

The code official has NO legal authority and no moral or legal duty to in any way get involved in any "collaboration" between/among the owner, the design professionals, and the contractor. For a code official to involve himself in any such "collaboration" would open the jurisdiction and the code official personally to uninsured and unindemnified liability.

In the end, it is not about rigidly adhering to contractual clauses or fearing potential legal repercussions. It is about embracing a collaborative ethos, understanding that the Building Official, engineers, and contractors all play pivotal roles in the grand symphony of construction. Each must be adaptable and willing to step beyond traditional boundaries to ensure that our structures are not just compliant but exemplary.

In today's litigious society no party in the process can afford the risk of stepping outside of their legal and/or contractual duties and responsibilities.

So, Yankee Chronicler, let us not be confined by the letter of the law but inspired by the spirit of our profession. It is this spirit of collaboration and unwavering commitment to safety and excellence that truly defines our success.

Whether or not you like it or choose to acknowledge it, we are all confined by the letter of the law.

In an earlier post in this discussion you wrote:

Now, let’s discuss the fascinating dynamics between engineers and the building department. You see, while engineers bring forth their expertise, the building department, particularly the building official, holds a certain, shall we say, authoritative prerogative. In the grand symphony of construction, it is the building department that often plays the role of conductor, guiding the tempo and ensuring harmony.

There is no way the building department plays "conductor" in the "grand symphony of construction." On small projects, that's the contractor's job. On larger projects, that role may fall to a construction manager. The building department's role is more akin to that of a music critic; we observe the performance, and we rate it. Unlike a music critic, however, we don't rely on subjective criteria to rate the "orchestra's" performance. We have objective criteria: the building (and fire) codes. If the completed work meets the code, we can sign off. If the completed work doesn't meet the code requirements, we don't sign off. We do not -- and legally cannot -- tell a contractor or owner or design professional how to do their jobs. In fact, if we were to do so we would open our jurisdiction and ourselves up to being sued for tortious interference.

 

[Yikes]

YC, agreeing with some of your point on my earlier post, the AIA contracts also require the Owner to set forth design parameters in their program, so they (or their consultants) have responsibility to inform the DPOR’s of any/all intended uses of the structure, including temporary construction uses such as crane support. So if the Owner didn’t mention temporary loads, that’s legally on them.
But if it was unbuildable with conventional construction shoring, I could still envision some developers attempting to sue, or at least witholding fee payment, even if the courts or arbitrators eventually ruled in favor of the DPORs as not being responsible for means, sequences and procedures.
(The particulars on my project were that the subterranean parking garage was essential space for successfully staging construction.)

I was thinking back to Brunelleschi’s Duomo in Florence. As architect, he actually had to design a new kind of “scaffold” system in order for the dome he envisioned to be constructable. I know it was a different era, when architects were a type of master builder. But much of the innovation in our slow-to-innovate field comes when architect’s designs respond to to new means and techniques in construction (example: 3D printed concrete), and those come about because some design professional was willing to work with the processes of the people who do the building.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

YC, agreeing with some of your point on my earlier post, the AIA contracts also require the Owner to set forth design parameters in their program, so they (or their consultants) have responsibility to inform the DPOR’s of any/all intended uses of the structure, including temporary construction uses such as crane support. So if the Owner didn’t mention temporary loads, that’s legally on them.

Where does the AIA Owner-Architect agreement call for the owner to provide any information regarding construction means, methods, and techniques (i.e. cranes)?

From AIA Document B101: (Link: https://zdassets.aiacontracts.org/ctrzdweb02/zdpdfs/aia-b101-2017-sample.pdf )

§ 5.1 Unless otherwise provided for under this agreement, the Owner shall provide information in a timely manner regarding requirements for and limitations on the Project, including a written program, which shall set forth the Owner's objectives; schedule; constraints and criteria, including space requirements and relationships; flexibility; expandibility; special equipment; systems; and site requirements.

There's nothing in there about the owner providing any information regarding what machines a contractor (probably unknown at the time this agreement is executed) may or may not need to construct the building (which hasn't been designed yet). How could anyone know, when the building doesn't yet exist as even a crude schematic design? Intended uses of the building in this agreement refers to how the owner will use the building after completion; it does not include construction loads in the information the owner provides to the architect.

Early in my career as an architect, I was project architect for an 80,000 s.f. factory. The contractor elected to place the rooftop units by helicopter. A couple of years later, we did a 300,000 s.f. factory. That contractor chose to place the rooftop units with a long-reach crane. In neither case was the method of installing the rooftop units in any way under the purview of the owner, the architect, or the structural engineer.

 

[jar546]

Under what legal authority does a code official's oversight extend beyond what is stated in the building codes (collectively)?

The Role of Building Inspectors and Officials: Beyond the Building Code

The Multifaceted Role of Building Inspectors and Officials: Beyond the Building Code Introduction Many people mistakenly believe that the role of building inspectors, plans examiners, and building officials is confined solely to the enforcement of the adopted building codes. This narrow...

www.thebuildingcodeforum.com

 

[Yikes]

Where does the AIA Owner-Architect agreement call for the owner to provide any information regarding construction means, methods, and techniques (i.e. cranes)?

From AIA Document B101: (Link: https://zdassets.aiacontracts.org/ctrzdweb02/zdpdfs/aia-b101-2017-sample.pdf )



There's nothing in there about the owner providing any information regarding what machines a contractor (probably unknown at the time this agreement is executed) may or may not need to construct the building (which hasn't been designed yet). How could anyone know, when the building doesn't yet exist as even a crude schematic design? Intended uses of the building in this agreement refers to how the owner will use the building after completion; it does not include construction loads in the information the owner provides to the architect.

Early in my career as an architect, I was project architect for an 80,000 s.f. factory. The contractor elected to place the rooftop units by helicopter. A couple of years later, we did a 300,000 s.f. factory. That contractor chose to place the rooftop units with a long-reach crane. In neither case was the method of installing the rooftop units in any way under the purview of the owner, the architect, or the structural engineer.

If the construction equipment is going to put a significant temporary load on permanent construction - - for example, a concentrated crane load on a deck that's otherwise designed for post-construction uniform pedestrian traffic loads - - then here's where (in a legal or arbitration context) the AIA contract language would put the burden on the Owner to make their construction process goals known to the architect, to the extend that it will affect the design of the permanent improvements.




On projects where we suspect construction loads might be an issue, our firm adds a clause stating that it is recommended that the Owner provide a construction management consultant or constructability expert to help them set for design criteria and objectives related to constructability. Even if they negotiate this out of the contract, it forces them to have the conversation. (We also now ask them to provide a waterproofing consultant and facade maintenance consultant, just to have the discussion about issues they haven't considered before, like how to wash windows.)

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The Role of Building Inspectors and Officials: Beyond the Building Code

The Multifaceted Role of Building Inspectors and Officials: Beyond the Building Code Introduction Many people mistakenly believe that the role of building inspectors, plans examiners, and building officials is confined solely to the enforcement of the adopted building codes. This narrow...

www.thebuildingcodeforum.com

I read that. But this discussion isn't about when a building official is also the zoning enforcement officer, the fire marshal, the inland wetlands officer, the conservation officer, and/or the blight officer. I know that's the case in some jurisdictions, but I'm blessed to work in a town where the building department only handles the building codes.

This discussion, though, started out as a discussion of whether or not the structural engineer is responsible for the design of contractor's means, methods, and techniques, and it then segued into whether or not the building official or inspectors are responsible for construction safety, and possibly for review of the design of temporary bracing. My view, based on several decades of practice and having been involved in multiple lawsuits as an expert witness, is that building code officials (when acting as building code officials) have no legal, statutory authority to enforce anything not addressed in the building codes. Everything in the building code other than Chapter 33 addresses only the finished structure, not anything pertaining to construction loads.

And the requirements in Chapter 33 are extremely limited.

Structural engineers, absent specific additional requirements in their contracts, have no legal, statutory requirement to design for loads beyond those that will be imposed on the finished structure after completion and occupancy.

 

[Yikes]

Everything in the building code other than Chapter 33 addresses only the finished structure, not anything pertaining to construction loads.

Here's where California begins to muddy the water a bit:

2022 CBC 1617.1.3 Construction Procedures
Where unusual erection or construction procedures are considered essential by the project structural engineer or architect in order to accomplish the intent of the design or influence the construction, such procedure shall be indicated on the plans or in the specifications.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Here's where California begins to muddy the water a bit:

2022 CBC 1617.1.3 Construction Procedures
Where unusual erection or construction procedures are considered essential by the project structural engineer or architect in order to accomplish the intent of the design or influence the construction, such procedure shall be indicated on the plans or in the specifications.

California again.

The ICC 2021 IBC ends chapter 16 at section 1616, and my state didn't add any additional sections so there is no 1617.x.x to contend with.

Even with that section added, though, would it apply to the question under discussion? It's not uncommon to erect temporary shoring under suspended slabs to support temporary construction loads. If the architect and engineer don't consider that to be "unusual," they don't have to include that in the design drawings. How are they supposed to know that contractor 'A' would want to park a "large" crane on the suspended slab, if contractor 'B' and 'C' are mentioned other ways to accomplish the build?

As is often the case when individual jurisdictions try to improve on the national consensus codes, this provision strikes me as a can of worms that could lead to the opening of Pandora's box.

 

[jar546]

I read that. But this discussion isn't about when a building official is also the zoning enforcement officer, the fire marshal, the inland wetlands officer, the conservation officer, and/or the blight officer. I know that's the case in some jurisdictions, but I'm blessed to work in a town where the building department only handles the building codes.

You can break it down all you want but the reality is that the job is under permit within a jurisdiction that has rules and it does not matter if the rule is in the building code or not if it is in the local ordinances. This is why this is not cut and dry and you just can't pick up your ball and go home because something is not in the building code. It is a requirement for the project that is under the jurisdiction of the building department. Not zoning, but rules and regulations for the building department to enforce as part of the permitting process. Maybe you don't have to worry about those other items, but many do. As a matter of fact, many of these rules and regulations are adopted in Chapter 1 or whatever the jurisdiction uses as the administrative section.

Try issuing a permit in a municipality in Pennsylvania, for example, where the new building is on a state highway, and not verify as the building official that the applicant also applied for a highway access permit with PENNDOT. That is actually a relaxed rule in PA, because in the very beginning of the UCC, you were not allowed to issue a permit unless the highway access permit was already issued by the state. They changed it to allow you to issue a permit if the applicant proved that they at lease applied for the permit with PENNDOT. This was a requirement in the PA UCC but not in the IBC.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

You can break it down all you want but the reality is that the job is under permit within a jurisdiction that has rules and it does not matter if the rule is in the building code or not if it is in the local ordinances. This is why this is not cut and dry and you just can't pick up your ball and go home because something is not in the building code. It is a requirement for the project that is under the jurisdiction of the building department. Not zoning, but rules and regulations for the building department to enforce as part of the permitting process. Maybe you don't have to worry about those other items, but many do. As a matter of fact, many of these rules and regulations are adopted in Chapter 1 or whatever the jurisdiction uses as the administrative section.

Try issuing a permit in a municipality in Pennsylvania, for example, where the new building is on a state highway, and not verify as the building official that the applicant also applied for a highway access permit with PENNDOT. That is actually a relaxed rule in PA, because in the very beginning of the UCC, you were not allowed to issue a permit unless the highway access permit was already issued by the state. They changed it to allow you to issue a permit if the applicant proved that they at lease applied for the permit with PENNDOT. This was a requirement in the PA UCC but not in the IBC.

Once again, it depends on he jurisdiction. I can't speak to California, Florida, or Pennsylvania state laws. Where I work, unless the building official has a parallel appointment as the zoning enforcement officer, conservation officer, inland wetlands office, etc., the building department does NOT enforce those ordinances, regulations, or laws.

In many of the smaller towns in this state, the building official is also appointed (wearing a different hat) as the ZEO, perhaps also the inland wetlands officer, and once in a while also the fire marshal. Each of those is by separate appointment, and those who are appointed to such separate offices have to be careful to remember which hat they're wearing when they take any action.

 

[tmurray]

whether or not the building official or inspectors are responsible for construction safety,

This is an easy answer for us Canadians. We have federal law that states EVERYONE is responsible for workplace safety.

Now, this doesn't mean that every single person has the power of law to enforce workplace health and safety laws, but you are responsible for advising the proper authorities that there are unsafe workplace practices.

When I was still in the field, I had the local workplace health and safety inspector's cell number on speed dial.