The sticky wicket, of course, is determining if the engineering IS sound.
We have encountered this question at least twice, both of which I have mentioned in other threads. Structural drawings done by a PE and bearing his seal and signature, but I was convinced they didn't work. In both cases the engineers took the position that, as mere building officials, we couldn't question their work. The second actually stated outright that we had to accept his plans because he had put his seal and signature on them. The first took the position that, even though I am also a licensed architect and I have taken graduate-level structural engineering course, I am not qualified to review his work.
Case 1: In the first case (the one in which the PE literally stole the foundation design and details from a design by another PE for a smaller building), we first consulted the other engineer to ask if he had authorized the re-use of his details. He said he had not. When we told him how big the building we were reviewing was, his response was, "I wouldn't guarantee that will stand up."
To resolve that one, we invoked the last sentence of IBC 107.1, which says, "Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional." We did this after consulting with the Corporation Counsel (town attorney). The theory was that a known, demonstrable case of plagiarized documents, when the engineer who prepared the original details expressed reservations about the adequacy on a larger building, constituted "special conditions." We required a peer review by another PE. That peer review resulted in recommendations for several changes in the foundation design, which were made.
Case 2: The second case was the one involving the 92-year-old PE who claimed he took the sizes of the piers for a PEMB directly from the drawings for the superstructure -- which drawings (of course) didn't include any information whatsoever about foundations, they only provided the reactions at each frame base and the baseplate layouts. We had a meeting with the owner and the engineer, we explained our concerns, the engineer (very reluctantly) agreed to make some revisions to the foundation drawings -- and then resubmitted the same drawings, with no changes. The owner told the boss that the engineer decided we had no right to even review his drawings, since he had put his seal on them, so he wasn't going to make any changes. The project was an addition to an HVAC contractor's building, the owner has been around construction long enough to know a little bit, and he acknowledged to the boss that we were right. He hired a different engineer. The new drawings came in on Friday and, at a quick look, they appear to be okay.
Bottom line: As a plan reviewer, even though as an architect I am legally allowed to practice engineering when it is "incidental to my architectural work," that doesn't extend to when I am wearing my building official hat. I'm not going to try to design a building to see if I come up with the same result as the SEOR. However, any building official can request submission of the engineer's calculations, and you can look at them to see if they used the right loads and if they used the right formulas. But that's a two-edged sword. Unless you're qualified as a structural designer, I would advise NOT looking too deeply into an engineer's calculations because, if in a worst case the project ends up in court, an attorney will rip you apart over your qualifications to review structural calculations. Instead, it would be better (IMHO) to strictly limit your review of engineer's calculations (if you request them) to verify that they are for the project you are reviewing (not recycled from a different building) and that they used the appropriate design loads. Don't go down the rabbit hole of trying to second guess the actual engineering calculations.
