Engineering Creep

[Sifu]

I'll step back in and take a stab.

The IBC states that the documents must be prepared by an RDP when required by the statutes of the AHJ. I have found few statutes that provide specific thresholds. If an AHJ has no statute then they are left with the next code edict, that the building official can require it if the building official feels there are special conditions. "Special conditions" is undefined. I have seen few building officials that will provide specific thresholds for a special condition. There are a lot of building officials that unofficially "require" sealed documents, then back-track. Just last week I received a set of plans that were not sealed. I requested they be prepared by an RDP and sealed, in accordance with the "unofficial" policy. I then got a call from the BO asking if they really needed to be prepared by an RDP and sealed because he got some resistance. I said it was up to him as the BO. He asked me to review them without. I told him that my review is the same whether there is an RDP prepared and sealed document or not. My review demonstrated how using a DP would probably have been beneficial from the start. This isn't always the case, but very often. I do not believe all documents should be required to be prepared and sealed by an RDP, but some thresholds would be nice and might eliminate a lot of frustration. I firmly believe that many problems can be eliminated if we as building officials clearly communicate what is required in order to be successful, and do it as consistently as possible (this would help everybody). We will never be 100% consistent, even in our own methods, but we can try, and make thoughtful (and documented) exceptions as needed.

Our A&E rules state that the DP must seal all pages prepared by them or for which they have taken responsible charge. So if a DP draws it, the DP has to seal it. However, I have seen many pages/plan prepared by a DP that were not sealed. Just got one yesterday. I immediately informed the applicant and within 10 minutes had the sealed pages. MOST of the time I assume this is an over-sight, and the documents were just not complete or the incomplete document was sent by mistake. But, I have had applicants tell me that they receive two prices...one for sealed documents, and one for un-sealed documents from a DP.

 

[mtlogcabin]

During the boom in 05-06 we had a new residential contractor who was an engineer come to town building one a two-family dwellings. His plans never met the code, but he would stamp them and argue that he was an engineer and therefore we should not even be reviewing his homes. After the 4rth house we did some digging into his background and found out he was a chemical engineer for the past 20 years.

If you are concerned about the engineers design, just ask for the calculations. 9 times out of 10 there aren't any and the design will change with the submitted calculations.

 

[classicT]

During the boom in 05-06 we had a new residential contractor who was an engineer come to town building one a two-family dwellings. His plans never met the code, but he would stamp them and argue that he was an engineer and therefore we should not even be reviewing his homes. After the 4rth house we did some digging into his background and found out he was a chemical engineer for the past 20 years.

If you are concerned about the engineers design, just ask for the calculations. 9 times out of 10 there aren't any and the design will change with the submitted calculations.

Reminds me a of a mechanical engineer I met after I refused to approve his geotechnical report. He was sure I didn't need to review his "engineering". I was sure he was incapable of preparing a geotechnical report. The report provided was missing a vast amount of content and was a clear rip-off of some other report (i.e. soil unit described was from SW US and this was in WA).

Sad part is the State Licensing Board for Engineers agreed that the report was beyond his expertise; however, they refused to take action against him because apparently there was not provision of state law (WA) preventing him from doing so. They said if the content of the report was wrong, it was up to the AHJ to disapprove. The licensing board closed the requested investigation without any action against the engineer. Guess the building has to fall down before they would do anything.

 

[tmurray]

Reminds me a of a mechanical engineer I met after I refused to approve his geotechnical report. He was sure I didn't need to review his "engineering". I was sure he was incapable of preparing a geotechnical report. The report provided was missing a vast amount of content and was a clear rip-off of some other report (i.e. soil unit described was from SW US and this was in WA).

Sad part is the State Licensing Board for Engineers agreed that the report was beyond his expertise; however, they refused to take action against him because apparently there was not provision of state law (WA) preventing him from doing so. They said if the content of the report was wrong, it was up to the AHJ to disapprove. The licensing board closed the requested investigation without any action against the engineer. Guess the building has to fall down before they would do anything.

Sounds like they don't want the obligation that goes along with licensing.

 

[Mark K]

PS You may find it of interest, that my general SUGGESTION is that I need plans with the same information that the Contractor needs to BID and BUILD the project

The approved permit drawings are what is given to the contractor to bid on. The contractor is expected to comply with the approved permit drawings. If changes are made during construction the revised construction drawings are submitted to the building department for their approval.

If this is not the case you have problems.

 

[Genduct]

The approved permit drawings are what is given to the contractor to bid on. The contractor is expected to comply with the approved permit drawings. If changes are made during construction the revised construction drawings are submitted to the building department for their approval.

If this is not the case you have problems.

In my experience, the Contractor is submitting the drawings AFTER he has gotten the Job, So our situations are different,

 

[Mark K]

The most naive statement yet. It is the building code that determines when something is not prescriptive and requires engineering.

Depending on your state licensing laws it is possible that something that is considered to be prescriptive may be required to be designed by an architect or engineer.

Do your licensing laws explicitly state that prescriptive designs do not require an engineer?

In California and I suspect other states the state agency that regulates professional engineers is separate from the agency that adopts the state building code. Each agency has only the authority delegated to them by the Legislature. The agency that regulates professional engineers does not have the authority to adopt the building code and that agency responsible for the building code does not have the authority to regulate engineers. They each need to keep in their lane or do we want the building code to define your property tax rate.

 

[Genduct]

I'll step back in and take a stab.

The IBC states that the documents must be prepared by an RDP when required by the statutes of the AHJ. I have found few statutes that provide specific thresholds. If an AHJ has no statute then they are left with the next code edict, that the building official can require it if the building official feels there are special conditions. "Special conditions" is undefined. I have seen few building officials that will provide specific thresholds for a special condition. There are a lot of building officials that unofficially "require" sealed documents, then back-track. Just last week I received a set of plans that were not sealed. I requested they be prepared by an RDP and sealed, in accordance with the "unofficial" policy. I then got a call from the BO asking if they really needed to be prepared by an RDP and sealed because he got some resistance. I said it was up to him as the BO. He asked me to review them without. I told him that my review is the same whether there is an RDP prepared and sealed document or not. My review demonstrated how using a DP would probably have been beneficial from the start. This isn't always the case, but very often. I do not believe all documents should be required to be prepared and sealed by an RDP, but some thresholds would be nice and might eliminate a lot of frustration. I firmly believe that many problems can be eliminated if we as building officials clearly communicate what is required in order to be successful, and do it as consistently as possible (this would help everybody). We will never be 100% consistent, even in our own methods, but we can try, and make thoughtful (and documented) exceptions as needed.

Our A&E rules state that the DP must seal all pages prepared by them or for which they have taken responsible charge. So if a DP draws it, the DP has to seal it. However, I have seen many pages/plan prepared by a DP that were not sealed. Just got one yesterday. I immediately informed the applicant and within 10 minutes had the sealed pages. MOST of the time I assume this is an over-sight, and the documents were just not complete or the incomplete document was sent by mistake. But, I have had applicants tell me that they receive two prices...one for sealed documents, and one for un-sealed documents from a DP.

At the end of the day, we are doing the Qwner and Contractor a real service when we see a situation that looks like a Design Professional is needed.
Contractors generally have Completed Operations Liability Insurance than DOES NOT COVER THEM FOR DESIGN ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
If a problem develops and the Insurance Company ( who is in business to collect premiums and not pay off unless it is clear they are required to) the Insurance Carrier may just DISALLOW THE CLAIM

This is especially true when the Design Professional chooses not to provide the MEANS AND METHODS for some difficult structural modification or Fix

On a couple of occasions, I politely called the Contractor and Engineer and asked if they thought the Insurance Carrier would cover them if there were a problem, I didn't need to Insist, I Just SHARE MY CONCERNS and let them figure it out. You know, the Dr.Phil Approach

 

[Mark K]

So, I believe that a Prudent Designer (remember we just had a post about the non-need for an Engineer using the prescriptive aspect of the Code) Would OR Should
put a Note, or reference to remind the Carpenter to nail it to spec. I am sure they don't carry a copy in their back pocket.
On the Masonry question, I was thinking of expansion joint locations that should be detailed but are usually not
These were used as typical examples

The job of the building department is to enforce the building code not to define what a prudent designer should do.

The things that are not addressed in the building code are left to the owner and its agents.

The construction documents need to clearly define what is required. You can refer to a standard but you cannot rely on the contractors understanding of un-written trade practices.

 

[Mark K]

At the end of the day, we are doing the Qwner and Contractor a real service when we see a situation that looks like a Design Professional is needed.
Contractors generally have Completed Operations Liability Insurance than DOES NOT COVER THEM FOR DESIGN ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
If a problem develops and the Insurance Company ( who is in business to collect premiums and not pay off unless it is clear they are required to) the Insurance Carrier may just DISALLOW THE CLAIM

This is especially true when the Design Professional chooses not to provide the MEANS AND METHODS for some difficult structural modification or Fix

On a couple of occasions, I politely called the Contractor and Engineer and asked if they thought the Insurance Carrier would cover them if there were a problem, I didn't need to Insist, I Just SHARE MY CONCERNS and let them figure it out. You know, the Dr.Phil Approach

A building official that goes beyond his legal mandate may find himself without immunity. The building code does not require insurance.

In my experience both contractors and engineers are very aware of the nature of their insurance coverage. So by raising these issues you are just trying to cause problems.

You are opening a can of worms in suggesting that the engineer should be specifying means and methods. With very very few exemptions the engineer does not specify means and methods. If the contractor has concerns, depending on the circumstances the contractor may hire his own engineer or may discuss his concerns with the engineer who designed the project.

 

[Genduct]

The job of the building department is to enforce the building code not to define what a prudent designer should do.

The things that are not addressed in the building code are left to the owner and its agents.

The construction documents need to clearly define what is required. You can refer to a standard but you cannot rely on the contractors understanding of un-written trade practices.

You said: The job of the building department is to enforce the building code not to define what a prudent designer should do.

And here I was trying to be Polite and Not: In Your Face.
This recent exchange had me share my general suggestions about needing the same info that Contractors need to BID It and Build It
And do it in a Nice Way and you're going to insist I use the BULLY APPROACH You know My Way or the Highway, Or there is a New Sheriff in Town.

I don't resort to that approach unless the person insists on doing it the hard way
So I could get what I need to do my job.

It is really your choice, how you want to be treated. i am just a mirror and reflect what I am seeing and hearing

I still would prefer to be professional If you'll allow me

 

[Genduct]

A building official that goes beyond his legal mandate may find himself without immunity. The building code does not require insurance.

In my experience both contractors and engineers are very aware of the nature of their insurance coverage. So by raising these issues you are just trying to cause problems.

You are opening a can of worms in suggesting that the engineer should be specifying means and methods. With very very few exemptions the engineer does not specify means and methods. If the contractor has concerns, depending on the circumstances the contractor may hire his own engineer or may discuss his concerns with the engineer who designed the project.

Mark, You do like to be Contrary

Did you not read the part about the Contractor's Liability not covering any attempt the contractor might make to Pretend they were an Engineer

When I took the job after 45 years as a Contractor, I brought all that experience with me. I am more concerned about people who choose to do NOTHING and indulge in Plausible Deniability. We are Constructors, Not Politicians.

Common Law sees Bldg Code Officials as being involved with PUBLIC SAFETY
You know Police Power without the gun. And You can't have RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT AUTHORITY
Do understand that I have a very good idea What Holds What Up
and What keeps It From Falling Down.
It is up to you to do the Calcs AND Me, to do my part so everyone goes home after work. Not the contractor doing some HEROIC Deed with a loss of limbs or life because the Engineer wanted to avoid doing their job.

I had 4 jobs in 4 years that I know I probably saved someone's Limbs or Life
you can call me and I'll tell you about it and you can figure out if I am full of crap or not

 

[classicT]

The approved permit drawings are what is given to the contractor to bid on. The contractor is expected to comply with the approved permit drawings. If changes are made during construction the revised construction drawings are submitted to the building department for their approval.

If this is not the case you have problems.

Another delusion...

The bid set is what the contractor bids on. Often, this set is not even stamped/sealed. After the bid, design team may or may not make edits from cost engineering with the contractor. Then a set is submitted for permit. Edits are made to this set to comply with any corrections required.

How do I know this? Because contractors love to pull out the bid set, show them to me or other inspectors, and whine that the building department approved plans are requiring something more costly than what they bid for. Whine whine whine.

Not saying this is how it always goes.... but what you have suggested is a complete delusion based on your idea that engineers are one step below God himself.

 

[Genduct]

Another delusion...

The bid set is what the contractor bids on. Often, this set is not even stamped/sealed. After the bid, design team may or may not make edits from cost engineering with the contractor. Then a set is submitted for permit. Edits are made to this set to comply with any corrections required.

How do I know this? Because contractors love to pull out the bid set, show them to me or other inspectors, and whine that the building department approved plans are requiring something more costly than what they bid for. Whine whine whine.

Not saying this is how it always goes.... but what you have suggested is a complete delusion based on your idea that engineers are one step below God himself.

Only Speak to GOD, BUT Only If GOD Has an APPOINTMENT

 

[mtlogcabin]

We only accept plans that are stamped "For Construction" on them we do not review "Bid Sets" for plan review.
It is a waste of our time and prolongs the review process.

Also "Bid Sets" normally are not signed or sealed by the DP

 

[Mark K]

You said: The job of the building department is to enforce the building code not to define what a prudent designer should do.

And here I was trying to be Polite and Not: In Your Face.
This recent exchange had me share my general suggestions about needing the same info that Contractors need to BID It and Build It
And do it in a Nice Way and you're going to insist I use the BULLY APPROACH You know My Way or the Highway, Or there is a New Sheriff in Town.

I don't resort to that approach unless the person insists on doing it the hard way
So I could get what I need to do my job.

It is really your choice, how you want to be treated. i am just a mirror and reflect what I am seeing and hearing

I still would prefer to be professional If you'll allow me

I see your true colors.

I recognize the need to comply with the adopted laws not what the building official thinks they should be. When there are differences of opinion between the engineer and the building department, I expect the focus to be on what the adopted code says. I expect the plan checker or inspector to be able to separate his personal preferences from what the code requires. This is part of a professional approach.

Some times we humor the inspectors or plan checkers because it is easier and quicker than fighting it. The problem with this approach is that the plan checker or inspector thinks he was right.

Our approach is to get the project moving, to meet the needs of our clients, and to comply with the code. But there are limits and if we believe the plan checker is unreasonable we leave it to the project owner to find a way resolve the problem.

If the focus is on code compliance and the necessary information is not provided you should issue a comment requesting the information. In my experience such comments are quickly resolved.

Engineers are aware of the need to clearly define the work expected of the contractor. Failure to do so often results in claims by the contractor for additional monies. These claims and the need to modify the original design cause problems for the engineer. As I have said the construction documents used to get a permit are the documents that the contractor's price is based on and which are used by the inspectors. To suggest that engineers are not aware of this reality is to insult myself and other engineers in California.

What I expect is that the plan checker enforces the formally adopted codes and when I ask for the code basis for one of his comments, he can provide a code basis. If the plan checker refuses to provide a code basis for one of his comments, I know he is not going to be professional. This does not mean that I will not be polite. If there is not a code basis the plan checker should not concern himself.

In my experience a plan checker that says it's my way or the highway is likely to have a discussion with his supervisor.

 

[Mark K]

Another delusion...

The bid set is what the contractor bids on. Often, this set is not even stamped/sealed. After the bid, design team may or may not make edits from cost engineering with the contractor. Then a set is submitted for permit. Edits are made to this set to comply with any corrections required.

How do I know this? Because contractors love to pull out the bid set, show them to me or other inspectors, and whine that the building department approved plans are requiring something more costly than what they bid for. Whine whine whine.

Not saying this is how it always goes.... but what you have suggested is a complete delusion based on your idea that engineers are one step below God himself.

When a price is agreed on prior to the permit set It is adjusted based on the permit set.

What I have stated is the reality based on numerous projects over several decades. I do not know what is done in your neck of the woods but what you suggest is contrary to my personal experience and is inconsistent with the standard industry contracts.

The contractor who whines about this is an amateur. He should realize that the necessary price adjustments will result in more money to the contractor than if they had bid on a complete set. A contractor that agrees to accept a previous price after the owner has changed the scope is incompetent and there are not many incompetent contractors.

Engineers are not one step below god. We are simply trying to satisfy our clients while assuring that problems with the building do not come back to haunt our client or the engineer.

Engineers do not have immunity, unlike plan checkers, and are occasionally sued. and if found liable and there is not enough insurance they can be personally liable.

 

[Mark K]

Mark, You do like to be Contrary

Did you not read the part about the Contractor's Liability not covering any attempt the contractor might make to Pretend they were an Engineer

When I took the job after 45 years as a Contractor, I brought all that experience with me. I am more concerned about people who choose to do NOTHING and indulge in Plausible Deniability. We are Constructors, Not Politicians.

Common Law sees Bldg Code Officials as being involved with PUBLIC SAFETY
You know Police Power without the gun. And You can't have RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT AUTHORITY
Do understand that I have a very good idea What Holds What Up
and What keeps It From Falling Down.
It is up to you to do the Calcs AND Me, to do my part so everyone goes home after work. Not the contractor doing some HEROIC Deed with a loss of limbs or life because the Engineer wanted to avoid doing their job.

I had 4 jobs in 4 years that I know I probably saved someone's Limbs or Life
you can call me and I'll tell you about it and you can figure out if I am full of crap or not

By the way I have been involved with engineering for over 50 years.

Just because the objective is to assure public safety does not give the building official the ability to ignore our system of laws. Even the police who are public safety officers recognize that there are limits on what they can require, so why do building officials have trouble with this concept?

Yes we all have our role but there are a couple of problems when individuals step outside the lines. Such individuals may find that they are not protected by governmental immunity. They may make life difficult for those playing by the rules. Has your agency given you the authority to enforce occupational safety rules?

What may have been acceptable behavior for a general contractor may be inappropriate for a building official.

While one of the roles of building codes is to promote safety, they do so by adopting a number of specific regulations. Collectively these regulations promote safety but they do not assure absolute safety. But the building official is not empowered to adopt and enforce additional regulations no matter what the building code may infer. Talk to your city attorney. In California local jurisdictions are limited in what local code modifications they can adopt.

Building codes are compromises. If you can't accept this you will be frustrated.

There have been acquisitions that engineers believe they are anointed by God, but from my perspective it is building officials that are likely to have a god complex.

I am also concerned about building officials who have not had engineering training making engineering decisions. They may have the authority but lack the knowledge to make informed decisions.

 

[Genduct]

I see your true colors.

I recognize the need to comply with the adopted laws not what the building official thinks they should be. When there are differences of opinion between the engineer and the building department, I expect the focus to be on what the adopted code says. I expect the plan checker or inspector to be able to separate his personal preferences from what the code requires. This is part of a professional approach.

Some times we humor the inspectors or plan checkers because it is easier and quicker than fighting it. The problem with this approach is that the plan checker or inspector thinks he was right.

Our approach is to get the project moving, to meet the needs of our clients, and to comply with the code. But there are limits and if we believe the plan checker is unreasonable we leave it to the project owner to find a way resolve the problem.

If the focus is on code compliance and the necessary information is not provided you should issue a comment requesting the information. In my experience such comments are quickly resolved.

Engineers are aware of the need to clearly define the work expected of the contractor. Failure to do so often results in claims by the contractor for additional monies. These claims and the need to modify the original design cause problems for the engineer. As I have said the construction documents used to get a permit are the documents that the contractor's price is based on and which are used by the inspectors. To suggest that engineers are not aware of this reality is to insult myself and other engineers in California.

What I expect is that the plan checker enforces the formally adopted codes and when I ask for the code basis for one of his comments, he can provide a code basis. If the plan checker refuses to provide a code basis for one of his comments, I know he is not going to be professional. This does not mean that I will not be polite. If there is not a code basis the plan checker should not concern himself.

In my experience a plan checker that says it's my way or the highway is likely to have a discussion with his supervisor.

Plan Reviewer who also has Legal responsibility and appropriate authority to do the job.
Am Not a frustrated engineer who "needs" to second guess your prerogatives because of some unresolved childhood issues or insecurity

Minimum Code requirements, Not a "Good" Job or Best Practices or my Preferences. Just what is req'd so it won't catch fire, explode, collapse or kill the people inside or out.

And you are welcome for the second pair of eyes that may catch something that allows it to be an error. A Mistake is an Error that can't be corrected.
Rubber Stamping a Plan, just because you sealed it, is a Mistake

Seems your resentment of who we are and what we do is really deep-seated.
I can only wonder why. Have you not met one Bldg Code Official who you respect? As being your equal?

WOW That about sums up my thoughts on the matter.
Let's leave it at that. Agree to Disagree

Fell asleep on the couch and came to turn off the screen and plug in my phone for tomorrow, good night

Mark, Good Luck and Best to you

 

[Mark K]

Plan Reviewer who also has Legal responsibility and appropriate authority to do the job.
Am Not a frustrated engineer who "needs" to second guess your prerogatives because of some unresolved childhood issues or insecurity

Minimum Code requirements, Not a "Good" Job or Best Practices or my Preferences. Just what is req'd so it won't catch fire, explode, collapse or kill the people inside or out.

And you are welcome for the second pair of eyes that may catch something that allows it to be an error. A Mistake is an Error that can't be corrected.
Rubber Stamping a Plan, just because you sealed it, is a Mistake

Seems your resentment of who we are and what we do is really deep-seated.
I can only wonder why. Have you not met one Bldg Code Official who you respect? As being your equal?

WOW That about sums up my thoughts on the matter.
Let's leave it at that. Agree to Disagree

Fell asleep on the couch and came to turn off the screen and plug in my phone for tomorrow, good night

Mark, Good Luck and Best to you

I hear the personal attacks and the misrepresentations of what I have said.

 

[Genduct]

I hear the personal attacks and the misrepresentations of what I have sa

Attached by the TRUTH?

 

[steveray]

[A] 107.2.1 Information on construction documents.
Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn
on suitable material. Electronic media documents are
permitted to be submitted where approved by the building
official. Construction documents shall be of sufficient
clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the
work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to
the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances,
rules and regulations, as determined by the building
official.

 

[jar546]

The bid set is what the contractor bids on. Often, this set is not even stamped/sealed. After the bid, design team may or may not make edits from cost engineering with the contractor. Then a set is submitted for permit. Edits are made to this set to comply with any corrections required.

How do I know this? Because contractors love to pull out the bid set, show them to me or other inspectors, and whine that the building department approved plans are requiring something more costly than what they bid for. Whine whine whine.

Not saying this is how it always goes.... but what you have suggested is a complete delusion based on your idea that engineers are one step below God himself.

Yes, contractors will bid on a job even if they know the bid set is not code compliant. They understand that if they bid on it based on needed changes to make it code-compliant, they will not be the low bidder. They go into this knowing the plans will change from what they bid and the RFI will turn into a change order for more money. It is the way the system works.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I am also concerned about building officials who have not had engineering training making engineering decisions

In 30 years on the code enforcement side, I can honestly say I have never made an engineering decision. Have I seen a lot of things that did not "look" right that I would ask the engineer question about? Yes plenty. The approach a code official uses when communicating with an architect or engineer will make a huge difference in the type of response we get from the DP. I have found that asking a question from a curiosity and wanting to understand why something was designed a certain way is a lot more productive in resolving an issue than questioning the actual work/design of the DP.