Engineer's confusing statement

[Mac]

I have a plan & permit submission for a car wash building that includes a red stamped statement next to the seal:

"It is the sole responsibility of the builder to detrmine whether these plans conform to all standards, provisions, requirements, methods of construction, and uses of materials in the proposed building as determined by all applicable building codes and local standards"

What is this guy saying here? Is he trying to defer code compliance to a contractor? What is the code officer's responsibility? Does the statement mean I can't accept the plans?

Thanks in advance!

 

[JBI]

Re: Engineer's confusing statement

Sounds to me like you should give State Ed a call about it...

 

[Gene Boecker]

Re: Engineer's confusing statement

It means that whoever is stamping the plans is shunting that responsibility from the designer to the contractor - not something that is ethical according to either the AIA or NSPE.

It has no limit on the AHJ's ability to perform that task.

You might suggest that the designer check with legal on whether that language has a chance in hades of being enforceable from a construction law standpoint. The designer is still liable to produce code complying drawings.

 

[vegas paul]

Re: Engineer's confusing statement

Sounds to me like a designer for a multi-state, multi-jurisdictional chain store that produces one standard design for all locations - too lazy to customize the design for the individual jurisdiction.

 

[jim baird]

Re: Engineer's confusing statement

ditto VP.

I think that company has a little drive-by booth down by Taco Mac.

 

[Heaven]

Re: Engineer's confusing statement

I would accept that if the licensed design professional also included in the statement what he/she/ WAS responsible for. For instance, if it were being stamped by a licensed profession for accessibility compliance only, or site drainage only, etc, then it should say that.

 

[Big Mac]

Re: Engineer's confusing statement

You stated in your post that this was a statement by an engineer. It is poosible that the engineer was attempting to say that he/she was not taking responsibility for any code requirements for other than structural issues. If that is the case, the statement was worded very poorly. However I have accepted qualifying statements from engineers that they were responsible only for the structural aspects of design. As previuosly stated by a different resonder, this person should not only state what he/she is not responsible for, but also what they are taking reponsibility for.

 

[GHRoberts]

Many clients ask design professionals including engineers to meet certain requirements. Those requirements may fall into gray areas of the codes. The engineer here is saying that he is not responsible for those items that fall into the gray areas.

More importantly there is no legal requirement that a design professional take any financial responsibility for decisions that a contractor and inspector might make. The red ink seems to say such.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

He’s not responsible for changes or differences of materials, construction methods and conditions unknown that may occur in the field and could be beyond the scope of the design limits. It’s the builder’s responsibility to acknowledge when conditions in the field are outside the confines of the design.

This is the same type of disclaimer codes officials have to ensure code is met to best of their knowledge during the visual “snap-shot” inspection.

It’s the code official responsibility to verify the design is adhere to.

 

[Mark K]

In a case like this the building official should reject the submission. It is the Owner's responsibility to provide a design signed by licensed professionals that complies with the building code. The engineer's statement appears to say that he is not taking professional responsibility for the design and thus the submission does not comply with the code and state licensing requirements.

 

[Yankee]

The point of an engineered drawing is to direct the builder as to what he must do. So this doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Yikes]

Heaven's response makes the most sense. This must be a "site adapt" plan that requires additional design or plan checking to conform to local ordinances.

 

[brudgers]

It appears that the engineer of record was not contracted for construction phase services and the disclaimer is based on that fact.

In other words, if the contractor builds in deviation from the plans the engineer is not responsible - nor should they be when the owner is not paying for such services (provided that state law does not require construction phase services).

I doubt is for a site adapt issue to the degree it is intended to address your typical lax building department.

 

[SCBO1]

IMO, Mr. builder, contractor, Juan or whoever should run from this project. Sounds like it's on the inspectors back to me, kinda like residential house plans!

Hey, pass the toilet paper fella!

pc1

 

[Francis Vineyard]

Hey, pass the toilet paper fella!

LOL!

Aware that NY have their version of the codes and just realized that this op was a year ago!

IBC 2006 106.3.4.1 2nd p; "The registered design professional in responsible charge shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating submittal documents prepared by others, including phased and deferred submittal items, for compatibility with the design of the building."

The plans RDP may have design a portion or component for a building and is not the building designer in charge. Could be one of those modular plans; a lot of speculation.

 

[FyrBldgGuy]

I have reviewed plans with a similar statement. Those plans were based on a Design Build project where the Builder hired the designer. The designer had issues with the way the builder completed projects. In the project I was reviewing the designer used the statement to get my attention. I found the problem and met with the builder and his state legislative politician. After about a 30 minute discussion the politician bailed, and the builder had to make corrections.