Is this an acceptable design letter

[Sifu]

I recently received a design and inspection letter from an engineering firm on a challenging hillside lot. From the beginning of the job I informed the contractor and footing/wall sub-contractor I would need engineering on the footings foundation walls. I received what I feel is an adequate design and inspection report for the footings but nothing on the poured walls. I informed the builder I needed something on the walls. I received the following in response:

"We returned to the site on March 19, 2010 to observe the foundation wall construction. The foundation wall was constructed at the time of our visit. It appears to be conventional reinforced cast in place concrete, and appears to meet normal industry standards for residential construction."

The letter is sealed and signed. Is that adequate? Much of the construction, due to heights and fills would fall outside of the prescriptive codes, which is why I required engineering in the first place. Opinions from any DP's would be helpful as well.

 

[Darren Emery]

"appears to be" and "appears to meet" ? IMO, this letter appears to be worthless.

 

[Mark K]

In the code there are two mechanisms in the IBC either special inspection or structural observation. Because this wall appears to exceed the limits of the IRC the IBC kicks in. If this was structural observation this letter may be more specific than required (2012 IBC Section 1704.5). If special inspection was required the letter would not appear to be adequate (IBC Section 1704.2.4). What was requested. How specific was your request?

 

[imhotep]

I recently received a design and inspection letter from an engineering firm on a challenging hillside lot. From the beginning of the job I informed the contractor and footing/wall sub-contractor I would need engineering on the footings foundation walls. I received what I feel is an adequate design and inspection report for the footings but nothing on the poured walls. I informed the builder I needed something on the walls. I received the following in response:"We returned to the site on March 19, 2010 to observe the foundation wall construction. The foundation wall was constructed at the time of our visit. It appears to be conventional reinforced cast in place concrete, and appears to meet normal industry standards for residential construction."

The letter is sealed and signed. Is that adequate? Much of the construction, due to heights and fills would fall outside of the prescriptive codes, which is why I required engineering in the first place. Opinions from any DP's would be helpful as well.

Obviously the DP could not see inside the concrete wall after it was cast. Tough to close the barn door after the....

Did you perform a wall reinforcing inspection prior to the pour? Did you require a special inspector be retained to examine the reinforcing prior to the pour and to produce a report? Have you seen mix designs for the concrete? Are you concerned that the builder did not follow the plans? Was the engineer who observed the site conditions the same one who prepared the plans? Are you going to ask the builder to retain a forensic engineer to x-ray the wall to confirm placement of reinforcing?

 

[Mark K]

It was noted that the request for the letter was made to the contractor. If special inspection was required the code requires that the special inspector be retained by the Owner not the contractor.

 

[brudgers]

I informed the builder I needed something on the walls.

Either require testing, or accept the letter. The DP rendered their opinion.

I would say it is something.

But not much.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

We request an engineering report with calculations addressing site conditions (signed & sealed). Some local engineers have a reinforcing table they use for various back-fill and wall heights that fall outside of the local codes. The letter you described would not meet our minimum requirements.

For work already completed without inspection, we get a letter from contractor and engineer describing work completed, industry standards performed and engineered calculations for work described as completed is sufficient for site conditions and all applicable loads.

The letter then goes into our magic scanning machine for all time, and we move on.

 

[Darren Emery]

Point of clarification - you said from the begining, you informed the contractor the you needed engineering on this wall. I would expect that engineering prior to the wall being poured...why did this proceed without proper documentation up front?

 

[fatboy]

Letter is pretty worthless, engineer is not taking any responsibility, merely making assumptions.

"...why did this proceed without proper documentation up front?"

Cuz contractors want to blow and go. I would hold the contractors feet to the fire for a more specific letter.

 

[GBrackins]

education costs money and effort .... agree with fatboy

 

[brudgers]

Letter is pretty worthless, engineer is not taking any responsibility, merely making assumptions. "...why did this proceed without proper documentation up front?" Cuz contractors want to blow and go. I would hold the contractors feet to the fire for a more specific letter.

The engineer is rendering professional opinions. Their opinion carries significantly more weight than the homeowner's, for example.

It is unreasonable to expect the engineer to render a professional opinion about covered work, beyond that which was provided.

In the end, the OP got what he asked for (a letter) - and "a more specific letter" won't change what's built one iota.

It won't protect the homeowner to any greater extent.

Heck, it won't even provide more coverage for your butt...

unless it's printed on larger sheets of paper.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

A more specific letter with calculations indicating the as built design is capable of handling the applicable loads, combined with the contractor's letter documenting and verifying construction of as built, will provide sufficient doccumentation for the jurisdiction...and as brudgers stated, should provide enough COA for the whole department in the event of budgetary short-falls.

 

[north star]

$ $

I also agree with fatboy.....I would "try" to hold the contractors feet to

a fire, or document and move on.........From your previous postings, I am

thinking that you will have a pretty hard time in attempting to

accomplish any accountability, ...from anyone!

& &

 

[codeworks]

whats the paper trail on footing and wall inspection. did they call for one ? both? do you do "automatic follow up" or do contractors call for inspections ? if they didn't call for a required inspection, i'd write it up and let it roll. "failed to comply with required inspection process, placed concrete without wall inspection" watch the rest of the job like a hawk, give no slack. send it up the chain in your office, let a bigger dog chase it

 

[GBrackins]

I think Sifu's big dog sleeps on the porch .... but great advice codeworks, document, document, document, then photograph

 

[pwood]

appears that no inpections took place on the footings and walls that appear to meet spec. will the rest of the house appear to meet code with no inspections and a letter from the contractor and engineer that says all things appear in compliance? i would appear on site with what appears to be a stop work order asap!

 

[Daddy-0-]

I like to see the phrase," is structurally adequate " or "meets/exceeds design as installed." I would reject that letter you have posted. Waaay to vague.

 

[Sifu]

A little more specifics. Some of you know the position I am in here so I won't re-hash those details. Suffice it to say, and this is big, building permits are issued for work to begin prior to my involvement. I actually found out about this job from the sub who was hired to put in the foundation, after it had already began. When he told me of the job and the nature of the build I informed him that the scope of the job exceeded the codes and would require engineered design. He informed me that the GC new that and that the PE had already been involved. I then contacted the GC and was told the same thing. I informed them that the bearing of the soil/rock, extreme slope of the lot and the height of the walls exceeded what I would be able to approve. Brudgers, it is important to note I did not ask for a "letter", I asked for engineering. Maybe my terminology is wrong but everyone seemed to understand what I meant. The GC had the engineer perform several on-site inspections to verify the design of the footings. I was never contacted. I recently had occasion to be near this site and saw that they were now at framing. I contacted the GC and told him to get me the requested engineering. He provided the sealed documents, including photos, dates of inspections, observations etc. of the footings only. I informed him that was fine for the footings but that I needed the same for the walls. The paragraph you see in the OP was added to the letter. I assumed the same engineering had been done for the walls, now I know differently. It looks like my request for engineering on the walls was either forgotten about or ignored. So here we are. I can request more detailed info about the walls themselves but in the end, no matter what, they exceed the limits of the IRC. The letter they provided doesn't provide much cover for anyone (except the engineer). I will try for a more specific letter but won't hold my breath. I will lay out a list of the ways the walls exceed the code and see if they can address them. Honestly at this point I'm ready to just let these folks just stew in their own soup.

 

[ICE]

Well Sifu, you're working in one damned strange jurisdiction. I wouldn't sign anything but paychecks and I'd be looking real hard for the last one.

 

[globe trekker]

ICE stated:

Well Sifu, you're working in one damned strange jurisdiction. I wouldn't sign anything but paychecks and I'd be looking real hard for the last one.

Actually, not so strange ICE! Our fellow Forum member " Alias " is in almost the same typeof environment. She too doesn't appear to have much support either, ..others too! There are

some locations out there that are this way. If you're not in one of them, count your blessings,

..pray for those that are and continue to try and offer positive assistance as often as possible.

Most of us have been where " Sifu " is!

pwood stated:

appears that no inpections took place on the footings and walls that appear to meet spec. will the rest of the house appear to meet code with no inspections and a letter from the contractor and engineer that says all things appear in compliance? i would appear on site with what appears to be a stop work order asap!

That's just plain funny " pwood ". Thanks for the laugh!

 

[DennisK]

Sifu, The last couple of posts completely changed the issue. Code enforcement is broken in much of the country. It will continue to be broken as long as those who have control, elected officials and their administrators, keep it broken or until the state or feds step in. Unfortunately, it looks like when larger entities get involved things just get worse.

Anyway, if the GC got an engineer involved, and he must have if you have decent data from an engineer on the footings, then the engineer had some responsibility on the wall. The code is a little vague on what counts as a foundation. If you read some sections it sounds like it’s only the footing. Chapter 18 does mention foundation walls and retaining walls, so I think those are foundation elements. Therefore, the jurisdiction has the obligation to inspect the rebar in the wall prior to the placing concrete. Are you saying that code required inspections per 110 aren’t done in your jurisdiction? Or are you just saying that there are no plans reviewed so it’s up to the inspectors to enforce code provisions on the fly, somewhat after the fact (never really works)?

Engineers are constrained by rules of conduct as put forth by the governing state boards. I really don’t see an engineer being involved in the design of the footings without designing the walls supported by the footings. I’m curious if the engineer designed anything or was he just engaged by the contractor to observe the construction. If the latter, it would fall under the structural observation part of Ch 17 which has expanded a bit. The engineer doing the structural observation isn’t the designer if you read that section. It doesn’t sound like the requirements were met in this instance. So if that’s the case, the engineer was in violation. If he accepted work for structural observation he had an obligation to know what that entailed and follow proper procedures. If the contractor didn’t call him for scheduled visits, he should have sent you a letter stating that.

If the engineer performed design work on the project, he should be obligated by the rules of conduct to provide sealed documents on what he designed. Any unsealed documents typically must state that they are preliminary only. This is generally also true of correspondence. An engineer who gives a client info in an email, without stating that the info is preliminary, can be fined by the board.

So, as far as how things went with the engineer, I’d just put a letter in the file stating your concerns and move on. Before doing that, though, I’d try to have a chat with the engineer. See if you can get him on the phone. Ask what his involvement was. After all this, you could file a complaint to the board of engineering. Harsh but engineers have an obligation to safeguard the public.

DK Engineering PLLC

dkengineer.com

 

[north star]

= $ =

Why does it seem that the code officials are the ones being

held accountable on one hand and restrained on the other?

Is anyone; including engineers / designers / architects, actually

accountable, rather than just submitting a worthless paper

statement that [ seemingly ] removes them completely from

any type of responsibility?

Catch 22 here!



Also, agree with "DennisK", ...code enforcement is

definitely broken!

$ = $

 

[DennisK]

North star, I don't agree. The code official is the one person not held accountable. The code official is pretty protected. When I was one I used to point out to architects that if an issue came up with a design, no one was coming after my house. (Unfortunately that may not be true anymore.)

It is up to the design professional to get it right. The code is very clear on that point and it's something I like to hammer on. I can make the argument that universal adoption of building codes is detrimental to good building design. Without codes, it may be clearer that it is up to the design professional to produce a safe building. With codes, what an architect can browbeat an under-educated official into accepting trumps both the intent of the code and any thought of good, safe design. It's only through litigation that design professionals are held accountable. That isn't really the ideal.

I've been in this business for a long time and I've seen it from both sides. The one thing no one seems to focus on is that code enforcement can play a key role in leveling the playing field. Without a strong building department, design professionals can have a hard time complying with the code. There will always be someone else who will cut corners and do something less for a client if they can get away with it. I've experienced it as an engineer and I've heard it from architects when I was a building official. Architects tell me they would love to do a complete set of drawings but they can't if the plan reviewers won't demand complete drawings.

Changing what's broken involves pain and we live in a time where everybody ducks responsibility and avoids pain.

 

[GBrackins]

Architects tell me they would love to do a complete set of drawings but they can't if the plan reviewers won't demand complete drawings.

IMHO, they are certainly doing a disservice to their client and to themselves by not providing a complete set of construction drawings. That goes for whether they are a licensed architect or unlicensed building designer. I get builders that tell me I don't need to do framing plans and the like in "their drawings." I explain to them they are "my drawings" and that I have a certain standard of care that I must follow. Complete drawings lessens the chance of errors and omissions in projects. Now if the builder fails to follow the drawings it's easy to spot, you have something to compare it to.