Now that we have a designer forum

[brudgers]

Though I read these threads I have not felt the urge to join in on these discussions but decided to take a couple of minutes and do so.I am a licensed building contractor who posts here with some frequency and read them pretty often as a a way to stay up on code questions that arise. I have also been designing houses for over 30 years. If I design them, build them and it is my occupation, I believe I am a design "professional". However, I simply refer to myself as a builder/designer. I study the codes in an effort to design compliant houses and whenever I want to do something structural that is not prescriptive, I design it and take it to an engineer for analysis and certifcation. I have never presented anything to an engineer that had to be rejected or changed but neither do I do any structural design that is difficult. It would never occurr to me to ask a BO to accept anything that was structural in nature without an engineers stamp.

I try to simply find out what the rules are and follow them.

I've known engineers who will stamp anything for a few hundred bucks, too.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I've known engineers who will stamp anything for a few hundred bucks, too.

I bet you have them on speed dial :lol:

Sorry I couldn't resist giving you a jab

 

[brudgers]

I bet you have them on speed dial :lol:Sorry I couldn't resist giving you a jab

If I design it, I seal it myself. Before I could, I used prescriptive codes or hired an engineer to do the design. And that's always been the case, pay engineers to design, not to seal or stamp.

 

[DRP]

Robert,

Whenever I've switched my contractor's liability policy I'm asked the question "Do you design?" Are you covered by insurance for your design work? This is not picking on you, I've worked for designers and am unsure whether they are covered and have also considered entering this field. As a practical matter I'd like to close this loophole since as contractors we all actually "design" and engineer in the field just about every working day of our career. I do make a very clear distinction, if one does not have a group of letters after their name they are not a "professional" designer but simply a designer.

 

[Robert Ellenberg]

DRP--I don't think you are picking and absolutely agree. Though I think of it as a profession since it is a part of how I am paid, I have never used the term "professional" as a descriptive title of who I am.

 

[RickAstoria]

DRP, I can through a bunch of letters behind my name... it DOESN'T mean anthing. What makes you a professional is not licenses or certifications. What makes you a professional is much more to do with what you do and how you do it. Building Design is a profession that involves a great deal of knowledge and skills ana a huge array of other characteristics customarily associated with professions. There are a number of professions that does not have half the characteristics that building design does.

A professional is a person who engages in a profession. Is building design a profession? So lets see what characteristics are customarily a profession:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession#Characteristics_of_a_profession

The given characteristics are common accepted characteristics of professions. As indicated, NOT all characteristics applies to all professions. I think the letters after a name doesn't mean anything because I have 16 letters plus a space following my name: Richard W.C. Balkins, Building Designer (ok, BIG DEAL). Seriously, lets be serious DRP for a moment and use our common sense. In Oregon, we are held accountable under ORS 12.135. Even Architects don't have to carry insurance to be licensed. It would be something they should out of protecting their butts. Construction Contractors have to carry insurance but that is the difference in legislation between construction contractor's law and the architect's law.

Construction Contractor insurance is for construction not design. Typically a different set of insurance for building design. Robert Ellenberg, you are essentially engaging as both a costruction contractor and as a building designer.

 

[DRP]

This might be where we have differing views of what constitutes common sense.

If you represented to me that you were a design professional and I hired you with that understanding, when you cannot produce a stamped design I'm going to have a problem.

Writing your name as you did above with simply "designer" behind it is to my understanding correct. I personally have no problem with you, or me, drawing a residence.

My insurors have always expressed no desire to provide insurance for design/ build. As a non registered designer Rick, are you insured?

 

[RickAstoria]

This might be where we have differing views of what constitutes common sense.If you represented to me that you were a design professional and I hired you with that understanding, when you cannot produce a stamped design I'm going to have a problem.

Writing your name as you did above with simply "designer" behind it is to my understanding correct. I personally have no problem with you, or me, drawing a residence.

My insurors have always expressed no desire to provide insurance for design/ build. As a non registered designer Rick, are you insured?

You want a stamped drawing, I can put a stamp on it. Now, the question is, the stamp doesn't mean anything and the word professional isn't governed under any law in Oregon. The code particular refers to Registered Design Professionals where required by statutes. In fact, I think things have been narrowed on the code to be specific.

Is that computer network administrator a professional? Is he license? Does he stamp anything? The stamp really just a placibo formality. If I prepare plans, I am liable. As for your question about being insured, I'll ask you this, how many architects are uninsured? The insuring is NONE of your business as a B.O. However, being insured is not a requirement for permits or a requirement of being professional. I am insured when I need to be.

If you have a construction contractor insurance company, they will only cover construction. Since design is a separate issue to construction. As I don't perform construction, I usually don't need insurance for construction. So if your insurer for construction doesn't want to cover design then they can cover for construction BUT as for design, you need another carrier. Have you ever consider:

Jean-Marie Nilges

J.W. Terrill

(314) 594-2642

jnilges@jwterrill.com

Nancy Baker

CPM Alliance

(713) 574-1437

nbaker@cpmalliance.com

There is perhaps a few other carriers. You just have to look for a carrier that will cover your design services.

Ultimately, you just have to make sure the project is done correct and is free of errors and omissions.

I simply indicate the type of designer I am but what about when someone is NCBDC certified. So ask yourself, is this building designer not a professional:

Just to show a few photos of a couple of notable project he has done. This building designer is Jim Lucia. Now, stamping is really going to mean much? right.

I think some folks are professionals and that is proven by their work.

 

[brudgers]

You want a stamped drawing, I can put a stamp on it.

Not legally.

 

[RickAstoria]

Not legally.

What I can't put a 1/2" x 1/2" square postal stamp on it ?

or stamp it with a smiley face stamp or use a rectangular stamp that says:

Richard W.C. Balkins, Building Designer

Astoria, Oregon

Sig._____________________________

Nothing in the law here says I can't affix a stamp. I just can't affix a stamp that resembles a state stamp. I even asked OBAE. Show me a law that explicitly say I couldn't use a stamp? Read the law carefully. It isn't about using a stamp. It is about whether or not one uses a stamp in the likeness of a state stamp. Nothing bars the use of an NCBDC stamp seal either except copyright and NCBDC.

The big question is - DOES IT REALLY DO ANY GOOD IN GETTING PERMIT APPROVAL ON NON-EXEMPT WORK ?

 

[brudgers]

What I can't put a 1/2" x 1/2" square postal stamp on it ?or stamp it with a smiley face stamp or use a rectangular stamp that says:

Richard W.C. Balkins, Building Designer

Astoria, Oregon

Sig._____________________________

Nothing in the law here says I can't affix a stamp. I just can't affix a stamp that resembles a state stamp. I even asked OBAE. Show me a law that explicitly say I couldn't use a stamp? Read the law carefully. It isn't about using a stamp. It is about whether or not one uses a stamp in the likeness of a state stamp. Nothing bars the use of an NCBDC stamp seal either except copyright and NCBDC.

The big question is - DOES IT REALLY DO ANY GOOD IN GETTING PERMIT APPROVAL ON NON-EXEMPT WORK ?

Once again a deliberate attempt to mislead - it was clear what DRP meant.

And BTW, posting pictures of someone else's work as representing what you are capable of is also misleading and no amount of disclaimer changes that.

 

[RickAstoria]

brudgers,

I never claim it was mine. I think you misread.

Did I say the photos is my work? No.

My point to DRP is that if he wants a stamped drawings, I can stamp them. Anyone can. They just can't stamp drawings using an Architect or Engineer's stamp.

Have you ever seen an NCBDC stamp?

http://blueprint4u.com/index.html

The issue is NOT about whether stamps can or can not be used but simply making sure an architect or engineer's stamp is used when one is required.

The reality is stamping drawings isn't illegal if you are unlicensed. It is illegal to represent yourself as an architect or engineer if you are not.

Besides, most of my clients are remodel and additions type clients and seldom new construction.

 

[brudgers]

When someone wants stamped drawings - an NCBDC stamp is just bull****.

Then again, it is when they don't want it either.

Because in both cases, it is someone pretending to be an architect.

 

[RickAstoria]

When someone wants stamped drawings - an NCBDC stamp is just bull****.Then again, it is when they don't want it either.

Because in both cases, it is someone pretending to be an architect.

Ben, if we were going to be pretending to be an architect, we use the darn title. There are local jurisdictions where they want all drawings to be stamped but they do except drawings by an NCBDC certified building designer when an architect or engineer's stamp is not required by state law to prepare plans and specifications for.

There is a couple of municipalities in Washington that I heard adopted municipal laws requiring stamped drawings but will accept NCBDC stamp for SFRs & accessory structures, MFRs upto 4 dwelling units, agricultural & accessory structures and other buildings not exceeding 4,000 sq.ft. ground area / 20-ft. height rule.

This deals with those municpal scenarios.

 

[DRP]

I'm just glad I didn't ask for a seal.

I think my point way back when, was that one should not use the title "design professional" unless one is a registered design professional, a licensed architect or engineer. Just as you are doing, the title "designer" is fine. I can readily distinguish between you. I never had a problem with the term "draftsman". I was also curious about the experiences of designers and builders regarding insurance for design work.

 

[TJacobs]

It pays to be specific...if you send me plans with some BS "stamp", I'll send it back shredded with a rejection letter.

 

[Daddy-0-]

Fortunately our plan reviewer is an architect. If ask for a design from someone it had better come from an engineer. There are even some engineers who have lost their privileges with us for rubber stamping or falsifying reports. We would accept your plans if prepared by a drafter but we may require additional engineering. Not trying to put down designers just making sure they stay within their scope.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Just to show a few photos of a couple of notable project he has done. This building designer is Jim Lucia

I doubt they fell within the prescriptive requirements of the IRC so you better have a structural engineer you work with who will sign and seal his portion.

 

[RickAstoria]

I'm just glad I didn't ask for a seal.I think my point way back when, was that one should not use the title "design professional" unless one is a registered design professional, a licensed architect or engineer. Just as you are doing, the title "designer" is fine. I can readily distinguish between you. I never had a problem with the term "draftsman". I was also curious about the experiences of designers and builders regarding insurance for design work.

Why not just be concerned with "registered design professional" vs. "design professionals". Design professionals can be any professional. However, our code had been essentially specific to use the words "registered design professional". Registered would mean licensed / registered. I think RDP or "registered design professional" would be the thing to expect licensure but 'design professional' - nah. I consider landscape designers, interior designers, building designers, automobile designers and boat designers are all design professionals. However, "registered design professional" would be a different thing. The important word is "registered". Certified does not equal "registered" as far as I am concern.

 

[RickAstoria]

Fortunately our plan reviewer is an architect. If ask for a design from someone it had better come from an engineer. There are even some engineers who have lost their privileges with us for rubber stamping or falsifying reports. We would accept your plans if prepared by a drafter but we may require additional engineering. Not trying to put down designers just making sure they stay within their scope.

Sure, here in Oregon we have the exemption under both Architect and Engineer's law and I would reasonably expect the B.O. to accept the plans and calcs to be submitted (not necessarily approval for permits unless the plans and calcs meets the required code. However, if calcs are grossly prepared, I would accept the B.O. to demand calcs to be stamped by an RDP after the building designer has been given an opportunity to prepare it correctly the first time (with only minor errors). Thus, the same standard of quality of preparations to be expected.

Other states may not have exemption under engineers law and therefore should have calcs prepared by an registered engineer or an architect as permitted by law.

In other words, I expect the B.O. to not deny any provision of state laws including exemption unless it is reasonably justifiable that the BD is not able to adequately prepare the work. Accepting submission (with provisionary caveat in case the designer just can't do the calcs) should not automatically mean approval of permit. I think I made my point clear with Kilitact.

As for stamp or seal. It should not matter if there is an NCBDC seal or such. It can simply be deemed that the BD is certifying that he has A) Prepared the plans and B) Certify that the work has been prepared under his/her responsible charge and C) Is taking responsibility over the designs, plans and specifications of the submitted construction documents. Such stamp/seal shall not be interpreted as the same as that of an Architect or Engineer's seal. Just as an Architect stamp is not an Engineer's stamp. It should be recognized as its own but when stamp shall be prepared by an Architect or Engineer when required by State law. I think that it would not hurt anyone.

It is a separate matter altogether.

 

[RickAstoria]

I doubt they fell within the prescriptive requirements of the IRC so you better have a structural engineer you work with who will sign and seal his portion.

If the project was in Oregon, legally I can do all the design and calcs. However, some of the elements I would probably have an engineer anyway. Simply because of the level of liability because in Oregon, building designers are held accountable and can not escape negligence and tort just because they are not licensed.

The B.O. here would accept calcs from me IF I do the calcs (paper & pencil - not just some computer generated spit out). However, I would have to meet the same standard of preparation and care as would any other person preparing the calcs and meet the codes. It would be accepted if properly prepared however, if the BD such as myself can't do it properly, the B.O. would demand an RDP (engineer's stamp). Reasonable and complies with the provision of our exemption while also using common sense to protect the public. The B.O. isn't initially going to deny submittal just because a BD is not licensed. However, he isn't just going to approve it unless it meets the same level of standard that an Architect or Engineer would have to meet to have calcs approved. The standard isn't being reduced because if calcs are wrong, it isn't going to be accepted whether licensed or not.

It is a matter of proper preparation and meeting the codes and applicable standards. If it is done right, it would be approved. If the plans are not prepared right, it is not approved. However, non-exempt projects would require an Architect or Engineer's stamp as required by statutes. I think it is reasonably fair because no one's life is at risk while the plans and calcs are at review as they will be reviewed for compliance. Just because you are licensed doesn't mean you skip review.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Tort and negligence are not in the code and I could care less about all the liability you may or may not be exposed to. If calcs have to be done to prove the design then you are practicing engineering and no longer providing a design from the prescriptive requirements of the IRC. JMHO

 

[RickAstoria]

Tort and negligence are not in the code and I could care less about all the liability you may or may not be exposed to. If calcs have to be done to prove the design then you are practicing engineering and no longer providing a design from the prescriptive requirements of the IRC. JMHO

When an exemption or exception exists in licensing laws, it is an exemption/exception to the licensing requirements of that chapter. In Oregon, the exemption/exception exists under both Architect law (ORS 671) and Engineer's law (ORS 672).

An exemption/exception is not required in under Engineer's law if one was only to be permitted to design prescriptively. It would only be an exemption under Architect Act (ORS 671). The exemption/exception under ORS 672 is pertinent to the context of engineer's law. OSBEELS is the SOLE entity in charge of enforcement of the Engineer's law just as OBAE is responsible for the enforcement of Architect law.

The B.O. is not in charge of those matters. I was informed by OSBEELS that SFR and other exempted buildings are exempt for the licensing requirements and preparing calcs such as structural calcs would therefore be exempt. However, OSBEELS would not want unlicensed persons referring to themselves as Engineers and in general would prefer that the term "engineering services" not be used. However, a person can provide structural calcs, and other such as they are pertinent to the designing, planning and specifications in connection with exempt buildings.

Now, read 102.2. Therefore, the B.O. shall not cause to effect to nullify any provision of federal, state and local laws in carrying out the enforcement of the building codes. In Oregon, only a local law can nullify the exemption. However, there has to be a codified local law (not a policy or rule or regulation or interpretation) to nullify a statute. Statutes are codified state laws. It takes a codified local law to nullify a codified state law. It takes a codified law trump another codified law.

It may not be in the building code but that is how laws operate.

Regulations and agency rules are always subordinate to any codified law. In essence, if you violate the exemption/exception in the statutes in carrying out the enforcement of the building codes then you are breaking the code in the process and breaking law as well.

The B.O.s here do take a reasonable approach to handling this. If the building is exempt, anyone can submit drawings and calcs. However, calcs like the drawings needs to meet the same standard as anyone else (including architects and engineers). However, if they don't meet the codes and applicable standards and fails, permit is not issued. If calcs and drawings meet code and standards and are well and properly prepared (regardless of licensure status when in connection with exempt buildings) then they will be approved. If the preparer can not reasonably prepare particular drawings and calcs then the B.O. may require a qualified RDP to prepare those portions.

That is reasonable for protection of public HSW. Failed calcs simply means permit is denied EVEN if it is stamped by an Architect or Engineer.

In the end, it doesn't matter who but the end result. The only jerks really complaining and have issues and wants to restrict the non-licensed "competitors" are licensed design professionals (architects and engineers). Mostly architects. They are the ones making all the noise because it is all about money and not really about HSW as that is all red herring.

 

[mtlogcabin]

What you are allowed to do in your state applies only to your state. Where the IRC says an engineered design then you better be an engineer.

R106.1 Submittal documents.

Submittal documents consisting of construction documents , and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each application for a permit. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional .

R109.1.3 Floodplain inspections.

For construction in areas prone to flooding as established by Table R301.2(1), upon placement of the lowest floor, including basement , and prior to further vertical construction, the building official shall require submission of documentation, prepared and sealed by a registered design professional , of the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement , required in Section R322.

R502.8.2 Engineered wood products.

Cuts, notches and holes bored in trusses, structural composite lumber, structural glue-laminated members or I-joists are prohibited except where permitted by the manufacturer's recommendations or where the effects of such alterations are specifically considered in the design of the member by a registered design professional .

R301.1.3 Engineered design.

When a building of otherwise conventional construction contains structural elements exceeding the limits of Section R301 or otherwise not conforming to this code, these elements shall be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice. The extent of such design need only demonstrate compliance of nonconventional elements with other applicable provisions and shall be compatible with the performance of the conventional framed system. Engineered design in accordance with the International Building Code is permitted for all buildings and structures, and parts thereof, included in the scope of this code.