• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Soils Reports

When I had a real job the teasing was a part of life. For most of my years as an inspector there was plenty of entertainment. Here lately the goal of so many is to be offended. Innocent remarks and idle chit chat can be taken out of context and turned into a weapon against you. Having experienced that first hand, I limit my interaction with everyone to just what is absolutely necessary.

It is getting stranger out there. The words Sir and Ma'am are toxic. You have to figure out if He, She or It is appropriate. Worse yet is not knowing what gender is before you. I'm not sure what the end goal of this phenomena might be but limiting discourse is one result.
Wait...are you saying a fire wall has to actually be a fire wall, not just identify as one?

Back to the drawing board.
 
So... there was a question a while back on how a building official who is not a geotechnical engineer is in a position to determine a geotechnical report is not acceptable. It's a situation I feel we can all agree on.

We had a specific engineer working on a project. For those of us working for the government, we have this kind of engineer in every jurisdiction. For the rest of you, you've probably worked with this engineer once or twice and sworn "never again!". They are the ones who appear to stamp any design for the right price.

So, I am in receipt of a geotechnical report from this engineer. Engineers here must determine their own competence. Everyone is an engineer regardless of their area of practice. Now this is the first geotechnical report I am getting from this engineer ever. When I read the report, it was clear that they had not completed a sub-surface investigation. No bore holes. No test pits. Nothing. Just a statement that the soils appear acceptable.

We obviously rejected this report and the owner contracted a different engineer, a full-time geotechnical engineer with decades of experience this time. A few test pits later and the soils were found to not be acceptable and soil improvements prescribed.

Can I review the sieve tests, acceptable lifts between compaction, whether a plate or roller compactor is necessary, if proof rolling is called for or not? No, and largely I don't need to.

You hand me something super sketchy, I will reject it.
 
You said "Questions as to what information the Contractor needs to bid the job are the concern of myself and my client and not something that concerns the building department.

How about a situation I have encountered on a number of occasions, for a MAKE SAFE Permit where our Dept has identified a serious structural problem, and the Engineer has not spelled out the Means and Methods to shore or support some part of the structure to affect the repair.
You do understand that the Contractor has Completed Operations Liability and their coverage DOES NOT INCLUDE DESIGN ERRORS AND OMISSIONS which is in your wheelhouse. My experience has been the reverse of what you are suggesting is the problem

I have got a similar problem as we speak and would be happy to share the situation with you off line, if you could bring yourself to speak with a mere Plan REVIEWER / Former Commercial Carpenter as an Equal

Best, Mike B
Remember that when you issue your MAKE SAFE order that the target of this order is the building owner. You are not in a position to direct the engineer or the contractor to do something. As the building official you can take action against the building and possibly the building owner. Inevitability the building owner will address the problem.

The building owner has contracts with the contractor in addition to the design team. Under this system the Owner would typically tell the contractor to make the repair. In some cases, it may be necessary for the owner's engineer to design a repair that will be a part of the completed structure. The Owner's engineer's design has defined what the completed building should look like., not the means and methods of construction.

The reality in almost all cases the contract between the owner and the contractor makes the contractor responsible for means and methods. This is a bedrock principle of owner contractor agreements. The type of insurance the contractor has does not modify this liability. It is not uncommon for contractors to hire their own engineer to advise them on how to affect the repair.

The contractor's contract is based on their having control of the means and methods of construction. If you were to make the Owner's engineer responsible for the means and methods of construction the engineer would inevitably require the contractor do things different than the Contractor assumed in his bid. This in turn would lead to claims against the Owner for the added cost. So, in the case where the Contractor was responsible for the problem this could result in the Owner being responsible for the repair cost.

It would be interesting if a plan checker on a project being built for the city, he worked for, would require the structural engineer be responsible for the means and methods of construction. My sense is that this plan checker would quickly get an education.

The building department should focus on code compliance and not on who is responsible.

Where an individual started out is not as important as what they know. Transitioning from working in the trades to being a plan reviewer creates a lot of challenges because inevitably the tradesman has only seen part of the story. This is particularly a problem when a plan reviewer with no structural training tries to plan check structural issues. Here the issue is not who the plan reviewer is but rather what he knows. In my experience this is not a major problem in California since building departments either have a plan checker with a structural background on staff or contract with a separate firm to perform structural plan checks.
 
So... there was a question a while back on how a building official who is not a geotechnical engineer is in a position to determine a geotechnical report is not acceptable. It's a situation I feel we can all agree on.

We had a specific engineer working on a project. For those of us working for the government, we have this kind of engineer in every jurisdiction. For the rest of you, you've probably worked with this engineer once or twice and sworn "never again!". They are the ones who appear to stamp any design for the right price.

So, I am in receipt of a geotechnical report from this engineer. Engineers here must determine their own competence. Everyone is an engineer regardless of their area of practice. Now this is the first geotechnical report I am getting from this engineer ever. When I read the report, it was clear that they had not completed a sub-surface investigation. No bore holes. No test pits. Nothing. Just a statement that the soils appear acceptable.

We obviously rejected this report and the owner contracted a different engineer, a full-time geotechnical engineer with decades of experience this time. A few test pits later and the soils were found to not be acceptable and soil improvements prescribed.

Can I review the sieve tests, acceptable lifts between compaction, whether a plate or roller compactor is necessary, if proof rolling is called for or not? No, and largely I don't need to.

You hand me something super sketchy, I will reject it.
So had you just shuffled the paper and relied on the stamp without any critical eye, a foundation could have been built and failed at some point. Who would be blamed?....Everybody including the food truck? Who does it cost? In the end, I would think the sketchy engineer, but everyone ends up paying in some form or other. But with just a touch of critical thinking and attention, the whole situation may be avoided, and the only cost is the lost revenue to the attorneys.

Just today I received the third soils report on a project. I checked the first one and it was 7 years old, for a different project, different owner and different location on the property (same parcel), not referenced on the engineered foundation. The report limited it's validity to one year, to the original owner and for the specified project. Easy, but just to dot my i's" I contacted the geotechnical firm to make sure I couldn't use it. They said no. The second one was a little more recent, but still contained all the same limitations. The third, by the same geotech as the first two, was owner, project and site specific, done within a few days and referencing the engineered design. This isn't typical, as most around here recognize the need and value (and requirement) of the evaluations.

I do not review, nor in many cases understand the technical aspects of the reports. But I do my best to make sure they are for the right place.
 
I am very familiar with small projects. Yes there are some engineers in this market that may not have the highest standards.

This does not change the fact that any action taken by the building department must be based on the law. Yes some projects are more challenging and you may need to find a creative solution. Try sending a letter to the project owner pointing out the inconsistencies and asking for more information.

When a public official, even with the best intentions, decides to avoid the law we have problems. If you find yourself in what you see as a difficult situation talk with the city attorney.
 
I am very familiar with small projects. Yes there are some engineers in this market that may not have the highest standards.

This does not change the fact that any action taken by the building department must be based on the law. Yes some projects are more challenging and you may need to find a creative solution. Try sending a letter to the project owner pointing out the inconsistencies and asking for more information.

When a public official, even with the best intentions, decides to avoid the law we have problems. If you find yourself in what you see as a difficult situation talk with the city attorney.
I'm not sure how what I did was in violation of the law. The code clearly lays out the requirements related to sub-surface investigation. It remains my job to seek code compliance with the owner.
 
When a public official, even with the best intentions, decides to avoid the law we have problems. If you find yourself in what you see as a difficult situation talk with the city attorney.
I agree with you on this one. We must all work within the law and scope of our positions.
 
I'm not sure how what I did was in violation of the law. The code clearly lays out the requirements related to sub-surface investigation. It remains my job to seek code compliance with the owner.
I am not sure that was directed at you. I thought it was for me based on a previous post about smaller projects.
 
Remember that when you issue your MAKE SAFE order that the target of this order is the building owner. You are not in a position to direct the engineer or the contractor to do something. As the building official you can take action against the building and possibly the building owner. Inevitability the building owner will address the problem.

The building owner has contracts with the contractor in addition to the design team. Under this system the Owner would typically tell the contractor to make the repair. In some cases, it may be necessary for the owner's engineer to design a repair that will be a part of the completed structure. The Owner's engineer's design has defined what the completed building should look like., not the means and methods of construction.

The reality in almost all cases the contract between the owner and the contractor makes the contractor responsible for means and methods. This is a bedrock principle of owner contractor agreements. The type of insurance the contractor has does not modify this liability. It is not uncommon for contractors to hire their own engineer to advise them on how to affect the repair.

The contractor's contract is based on their having control of the means and methods of construction. If you were to make the Owner's engineer responsible for the means and methods of construction the engineer would inevitably require the contractor do things different than the Contractor assumed in his bid. This in turn would lead to claims against the Owner for the added cost. So, in the case where the Contractor was responsible for the problem this could result in the Owner being responsible for the repair cost.

It would be interesting if a plan checker on a project being built for the city, he worked for, would require the structural engineer be responsible for the means and methods of construction. My sense is that this plan checker would quickly get an education.

The building department should focus on code compliance and not on who is responsible.

Where an individual started out is not as important as what they know. Transitioning from working in the trades to being a plan reviewer creates a lot of challenges because inevitably the tradesman has only seen part of the story. This is particularly a problem when a plan reviewer with no structural training tries to plan check structural issues. Here the issue is not who the plan reviewer is but rather what he knows. In my experience this is not a major problem in California since building departments either have a plan checker with a structural background on staff or contract with a separate firm to perform structural plan checks.
Mark, I agree with much of what you said

We have 2 levels of Make Safe, the ID Imenatly Dangerous is the one where collapse or catastrophic failure is possible Requires an Engineer Inspection / Review and Plans.

If only, the docs reflect the complete analysis you have provided. The Engineer does not clearly state where their responsibility ends and the Contractor is going to try to make the job look like the Engineer drew it when done, The Contractor on this small job, not understanding that they don't have a real plan as to how to hold the building up while they are trying to fix it, does their best to make "it happen" They probably don't understand the Means and methods concept on this small job.

Since our Job is Public Safety, and I, like you, understand this Means and Methods aspect, feel it my responsibility to bring this to the Contractor's attention. If fact, I feel the absence of the Means and Methods Sequence or Instructions, makes this Permit Application Incomplete. I don't want to be involved with a situation where someone would lose their Limbs or Life because of the absence of an engineered approach to fixing a structural problem.

Do you see this as Over Reaching?
 
What recourse is there for inspectors when we encounter and engineer that is doing a poor job? I was recently involved with several projects where the EOR was working way outside of his scope, and even the work he was qualified to perform was poorly executed and it resulted in serious pain for the property owners, building department (me), and the engineer.
I, along with inspectors from nearby jurisdictions, reported him to hiss association. As a result he has had his professional designation removed and has fines levies against him.
The experience taught me to not blindly accept anything. If I have questions about something in an engineering report I ask them, even at the risk of sounding stupid.
Not an attack on engineers, I have met inspectors that were not performing their job correctly too. I like to keep in mind that anybody can have a bad day and make mistakes.
 
Not an attack on engineers, I have met inspectors that were not performing their job correctly too. I like to keep in mind that anybody can have a bad day and make mistakes.
Poorly performing inspectors are way more common that shoddy engineers. It's not even close.


The experience taught me to not blindly accept anything. If I have questions about something in an engineering report I ask them, even at the risk of sounding stupid.
I have encountered engineers that demean the questioner. Most people experience that just once.

I have learned a great many things by asking engineers questions. Keep in mind that the engineer didn't always know the answer....it took someone telling it to him.
 
I don't know about in other areas but here in Kentucky and architect can act as a structural engineer for most buildings. They can even wet stamp drawings in lieu of a structural engineer stamping the drawings. Some of them do pretty good but the majority of them provide details that are lacking at best and disastrous at worst in many cases! I firmly believe that every commercial structure should be Req to have a structural engineer review and stamp the drawings! Some of the stories I read in the thread certainly support my thought!
 
I'm not sure how what I did was in violation of the law. The code clearly lays out the requirements related to sub-surface investigation. It remains my job to seek code compliance with the owner.
The adopted building code is a law.. What gives you the authority to require something not in the law? What gives you the authority to withhold a permit when there is no violation of the building code? I contend that when you do such things you are violating the rights of the applicant.
 
Mark, I agree with much of what you said

We have 2 levels of Make Safe, the ID Imenatly Dangerous is the one where collapse or catastrophic failure is possible Requires an Engineer Inspection / Review and Plans.

If only, the docs reflect the complete analysis you have provided. The Engineer does not clearly state where their responsibility ends and the Contractor is going to try to make the job look like the Engineer drew it when done, The Contractor on this small job, not understanding that they don't have a real plan as to how to hold the building up while they are trying to fix it, does their best to make "it happen" They probably don't understand the Means and methods concept on this small job.

Since our Job is Public Safety, and I, like you, understand this Means and Methods aspect, feel it my responsibility to bring this to the Contractor's attention. If fact, I feel the absence of the Means and Methods Sequence or Instructions, makes this Permit Application Incomplete. I don't want to be involved with a situation where someone would lose their Limbs or Life because of the absence of an engineered approach to fixing a structural problem.

Do you see this as Over Reaching?
The standard owner contractor agreements do a good job of describing the contractor's responsibilities.

There is a difference between sharing insights and using the power of you office to force somebody to do something when you lack legal authority to do so.

You say it is your responsibility to bring the issue to the contractor's attention. If there is a problem with the submitted permit drawings it is the responsibility of the Owner and his consultants, not the contractor, to address the problem.

Another relevant legal issue has to do with immunity of government employees. There are exceptions to this immunity. A common one at least in California is when you have established a special relationship to protect an individual. When you have crossed this line, you no longer have immunity and can thus have liability.

I will admit that the building code doesn't say a lot about some issues, particularly with regards geotechnical reports, and that there may be no obvious tools to address some of the situations noted. My advice is to talk with the City attorney. From the architect's and the engineer's perspective construction administration can be nerve-racking since in addition to worrying about the safety of the building they are also worried about having potential liability for contractors claims. In such situations you are best served by playing it by the book. If you take it upon yourself to set things right you may be setting yourself up to take the fall if there are problems.

In the case of what you believe is a questionable geotechnical report where you cannot quote a code provision it might make sense to consult with another geotechnical engineer. to better appreciate what the code says about geotechnical reports. If you still cannot find a reason to refuse to issue a permit you might want to have a meeting with the owner, the designers, and the city attorney to explain your concerns. Issue a report summarizing what was discussed. You might want to suggest the owner bring his attorney. You might be surprised how such a meeting will get everybody's attention.

Consider having OSHA or your state agency dealing with the OSHA regulations on site during the jacking

There are ways to play hardball
 
The standard owner contractor agreements do a good job of describing the contractor's responsibilities.
You are absolutely, unequivocably 100% wrong in this assumption. Walk in our shoes once in a while and see what kind of garbage gets submitted by contractors. Everyone (contractors) has their own contract and no two are alike. Some are so basic they don't even describe the scope of work. Maybe the projects you partake in are located in the center of Perfect World, but certainly not outside of your tiny little bubble.
 
The adopted building code is a law.. What gives you the authority to require something not in the law? What gives you the authority to withhold a permit when there is no violation of the building code? I contend that when you do such things you are violating the rights of the applicant.
I relied on this case law: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbapab...html?autocompleteStr=72218&autocompletePos=11

Specifically the following sections:

It is a fact that the “…… ground and surrounding site conditions” of the Red Head area near the subject are subject to unpredictable slope instability and erosion.

This would, in our opinion, justify a high degree of caution and diligence on the part of the building inspector in assessing an application for a building permit in this area.

We cannot answer the question as to whether it is possible for the Appellant to obtain a soils report to satisfy the Building Inspector. Having sympathy, indeed great sympathy for the Appellant, does not change the fact that the Building Inspector had the right to expect certain conditions to be met before he issued the building permit. He does after all, act on behalf of all of the City’s residents.

TLDR: property owner needed to move their home because erosion was causing a risk that their house is going to fall into the Atlantic Ocean. They approach the building inspection department and was informed he would need a geotechnical report. He goes to one firm who told him they will not issue any reports for his area (soils are a known major issue there). He then goes to another engineer who gives him two separate letters, both of which are rejected by the building inspection department. Owner then appeals their decision to not issue a permit. The appeal upholds the building inspection department's decision not to issue the permit based on the inadequacy of the geotechnical reports.

Unfortunately, case law does not reflect your feelings on this issue. At least not here. Building officials are provided a great degree of latitude in the enforcement of the code.
 
The standard owner contractor agreements do a good job of describing the contractor's responsibilities.

There is a difference between sharing insights and using the power of you office to force somebody to do something when you lack legal authority to do so.

You say it is your responsibility to bring the issue to the contractor's attention. If there is a problem with the submitted permit drawings it is the responsibility of the Owner and his consultants, not the contractor, to address the problem.

Another relevant legal issue has to do with immunity of government employees. There are exceptions to this immunity. A common one at least in California is when you have established a special relationship to protect an individual. When you have crossed this line, you no longer have immunity and can thus have liability.

I will admit that the building code doesn't say a lot about some issues, particularly with regards geotechnical reports, and that there may be no obvious tools to address some of the situations noted. My advice is to talk with the City attorney. From the architect's and the engineer's perspective construction administration can be nerve-racking since in addition to worrying about the safety of the building they are also worried about having potential liability for contractors claims. In such situations you are best served by playing it by the book. If you take it upon yourself to set things right you may be setting yourself up to take the fall if there are problems.

In the case of what you believe is a questionable geotechnical report where you cannot quote a code provision it might make sense to consult with another geotechnical engineer. to better appreciate what the code says about geotechnical reports. If you still cannot find a reason to refuse to issue a permit you might want to have a meeting with the owner, the designers, and the city attorney to explain your concerns. Issue a report summarizing what was discussed. You might want to suggest the owner bring his attorney. You might be surprised how such a meeting will get everybody's attention.

Consider having OSHA or your state agency dealing with the OSHA regulations on site during the jacking

There are ways to play hardball
Mark, OSHA is limited to Worker / Workplace Safety. They are not authorized to consider these CODE Issues

What we are talking about is NOT the large Jobs but the smaller ones where often the Contractor is also providing, de facto, the Design Professional's scope of work as well. They are not signing an owner's agreement or even havinge an Architect. The days of the Architect acting as the Construction Manager are long gone

So, these owners are more consumers than well informed Owners / Developers
We have the responsibility for PUBLIC SAFETY

So we need to Do Our Job!

When you consider these small jobs, do you apply the same approach?
 
You are absolutely, unequivocably 100% wrong in this assumption. Walk in our shoes once in a while and see what kind of garbage gets submitted by contractors. Everyone (contractors) has their own contract and no two are alike. Some are so basic they don't even describe the scope of work. Maybe the projects you partake in are located in the center of Perfect World, but certainly not outside of your tiny little bubble.
There is a difference between the contractors responsibilities and what they do. In any case it is not the building departments responsibility to determine how the work gets divided up.
 
Mark, OSHA is limited to Worker / Workplace Safety. They are not authorized to consider these CODE Issues

What we are talking about is NOT the large Jobs but the smaller ones where often the Contractor is also providing, de facto, the Design Professional's scope of work as well. They are not signing an owner's agreement or even havinge an Architect. The days of the Architect acting as the Construction Manager are long gone

So, these owners are more consumers than well informed Owners / Developers
We have the responsibility for PUBLIC SAFETY

So we need to Do Our Job!

When you consider these small jobs, do you apply the same approach?
I am hearing you say that our system of laws is not working and that you are appointing yourself as the savior. Be honest is declaring that you are a law unto yourself and are in rebellion against the state.
 
I am hearing you say that our system of laws is not working and that you are appointing yourself as the savior. Be honest is declaring that you are a law unto yourself and are in rebellion against the state.
Well guess what Mark….if we all shared you philosophy hardly anything would ever get done. We’d be sitting on our hands, afraid to make a move lest we step on a toe that got in the way.
 
Top