• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Some folks don't know when it's time to retire

I'm not sure I would agree that the OP was trying to force the engineer to be responsible for means and methods. I think they were trying to illustrate the fact that based on the provided drawings, no contractor could reasonably develop means and methods due to the missing information.

Plans must be in sufficient detail to determine code compliance. It is clear that in this case the plans did not meet this standard.
It is not the responsibility of the building dept to make the engineer responsible for means and methods

If means and methods are the contractors responsibility then he can provide the missing information
 
It is not the responsibility of the building dept to make the engineer responsible for means and methods

If means and methods are the contractors responsibility then he can provide the missing information
Yes. I'm agreeing with you.

The OP agrees with you as well.

The crux of the issue is that there is insufficient information on the plans to determine code compliance. It is irrelevant if the plans are stamped by an engineer or not.
 
Yes. I'm agreeing with you.

The OP agrees with you as well.

The crux of the issue is that there is insufficient information on the plans to determine code compliance. It is irrelevant if the plans are stamped by an engineer or not.
If the contractor has a question he can always ask the engineer.
If a permit was issued it might be assumed that the building official believed the construction documents were code compliant.
 
This is an easy answer for us Canadians. We have federal law that states EVERYONE is responsible for workplace safety.

Now, this doesn't mean that every single person has the power of law to enforce workplace health and safety laws, but you are responsible for advising the proper authorities that there are unsafe workplace practices.

When I was still in the field, I had the local workplace health and safety inspector's cell number on speed dial.

Our professional liability insurance carrier has told us that if we believe someone is in imminent danger due to means, sequences and procedures, it is acceptable to for us (architect-of-record) to speak out, even if it disrupts work.
If a truck is about to back up over a pedestrian, yelling "STOP!!" is OK and does not constitute an acceptance of legal responsibility for means, sequences, and procedures.

Our firm has only been in this position once, when our field architect saw a laborer doing work in the bottom of a long utility trench that was about 10' deep and 30" wide with no lay-back or shoring, which would have been required by both the geotech report and Cal-OSHA. Our architect ordered him to get out of the trench.
 
While I was still employed by Los Angeles County as an inspector, there arrived in my email inbox a puzzling demand. It was a notice that I was supposed to choose pronouns for attachment to my emails. I could chose to be he/him, she/her, they/them. Just like that I could change my gender in the eyes of my employer. There was also the advice that I shall honor the choices made by my 130,000 fellows and the public at large. Failure to comply could result in discipline of an unspecified nature… I don’t know, maybe they would whack me on my .....
 
Last edited:
If the contractor has a question he can always ask the engineer.
If a permit was issued it might be assumed that the building official believed the construction documents were code compliant.
I think you're making an assumption that the permit was issued and that there is a contractor engaged in work.

Based on my reading of the OP, they are in the permit review stage. I could be wrong though.
 
I think you're making an assumption that the permit was issued and that there is a contractor engaged in work.

Based on my reading of the OP, they are in the permit review stage. I could be wrong though.

You are correct. We have not issued a permit.

Section 107.2.1 of the 2021 IBC includes the following:

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.

Where there are piers that in the small-scale plans and vertical cross-section views are clearly larger than the column base plates -- but aren't dimensioned -- but the detail pier plan views are nothing but cut-and-paste views of the base plates from the PEMB package, I don't think there is any question that the drawings are NOT of sufficient clarity to indicate the location and the extent of the work proposed.

What was even more preposterous was the engineer's statement that he took the pier sizes directly off the PEMB drawings. Those drawings don't include any information about the foundations. Like all PEMB drawings, they provide a table showing the reactions at each of the frame base locations, but they don't address the foundations. That's what the 92-year old local engineer was hired to design.

This has nothing to do with means, methods, techniques and sequences. Forming a rectangular concrete pier isn't rocket science, but figuring out what size to make the plywood box isn't a question of means and methods. That's part of the structural design.
 
There is no way the building department plays "conductor" in the "grand symphony of construction." On small projects, that's the contractor's job. On larger projects, that role may fall to a construction manager. The building department's role is more akin to that of a music critic; we observe the performance, and we rate it. Unlike a music critic, however, we don't rely on subjective criteria to rate the "orchestra's" performance. We have objective criteria: the building (and fire) codes. If the completed work meets the code, we can sign off. If the completed work doesn't meet the code requirements, we don't sign off. We do not -- and legally cannot -- tell a contractor or owner or design professional how to do their jobs. In fact, if we were to do so we would open our jurisdiction and ourselves up to being sued for tortious interference.
Ah, my dear Yankee Chronicler, your retort is as spirited as it is predictable. However, allow me to elucidate further, for it appears there is a subtle nuance you may have overlooked.

You see, in the delicate dance of construction, the building department's role transcends mere observation and critique. Indeed, a music critic may rate a performance, but their influence ends with their pen. The building department, on the other hand, possesses a far more intricate and influential role.

Imagine, if you will, the contractor as a virtuosic soloist, the engineers as the skilled musicians, and the construction manager as the diligent maestro, each playing their part with finesse. Yet, it is the building department, and particularly the building official, who sets the stage, ensuring the instruments are in tune, the scores are correct, and the musicians adhere to the symphony's grand design.

Our prerogative is not to dictate the exact notes to be played but to ensure that the symphony adheres to a harmonious structure, one that meets the codified expectations of safety, integrity, and compliance. Without this authoritative oversight, the orchestra may well devolve into a cacophony of dissonance, no matter how skilled the individual players.

To say we do not influence the performance is to misunderstand our function entirely. We are the unseen hand, the guiding force ensuring that every note, every measure, aligns with the overarching symphony of construction law and regulation. While we may not wield the baton with overt gestures, our influence is felt in every corner of the performance, from the initial blueprint to the final inspection.

And as for the notion of tortious interference, let us not confuse guidance with dictation. Our role is to provide the parameters within which the performance must occur, not to choreograph every step. We set the boundaries, the standards, the criteria for success. The virtuosos—contractors, engineers, and managers—are free to interpret and execute within those bounds.

So, my dear chronicler, while you may view us as mere critics, I assure you, our role is far more profound. We are the custodians of order, the arbiters of compliance, and yes, in our own discreet manner, the conductors of this magnificent symphony.
 
Back
Top