-
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.
two architects - one for design , another for construction
- Thread starter Kevin0616
- Start date
jar546
CBO
Please elaborate
The cutoff line is the building permit. One to work on getting the building permit. The other one is to perform functions from the start to the finish of construction and the final sign-off. I do not know what are the specific functions of the architect during the construction? not much?
tmurray
SAWHORSE
In Canada, this should not be that much of an issue. The first architect will be the one producing the plans and getting everything necessary to the building official for the permit. The second architect will produce all the required inspection reports for the construction inspections and certify the work is to code and in conformance with the plans.
Completely feasible and is done on many occasions. The architect providing construction contract administration (CCA), if registered, can make interpretations of the documents and issue changes without consulting the design architect. This arrangement can be accomplished in one of two ways:
- Design architect does the design through permitting, then another architect assumes the CCA responsibilities. There is no agreement between the design architect and the CCA architect. I've seen this happen on municipal projects where the municipality first hires an architect to do the design--the owner-architect agreement is for the design only. Then they execute a separate owner-architect agreement for CCA services. If the municipality didn't like working with the design architect but didn't fire them, they just don't sign a CCA services agreement with them and give it to another architect.
- Design architect either does not like performing CCA services, or they are in a location that doesn't allow them frequent access to the project site (e.g., out-of-state). They will then hire another architect (a local one if the design architect is not local) to perform CCA services, but retain all rights through an agreement to approve changes, review submittals, etc.
khsmith55
Bronze Member
I agree with RLGA with a few comments. If the "design Architects" Seal is on the Construction Documents it becomes a bit "sticky" if any changes are made, ASI's or supplementary drawings are issued/provided. At the very least, the CCA Architect should affix HIS/HER seal to ANY ASI's or supplementary drawings. Are you an Owner or AHJ? Just my thoughts.
Ken
Ken
tmurray
SAWHORSE
That one would be more like the design architect hiring another architect to do the inspections and reporting for the construction, so the agreement is between the architects. This would likely be regulated by the Architect's Act in Ontario or through their professional association. Not necessarily something you would need to worry about in regular circumstances.
Correct.
Ken, I agree, that is why I stated "if registered" for the CCA architect. Only a registrant can modify another registrant's documents (if permitted within their discipline, that is).
In my opinion 107.3.4 is an attempt to regulate the practice of architecture. The problem is that the entity adopting the building code does not have the authority to regulate the practice of architecture. Thus such provision is not enforceable.
As long as any submission to the building department is stamped by a properly licensed individual it should be of no concern to the building department.
As long as any submission to the building department is stamped by a properly licensed individual it should be of no concern to the building department.
I am the owner. At this point, I have two options to move forward.
The first one is to terminate my agreement with the current architect and find a new one to continue the design for building permit.
The second is to continue with the current architect to get the permit (she will sign and seal the plan drawings for permit application). After that, I do not want to have anything to do with the original architect and hire a new one, to complete the project. I am not sure if option 2 is feasible - having nothing to do with the original architect after getting the permit.
The first one is to terminate my agreement with the current architect and find a new one to continue the design for building permit.
The second is to continue with the current architect to get the permit (she will sign and seal the plan drawings for permit application). After that, I do not want to have anything to do with the original architect and hire a new one, to complete the project. I am not sure if option 2 is feasible - having nothing to do with the original architect after getting the permit.
I don't think Section 107.3.4 is trying to regulate the practice of architecture at all. All it is asking is that the AHJ be informed when the registered design professional in responsible charge is replaced with another.
For comparison, do you think that an owner would like to know if the design architect they hired decided to pass off their design responsibility to another architect?
The AHJ is informed of who is the design professional when he sees the architects stamp on the submission. We need to remember that while the design professional may have obligations to the owner it is the Owner not the design professional that has the obligation to provide a building in compliance with the building code and other laws. The design professionals documents are instruments of service that communicate recommendations to the Owner.
The building departments role is limited to the enforcement of building code. The contract between the owner and the architect is not a concern of the building department. In spite of language in the building code to the contrary the building code cannot regulate the practice of architecture or engineering and the building code has no ability to define the contractual relationship between the owner and the design professional.
The roles of the various design professionals is defined by the architect owner agreement which is not something that the building department has the power to enforce. If the original architect hires another architect to perform certain services the original architect is still responsible to the owner. Another architect would not take on QA responsibilities unless he had a contract so the possibility of the architect handing off CD services to another Architect who has no agreement with the owner and is not being paid by the design architect is hard to imagine.
Mandating one architect or engineer who is in responsible charge of the whole project is inconsistent with The Professional Engineers Act in California which recognizes that a professional engineer may have responsibility for a limited aspect of the project.
The building departments role is limited to the enforcement of building code. The contract between the owner and the architect is not a concern of the building department. In spite of language in the building code to the contrary the building code cannot regulate the practice of architecture or engineering and the building code has no ability to define the contractual relationship between the owner and the design professional.
The roles of the various design professionals is defined by the architect owner agreement which is not something that the building department has the power to enforce. If the original architect hires another architect to perform certain services the original architect is still responsible to the owner. Another architect would not take on QA responsibilities unless he had a contract so the possibility of the architect handing off CD services to another Architect who has no agreement with the owner and is not being paid by the design architect is hard to imagine.
Mandating one architect or engineer who is in responsible charge of the whole project is inconsistent with The Professional Engineers Act in California which recognizes that a professional engineer may have responsibility for a limited aspect of the project.
That is possible, but the second architect can only oversee the construction, they cannot make any changes to the plans. So if something comes up ... unforseen or hidden conditions ... you might have a problem.
Check with your jurisdiction, see if the AoR has to submit a document at the end of the project to certify all work was done in accordance with the permit plans. The second architect may not be allowed to do that, and the first one may refuse if you left on bad terms, and then you won’t be able to get a CO. (In Maryland it’s U&O).
khsmith55
Bronze Member
Kevin, being the Owner creates another set of possible problems for you. If you decide to "fire" the original Architect mid-stream of the design and Construction Documents be cordial and up-front with her, DO NOT go behind her back and hire another Architect without her knowledge. I suggest you enter into a written Termination Agreement with her giving a "limited" release of Copyright, otherwise you may be opening yourself and the future Architect to civil liabilities (i.e. copyright infringement lawsuit). If you terminate her AFTER the Construction Documents are complete it probably isn't a Copyright infringement. I suggest you seek competent Legal Council to guide you.
Ken
Why do building officials want to regulate engineers and architects?
Why do you refuse to accept the reality that as far as the building department is concerned if the building fails to comply with the building regulations the building department can only take action against the building owner? It would be interesting to see the contractor's response if the building department sued the contractor because the building he constructed did not comply with the construction documents. The building department would be laughed out of court. Contractors play hardball.
Please note that the IBC does not have any requirement requiring a certification by the design professional. Such requests by building departments are illegal. These certification requirements appear to be an attempt to make the design professional responsible for the completed work of others over which the design professional has no real control. If this is a misguided attempt by the building department to limit their liability it should be recognized that in most states the building department has no liability for their failure to identify code violations.
Why do you refuse to accept the reality that as far as the building department is concerned if the building fails to comply with the building regulations the building department can only take action against the building owner? It would be interesting to see the contractor's response if the building department sued the contractor because the building he constructed did not comply with the construction documents. The building department would be laughed out of court. Contractors play hardball.
Please note that the IBC does not have any requirement requiring a certification by the design professional. Such requests by building departments are illegal. These certification requirements appear to be an attempt to make the design professional responsible for the completed work of others over which the design professional has no real control. If this is a misguided attempt by the building department to limit their liability it should be recognized that in most states the building department has no liability for their failure to identify code violations.
Owner contractor contracts regularly address who owns the construction documents and how the client can use them. In any case that is not the concern of the building department. The building department just needs to focus on weather the design complies with the code and was the building constructed in accordance of the code.