After the fact 3

[fotoenergy]

Greetings all-

Not so much an ethical question but a question on liability and responsibility. I am a fairly new Professional Engineer concerned with legal/ethical responsibility and I have a hypothetical scenario I would like to play out.

During the design the PE oversaw the design and issued their stamp to the permit and construction drawings. The design was carried out through the construction. The AHJ gave final completion and signed off on the project. Months pass and the engineer finds out through further research that the assumed code compliant design is not code compliant.

How much of the responsibility, if any, does the AHJ carry? Is it the full responsibility of the PE to bring to light the issue at hand and fix the problem?

To further complicate the issue, how should the PE react knowing the design does not satisfy code but, using common engineering tools, can show that the likelihood of this problem becoming an issue is very small and therefore potentially a non-issue.

I know what the pure ethical answer is, "Fix the problem and make it code compliant" but I would like to hear some interesting arguments for non-action, if any. I would also like to know how much responsibility the AHJ holds in approving the installation.

I welcome myself to this board. Thanks for all the help in the past.

foto

 

[JAE]

AHJ responsibility is zero in my opinion. I'm a PE. The design is mine. The buck stops here. I am the one that the state licenses as being competent enough to KNOW how to design. My primary focus is the public safety and welfare.

The AHJ is reviewing plans to ensure that a PE has taken responsibility (sealed it) and that the provisions indicated on the plans (i.e. code, wind load, occupancy, etc.) is correct...nothing more. The AHJ doesn't have the ability (usually...some do) to do engineering or check engineering or find subtle things within the design that aren't code compliant.

As far as what to do: depends on the public safety and welfare. Engineering is many times science bordering on art. The calculations are based on assumptions that can be worked on in terms of degree of conservatism, etc. to SOMETIMES make things work that first appear to be non-code compliant.

If "the likelihood of this problem becoming an issue is very small" that sounds like engineering judgement comes into play. And we are (or should be) judged by what another reasonable engineer would do in our shoes.

 

[hokie66]

Hate these acronyms. What's an AHJ?

 

[dtn6770]

Authority Having Jurisdiction.

JAE has a good take on the situation.

 

[eliebl]

A few years ago APEGGA (Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta) revised thier code of ethics to specifically reference code compliance. Prior to that, there were no references to code compliance. The code of ethics now makes it unskilled practice to stamp soemthing which is not code compliant even though it may be safe.

Even though there may be jurisdictional review on an item, I do not know of a case where they are taking any responsibility away from the responsible Engineer. In Alberta there are specific clauses in most of the laws that exempt the government and delegated officers (eg. plans reviewers) from assuming any liability.

Personally, honesty is what is important here. If the AHJ finds the error (oversight) later I suspect that it will become a bigger issue that if it is identified, with a plan to correct it, by the responsible engineer.

EJL

 

[Atomic25]

Legally, AHJ has no responsibility. As said, the buck stops with your stamp. They provide a courtesy review. From the public eye point of view, the primary reason for AHJ's existence is to enforce the code. Underqualified AHJ's let a lot of sloppy work through....and they're not directly responsible for the concequences.

Your question really depends on what's wrong. Are you talking about an underdesigned lateral system or something else?

 

[IRstuff]

The EOR is always responsible.

Say your FEA program glitches and gives you the wrong answer, you're still the liable one and can't pass it off to the software supplier.

Your due diligence demands alternate verification methods.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[Ashereng]

I agree with the above responses, and would like to add that ALL PEs have a responsibility to report something that they did which does indeed have an error, ESPECIALLY if it is not to code.

This not only is an ETHICAL question, it is also a LEGAL questions. You are required by law to report that your design does not meet code.


"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[msquared48]

I agree about 90% here with JAE. If it were true to 100%, then there would be no need for the existance of any local building authority, AHU, or whatever you call it.

The way I look at it, merely by checking the work for code compliance, they do assume a degree of liability (call the degree what you will), and that is the reason these jurisdictions do have liability insurance. They can be, and have been sued. In years past in my area of practice, there was a big push to get plans examiners not to practice any engineering as the juriscictions were getting sued by clients. Their insurers were demanding this. Such is still the case.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[dcasto]

I'd have to take into account the term "code". As in other discussions here, the term can mean anything from a recommended pratice or guidline, to a perscriptive legally binding term.

If the RP was to say have 1" of steel, from a mill that uses XYZ standard +/- 10%, and you ran a detailed analysis that called for .995 inch and got the steel from a mill that ran YXZ standard +/- 3%, then ethically you did right. Reporting it would be prudent with your back up.

If the local city ordinance says 1" with only XYZ standard, you must report it and be prepared to fix it per the legal requirement.

 

[msquared48]

As an additional thought to my previous post, anytime you perform any engineering services or and/or take money for those services, you assume a degree of professional risk and responsibility.

Such is the case with all plans checkers. When waqs the last time you heard one of your clients complaining about the fees charged by the local jurisdictions? They are not all taxes. Some are direct charges for the plan review process. Just a thought.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[whyun]

In speaking of errors and omissions, engineers are capable of having errors and/or omissions but plan reviewers can NEVER have errors because they do not create the document. Plan reviewers may "miss" major issues that cause a failure (call it omission) but error is on the part of the engineer.

 

[msquared48]

Whyun:

Sorry, but I do not agree here at all. Jurisdictions definitely can have errors. I know of more than one case where whole drawing plansets were lost or misplaced, delaying the approval of the project and creating more costs for the owner. Similarly, I have seen many "Standard Plans" where mistakes were too numerous to mention. They definitely need E & O too.

Mike McCann
McCann Engineering

 

[JStephen]

"...ALL PEs have a responsibility to report something that they did which does indeed have an error...You are required by law to report that your design does not meet code."

It seems to me that it would depend on the nature of the problem, which is not really stated here.

Engineers have a responsibility to the safety of the public. And if it's a safety issue, then yes, it should be addressed. But to say that any sort of mistake, regardless of how insignificant, should be reported, seems to go a bit far.

A related question- suppose you are looking over plans someone else has prepared, either recently or from 20 years ago, and you spot some issue that doesn't meet code or some minor mistake, are you then obligated to report that to all concerned?

 

[doberdorks]

A related question- suppose you are looking over plans someone else has prepared, either recently or from 20 years ago, and you spot some issue that doesn't meet code or some minor mistake, are you then obligated to report that to all concerned?

I have in the past reported to a client "It appears that XXX doesn't meet code, as this is not part of the work which we are doing, I will leave it to you to check and act as necessary" (not sure of exact words). In this case the client was also an engineer so I felt due diligence was done. If I had been asked to review the drawings that didn't meet code, then of course, I would be obliged to say "this doesn't meet code" to whomever had asked me to review the drawings. .. now I might add "it may be acceptable base on a sharper pencil evaluation" or "it may be acceptable anyway" depending on the exact circumstances.

SLH

 

[epongra2]

I practice in the geotechnical industry in Southern California. Here, at least, the court system has again and again confirmed that the AHJ does, in fact, have considerable responsibility. For verification, look no further than the case histories for the Big Rock and Portugeese Bend landslides.

The numerous lawsuits won and the threat of future lawsuits is one of the reasons that most, if not all, of the local jurisdictions have enacted their own geotechnical guidelines and Codes. These are generally much more stringent that the CBC. And yes, often times the reviewer forgets or transforms their role and begins to move towards the role of consultant...

 

[DRC1]

Most states assign PE's the responsibility to ensure that astructure is deisged using a reasonable application of scientific principles. Cdes are written so that we may have a rational consistent basis for evaluating if the design is safe. The code is ritten by people who have never seen your project. Ultimately it is up to the engineer to determine if the project is safe. If the steel is overstressed by 15%, tat could be a problem. But even that may be okay. What are the consequenses of failure? If it is part of a highly redundent structure, there may be no cosequense, so why bring into compliance?
The specs (esp) AASHTO have grown in size and detail over the last 15 years. We tend to focus far more on code compliance than engineering.