Builder Ethical Woes

[bhiggins]

I've run into some unique ethical and professional challenges on a small tenant finish-out project, and I’d really appreciate some insight.

The scope of my work involved designing a 20-foot-tall cold-formed steel and hot-rolled steel building façade to support a curtain wall system, several steel awnings, and brick veneer. I also designed supports for ceiling mechanical units (attached to the podium slab), some wood trellises, and a concrete topping slab.

Construction was split into two phases:

• GC #1 was responsible for the façade and building shell elements.
• GC #2 handled everything else.

When it came time to inspect the façade construction, I found several serious issues. GC #1 had:

• Substituted 8" framing members with 6" studs.
• Attached curtain walls to a single 6" stud, with no slab anchorage.
• Fastened the curtain wall studs to the sill with just a couple of screws.
• Installed 3/8" anchor bolts without washers or nuts, poorly spaced at the sills.

I raised concerns, but GC #1 dismissed them outright, essentially telling me to leave them alone. Their justification was that my façade design wasn't included in the permit set, so they claimed they could build it however they wanted—and that I wasn’t responsible.

Later, GC #2 completed the rest of the project per my design. Their work was clean, well-executed, and within the permitted scope. They asked me for a letter of approval to submit to the city. Even though the façade wasn’t included in the permit drawings, I couldn’t in good conscience ignore the serious issues with the wall construction. In the letter, I noted that while the façade wasn’t part of the permitted scope, I had been involved in its design, and I could not ethically overlook the substandard and potentially unsafe construction.

GC #2 now wants me to revise the letter to only include their scope of work—the permitted portion—and leave out the concerns about the façade. I’ve refused. I told them I won’t revise the letter unless another licensed engineer is willing to assume responsibility for the façade construction.

I’m curious—has anyone here been in a similar situation?

To me, omitting my concerns feels negligent, especially since I was involved in the original façade design. I’ve considered having the owner sign a waiver regarding the façade, then issuing a revised letter, but that feels ethically murky and potentially puts my stamp at risk if anything ever goes wrong.

Is there a better way to approach this? I want to do the right thing and protect both the public and my professional integrity.

 

[RontheRedneck]

I'm no lawyer, but I believe you're doing the right thing. If something goes wrong and they can prove you knew about it, they'll hang you out to dry in a second.

 

[JAE]

Public welfare and safety.

A facade can certainly blow off in a storm and crush the little innocent peoples below.

You know it doesn't meet code (at least I assume you do).

Only other option would be to satisfy GC#2 with a letter outlining ONLY what they did.
Then add a second letter addressed to the Authority Having Jurisdiction telling the story and what you know. Keep it to what you know for certain.

 

[Ron247]

I have been in a similar situation. Our problem is always the same, we should not be involved in suspicious activities, misleading others or just general deceit. I told the GC to give me a written request to omit the other information, that CC'd their attorney and then I would consider it. I felt that was fair. I told them include in their letter to me that I stated the omitted item was not structurally sound. I also requested acknowledgement the attorney reviewed the matter. For that instance, that appeared to solve it. I made it clear, I would not be a party to deceit with regard to safety. Their attorney acknowledging receipt makes it where they should not legally delete the letter I think.

As far as past experiences, I have been in several meetings where people have told building officials, that if anything was wrong, the engineer would have noted it in their letter on XYZ topic. After all, safety was the engineer's top priority.

Your problem is that GC2 is not also GC1, BUT IF ANY of GC2s work is attached to, relies on, or snuggles with GC1's shoddy work, I don't see where you can ignore it. I don't see why GC2 should be penalized by GC1s actions other than that. At a minimum, your letter should itemize what it covers and does not cover. Whether you need to mention the fact GC1s work sucks is debatable. As an example, it could say all work performed by GC2 that is within your scope of work with GC2.

Also, if failure of GC1s work results in ANY damage to GC2s work (including any work that was not yours), there may be an issue.

 

[jhnblgr]

I had a different but similar issue, gave the client unsealed drawings but held the stamp set until payment had been received but by the time that happened they had already built the foundation and somehow pulled the permit without any plans ( building department confirmed). Time for the CO the building department requested stamped drawings, I called up the contractor who I know well and they told me they deviated from the plans, I checked the changes and find the beam they used insufficient. The building department contacted me at the request of the owner for the plans, I sent the plans and detailed the changes and noted that they do not meet my design and I didn’t authorize it. I did not provide inspection services for the project.

 

[bhiggins]

Thank you all for your responses. For reference, here's the wall framing and curtain-wall in question, and pinky-sized anchor bolts. If there is any consolidation, there was rigid bridging installed so there could be some load sharing between the studs:

 

[SE2607]

I think you are taking the correct position.