Building Department Requiring Letter of Signoff 2

[bigmig]

My contractor calls me today to say that the building department wants a letter of sign off stating that the project is code compliant and
in conformance with my plans. Per the contractor, the exact words out of this inspectors mouth were "so we don't have the liability".

This really really peeves me.

Here is an indemnifiable agency, who charges out the wazoo for inspector fees and makes everyone's life miserable, taking a convenient side step
at the last second, to place a party who is NOT indemnifiable square in the role that the building department was created to take.
I have already stamped my drawings on the project.

I can see sense in a request where the engineering system is complex and non standard and the building inspector is just out of his league
in terms of knowing what to look for, but this project is a box house with truss roof.....as simple as they come, I think this is ridiculous.

What is everyone's take on this? Grin and bear it? Buy a bigger insurance policy? Tell them to shove it?

 

[msquared48]

Tell them that you were not contracted by any party to ensure that the structure was constructed in accordance with your approved and stamped plan set. If they had a need for that, they should have mentioned it before now. Also let them know that you are not a licensed insurance agent and cannot provide such legally.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[hokie66]

You can only attest to what you have seen. If you performed site visits, then you can write about what you saw and how it compares to the design. If you did not do inspections, you just have to say so.

 

[Ron]

DO NOT CERTIFY that plans comply with anything. That's what their review is for. Do your best to comply with required codes and standards, but don't certify that you have done so.

They are a public agency and assuming you are in the US, they enjoy a level of sovereign immunity you don't have. Don't indemnify an agency that is already immune....you're asking for trouble.

 

[hokie66]

Interesting, Ron. How would the building department know whether your design complies structurally or not? I think bigmig is talking about certifying the construction, but I may be wrong.

 

[Ron]

hokie66....maybe I perceived incorrectly; however, building departments sometimes try to bully engineers and architects into "certifying" what their plans already show.

As for construction, one has to be careful with this aspect as well. "Certifying" that the construction meets all the requirements of the plans and specs after the fact is not appropriate. That requires involvement of the engineer during the construction process, preferably with the engineer or a delegate there full time. Anything less requires copious qualification of any statement. An example of something we use is:

"To the best of my knowledge and belief, based on limited observation, the observed construction generally meets the requirements set forth in the permitted plans and specifications. Since the observations were not performed on a full time basis, there may be non-compliant items that were not readily observable and cannot be attested."

 

[MikeHalloran]

Maybe it's the building department's sly way of asking you to make a site visit, e.g. to see all the unbelievable stuff the contractor has done, without overtly defaming the contractor, and without putting the municipality in the position of owing you money for the visit.



Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA

 

[msquared48]

Mike and Hokie:

I do have to agree with Ron here...

As you alluded to Hokie, you cannot, and most certainly should not, "certify", "approve", or whatever, anything that you cannot directly see. If you have not done continuous inspections YOURSELF to see all of the structural intracasies, how can you state anything on the matter? Sheetrock covers a lot of mistakes and shortcuts.

I do not stake my name and reputation on the words of any contractor, especially one hired by an owner who has not paid his bill. If they want a site visits, let them state it in writing so you can note them in your contract with your client, and schedule them at times that actually mean something in the end. You do not have to do anything you have not been contracted to do, and the building department is only a third party to your contract with your client in the sense that you have to answer their comments prior to the permit being issued unless you are contracted to do the required inspections.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[hokie66]

I think we all agree as to the construction part. But as to the design, I am accustomed to the requirement to issue a design certificate as part of the documents, and have no hesitation in doing so. Sometimes what an authority wants included in the certificate may be subject to modification and/or negotiation. Perhaps this is not usual practice in the US, but it is in other parts.

 

[msquared48]

Ok.

From my experience, that is not the norm in my locale in the States. We are usually specifically contracted to provide any inspection service, or the local jurisdiction handles it. There are also special firms outside of the design firm who do special inspections and testing. These contracted firms would provide any written documentation and certification needed.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[hokie66]

Maybe bigmig will clarify whether the building department wants a letter about the design or the construction. I thought construction, Ron thought design, Mike agrees with Ron but talks about inspections...

 

[Ron]

I guess I should read the OP more closely. As hokie66 notes, it appears bigmig is talking about a post-construction sign-off. Bad idea, unless as Mike says, you're out there and can see the work.

hokie66....realizing that practices around the world vary, in my area as in Mike's (and we are at diagonally opposite sides of the country), it is not the norm to certify a design unless the building official dictates a mandatory inspection process by the design professional, who must then provide a certification of compliance at the end of construction.

Still not sure why the building inspector is so concerned about their liability....they most likely have immunity.

 

[zelgar]

Ask for clarification. Clearly request the rule that requires this certification. It might be that the inspector is asking for something related to the design, not the actual construction. Alternatively, they may be asking for something that isn't a rule requirement, or misinterpreting the regulations.

 

[bigmig]

This guy wanted a letter signing off on as built construction. Regarding his reasoning, there was no "hinting" about me needing to make a site visit. His words were "so the building department is not held liable".

I placed a call to the inspectors boss right away to plead my case. The boss basically said the inspector was off his rocker and that there was no way the building department would be starting this "sign off on construction" letter procedure. The primary reason is that clients would be hit with an unexpected site visit and letter up-charge by their engineer.The second reason is that they are indemnifiable and are in a special role where they can walk those sites without the same legal risk as an engineer. He apologized and said he would give this guy a talk.

 

[Ron]

bigmig....ya done good!

 

[msquared48]

Glad to see some building departments are reasonable. Congrats bigmig.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)