Certification 7

[dik]

I have an interesting issue that came up today, that I'll look into next week. The City of Winnipeg requires the following certification:

"I, Richard Coates, P. Eng., hereby certify that I or another suitably qualified person reporting to me have completed periodic reviews at appropriate stages of the structural aspects of construction of the building located at <Project Address> for which a building occupancy permit is being sought. I hereby represent that:

In my professional opinion the construction was carried out in substantial compliance with the applicable provisions of the Manitoba Building Code, the Manitoba Energy Code for Buildings, the Manitoba Plumbing Code and the Manitoba Fire Code and the plans submitted in support of the application for the building permit. This includes any additional plans, documents, review of plans and design decisions that have been part of my responsibility and related to Code issues applicable to my discipline that were not detailed as part of the submitted permit application.

I have informed the City in cases where I am aware that the construction has materially deviated from the submitted plans

I am not aware of any substandard workmanship, materials or assemblies that would compromise code compliance.

Sincerely,
Richard Coates, P.Eng.
Structural Engineer

They are unhappy that I'm striking out the portion of text shown... we'll see how it shakes out.

Dik

 

[hokie66]

If he is a mechanical engineer, get him to furnish the letter on energy, plumbing, and fire protection. Limit your letter to structure, if that is what you did.

 

[dik]

Hokie... that's what I'm planning on.

Dik

 

[dik]

The letters of certification were provided subject to the condition that 'Others' had certified that they were compliant with the Manitoba Energy Code for Buildings, the Manitoba Plumbing Code and the Manitoba Fire Code. I received confirmation from the PM prior to issuing the letters. Done...

Dik

 

[Ron]

 

[dik]

Thanks for the thumbs up... posted this to see if there were any other options...

I passed the info on to others in the department, so they have a way out... not sure how the other PM's are going to take this... but, we'll see.

Dik

 

[zelgar]

As a regulator, I see a problem with your approach. I wouldn't be surprised if the language was developed to provide the city assurances that everything was designed properly and up to code. The problem is that there needs to be someone who is ultimately responsible to state that everything was designed and installed properly (i.e., the professional engineer).

In order for the PE to certify everything, that "I or another suitably qualified person reporting to me" has performed the work. This language probably comes from the Code or rules governing a professional engineer. If the PE does not have the expertise and doesn't have people who work for them that are knowledgeable for the other items (e.g., energy code, fire code, plumbing code), the PE should not be the one signing the document.

Based upon the above case, if the PM is the person who supervises dik & the other experts, the PM should be the person signing the certification, provided that the PM is a PE.

 

[dik]

There is someone in charge and taking responsibility, but, not me. The language required by the CoW goes 'way beyond' providing them with assurances.

From a legal point, I only need someone to assure me that compliance was OK. The key is, "...hereby certify that I or another suitably qualified person reporting to me..." I've done that. The signature line puts the company, and the PM first in line. Beyond the certification, I'm comfortable. I'm not playing lawyer, but, over the years, I've been involved with a few of them... also I've done a lot of work in contract administration.

The CoW has likely had their certification vetted by one or more lawyers and I modified my required certification in line with the CoW requirements, almost verbatim.

I really don't have any one that supervises me... I do my job, and most people 'leave me alone'; I assist a lot of other engineers in the firm... maybe once every month or so, I'll have a question for the department head... generally confirming something I'm considering.

The reason for the CoW certification is to keep them out of court... for all purposes, with the certification, there is no need to have a planning department.

Thanks for the caution, Dik

 

[Ron]

Zelgar....I don't know if you are employed by some regulatory agency for if you are stating that you would have the issue if you were a regulator; however, your statements seem typical of regulators I've dealt with, so I will assume you are, in fact, a regulator. I mean no disrespect, but as regulators and government employees, you have NO PERSONAL LIABILITY. You and your agency typically enjoy sovereignty and immunity to lawsuits except under certain circumstances.

You seem to either forget or not be aware that outside your protected practice environment, we are open to lawsuits from anyone and to sign such an onerous and liability prone statement as Dik noted is not only improper but illegal in most instances for licensed professional engineers, whether in the US or Canada. We can't sign off for areas outside our competence and practice.

Further, signing such a statement could be used by others as a means to avoid responsibility in the event that something goes wrong in the future. My primary practice is forensic engineering of structures, construction and construction materials. I deal with liability on a daily basis and have the opportunity to see liability run its course through litigation. It is not a pretty picture in most cases.

Please be aware of what you ask of engineers and other design professionals. It is not always as simple as those "standard" and rote requirements would lead one to believe.

 

[dik]

Ron, thanks for your response to zelgar; we've been in similar foxholes:

I have legally and ethically completed the certification required by the city and feel good about it. I have established a path forward for our department. I have passed the methodology on to other structural engineers in the office. I still have to set up an eMail template for confirmation of certification so I have it as a standard form and will pass this on. I haven't heard anything back from management; it's only been a day... hopefully I don't. None of this is transmitted outside the office; it is all internal.

It was fortunate to notice the part of the certification that stated, "...or another suitably qualified person reporting to me..." because the PM's are all P.Eng.'s and as such, if they certify something, they should be suitably qualified, else, they shouldn't certify it.

On a side note, the certification required by the city almost requires full time construction review (not supervision <G>) which almost never happens due to budget restraints.

I'd pretty much resolved my approach, prior to posting the first message of this thread; I was hoping that someone might have illuminated a different path.

There may come a time that the PM refuses to provide me with the certification; and I will have to sort the matter out all over again, but, have a good precedence, and as noted, if the PM's reluctant to certify why shouldn't I be.

I'm not adverse to a challenge, but, I am growing older.

Dik

 

[zelgar]

Ron, I work in State government. I work with permits and have worked with similar certification forms as indicated by the OP. The use of the language "...or another suitably qualified person reporting to me..." typically comes from the rules or laws governing a professional engineer. The purpose of this language is to be assured that the PE or somebody they have authority over, has done their job to assure that everything is covered (e.g., different applicable codes), since the PE is ultimately responsible by signing the certification. As I mentioned earlier, since dik's PM appears to be in authority over dik & the experts certifying the compliance with the other codes, the PM should have been the one signing off on the certification statement.

At the end of the day, we want to be certain that the item in question was constructed properly (e.g., structurally, and to all applicable codes). In an ideal world, nobody would lie, cut corners or make mistakes (e.g., misread drawings) and a construction certification would not be needed. Unfortunately, this doesn't exist, and even with the construction certifications, things happen.

Don't get me wrong, I think most PE are ethical and try their best. Unfortunately not all are, and some try their best but due to overwork or other issues may sign something when they really shouldn't.

 

[dik]

The CoW requires that all disciplines sign the same certification... no exceptions. I have no authority over the PM, anymore than he has over me... he's simply reporting to me.

Dik

 

[zelgar]

I agree that the ideal situation is where the PE is knowledgeable on all items with the construction including the engineering design and all applicable codes (e.g., building, electrical, fire, plumbing, etc.) and that is how the form was designed. If the PE isn't knowledgeable, but relies on their staff who are knowledgeable for the other aspects (e.g., code issues), they can still sign the certification, but is assuming some risk due to the reliance on others. This is true for a PE certifying a CQA/CQC who may not be at the site every day, but has a subordinate onsite who is taking photos, performing some of the testing, etc.

I agree that if you only reviewed the structural design and construction, and are not relying on your staff that are under your control, you cannot certify the all of the items. Since the PE certifying the documents is taking responsibility for everything (e.g., design, construction and compliance with code), they must be knowledgeable or be willing to accept the responsibility of their subordinates with the knowledge.

 

[JAE]

zelgar, I think many regulators, as Ron hinted at above but I will say, live in dream world and dream up wildly crazy "certifications" that are ultimately meaningless from the governing agency's position and are ultimately dangerous for licensed engineers.

In this case the certification is confused: it refers to "structural aspects of construction" but then goes on to include a list of non-structural codes.
It is also somewhat inconsistent in that it refers to "periodic reviews of construction" but then asks for a certification that dik isn't aware of "any" deviations from the plans, which is impossible.

However, it is not too bad as it does imply that dik only "certify" things "related to Code issues applicable to my discipline".

It is the certifications that are created asking us PE's to certify/guarantee/warrant/etc. things we can't know or wouldn't know in our practice as licensed engineers.

We had a similar discussion a while back on this - here: thread765-405552

Here's an example of a city required letter from some years ago that was rejected by the local engineers - the city backed down and allowed a better phrased "certification":

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[zelgar]

Ron, I was in that thread as well, towards the end of the discussion. Part of the problem with construction certifications is that the governing agency wants assurances that everything was constructed properly, in accordance with the permit and all applicable codes. I don't think anyone would want the regulating agency to be out at the site 24/7 while work was being performed, and the cost would be prohibited. On the other hand, there needs to be some type of assurance that everything was done properly, thus the construction certification by the PE.

I realize I'm on the other side of the fence from the rest of you, but unfortunately I've seen or heard from other engineers inspecting construction activities and nobody knows who the certifying PE would be for the project (or if they have a representative onsite). No engineer or representative was onsite when rebar was placed, nor when concrete was being poured. Additionally, sometimes the amount of rebar or the spacing was off because the contractor was doing everything like he always does it and doesn't even have a copy of the approved plans. I hope you realize that this unfortunately still happens and as a regulator we have problems with this. We're currently working on revising our PE Construction Certifications for Confined Feeding Operations to require submittal of daily logs, testing results, etc. because the current form typically comes back as everything is checked that everything was fine during construction, and signed & stamped by a PE (even though the PE may not have been onsite during construction activities).

Ron, BTW what was the final version of the Certification of Framing? Is it that much different from version listed above?

 

[dik]

zelgar works for the government... and it's funny in a way that I have more confidence in the integrity of an engineer than I have in the government and they don't have to certify anything...

Dik

 

[zelgar]

dik, my job as a regulator is to review permits, plans and specifications to verify they are in compliance with all applicable regulations. I am answerable to the people of my State, the applicant and others in my agency. My job does not stop when a PE stamps his work, but start there. I am one of few people in my agency with the qualifications, education and experience to perform the work. My job is not to rubber stamp things that cross my desk, but perform a thorough review and verify the information.

I have worked as a regulator for 20+ years and have had my PE license for 19. I acknowledge that most PE are ethical and hardworking, but unfortunately that is not true for all. The same can be true for other regulators.

 

[dik]

My email requirement for the PM is as follows:

I certify, that for the subject project, all Work was carried out in substantial compliance with the applicable provisions of:
[ul]
[li]The Manitoba Energy Code for Buildings,[/li]
[li]The Manitoba Plumbing Code,[/li]
[li]The Manitoba Fire Code, and[/li]
[li]the plans submitted in support of the application for the building permit.[/li]
[/ul]

With that in place, I can sign off on certification

 

[dik]

zelgar:
That's good, and you may function as one of the better regulators... but, I still have more confidence in engineers than governments...

I've been playing this game and been registered for nearly 50 years. There have been huge changes in both the profession and regulation, and, most of it has not been for the better. <Off my apple box>

Dik

 

[hokie66]

zelgar,
I applaud your approach to your work. If only there were more with that attitude...

 

[JAE]

Ron, BTW what was the final version of the Certification of Framing? Is it that much different from version listed above?

I think you were referring to me and not Ron - the final version was this one:

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376