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

 

[JAE]

Note that the letter here is addressed to the Client - not the city.

Here's the TSPE response to the city explaining the engineer's stance:

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

 

[dik]

Hokie... he deserves another star...

Dik

 

[JAE]

dik - you don't need to do that - just felt that the letters from way back when were in a similar vein to your original post.

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

 

[hokie66]

The thing about stars is that you never know who gave them.

Which brings us to one of the main problems with certifications...many times, we lowly engineers can't find out what we have to certify at the beginning of a project, and at the end is too late.

 

[dik]

JAE: Just looking for an easy generic fix for the problem... just need the PM to send me certs, and the whole matter is totally transparent from the AhJ and strictly internal to the firm...

Dik

 

[hokie66]

dik,

It seems to me that you need to decide who is in charge of the project, you or the PM. Since he is sending certificates to you for you to follow up with the building authority, I take it you are in charge. But I still wouldn't do a unilateral certification of all the work. There is no reason for the authority not to accept multiple certificates.

 

[dik]

PM's in charge, but, he leaves me to my own. By reporting to me, I don't mean it in the sense that he's subordinate... just in the strictest sense that he has sent me a note. I have no problem with being 'subordinate' to him in the same fashion that I'm subordinate to anyone.

"There is no reason for the authority not to accept multiple certificates." They won't and I've checked with the Professional Association and they are happy with the city's approach. In hindsight, I should have gone into medicine.

Dik

 

[zelgar]

JAE, tanks for the other versions of the form and the letter (even if it was a little hard to read). Sorry for the incorrect reference.

I think we all can agree, that construction certifications by a PE at a minimum should state the following:
1. The PE or their representatives were actually onsite during construction activities
2. The plans and specifications by a PE were followed during construction
3. Any changes to the plans & specifications (including material specifications) have been highlighted and approved by the PE

I do not think it's out of the question that the PE certification would also include language about the unit was constructed to meet all applicable rules and codes, but the PE must be aware of the extent of this language. It may require additional staff to review the construction for this certification.

Finally, in order to perform the construction certification, I think the PE need to be aware of what is being required for the construction certification prior to accepting the job. If the city/State/Country requires X, Y & Z, be certain that you or your staff can meet those requirements before you accept the job (or see if you can subcontract this out). If the government agency is planning on changing their certification forms to require additional items, be like JAE and comment on the proposed changes before they go into effect. Trying to change think after they're established is like fighting an uphill battle.

 

[dik]

I would modify your first item to reflect that someone qualified made periodic review to confirm that the building was constructed in general compliance with the approved documents.

Dik

 

[hokie66]

zelgar,
My only argument with your approach is that you seem to be fixated on a single PE. You should allow for multiple certifications for the different disciplines. In a commercial building project, the structural engineer is rarely in control of all the disciplines. If you need consolidation of the certificates before submission, that would be up to the architect or project manager.

 

[JAE]

Zelgar
I think your points are well thought out and the intent is good but I might take exception to them in subtle ways.
1. The PE or their representatives were actually onsite during construction activities
Most times we are onsite, but only during a few periodic visits. As such we cannot "certify" that all the work was done strictly per the plans. In fact we'd be lying if we so stated. As has been mentioned above, we can say that, based on our visits the work appeared to be done in general conformance with the plans.
2. The plans and specifications by a PE were followed during construction
See above.
3. Any changes to the plans & specifications (including material specifications) have been highlighted and approved by the PE. Any changes that we are aware of. Again, if we are there only periodically (vs 100%) then we can't really know or certify something like that. Contractors do all sorts of alternative construction that we aren't always made aware of.

I think your point that engineers should pre-verify what types of "certifications" are required is great. It is just hard sometimes to convince our clients that we need extra fee for a more comprehensive on-site presence.


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

 

[CWB1]

Which brings us to one of the main problems with certifications...many times, we lowly engineers can't find out what we have to certify at the beginning of a project, and at the end is too late.

My only argument with your approach is that you seem to be fixated on a single PE.

In other industries its often the responsibility of a single PE acting as PM to signoff on these matters as they hold responsibility for running the overall project and ensuring every subordinate and/or subcontracted engineer has the program details and data necessary to do their work. The discussion here is certainly interesting in that the majority seem to be against this approach, which IME is the only way to drive real accountability for timing and cost. Having been on the other side of this as an elected official/customer, my limited experience hiring CE/SEs has always been to hire a single CE/SE firm who often subcontracts the mechanical and electrical design. In those instances the CE/SE firm hired has completed all signoffs on the project.

 

[hokie66]

CWB1,
But do not the subcontracted M&E's have to sign off on their own work? In commercial building work, the architect is usually responsible for gathering up all the certificates, including his own, and submitting them to the authority.

 

[zelgar]

What good is a PE certification for construction activities if they're not willing to certify the construction? I agree that it costs more money to have an engineer or their representative onsite during construction activities but what is the value of the certification if nobody was their to do the oversight. Part of the problem, is that there are some PE's willing to sign these certifications without doing the work because it is easy money (e.g., have stamp will travel), but I think everyone here would think that is unethical and should not be allowed. What should be the selling point of the PE certification to the client is that you're guaranteeing that the project is being constructed in accordance with the design (and that he's getting what he paid for).

At the end of the day, it really comes down to what do you think will happen if you've certified the construction and in the future there are problems. Do you really think that saying that since the contractor didn't tell you he had done X will get you out of the liability of signing the certification? Additionally, even if it doesn't cost you any money, an association will a failed design will not benefit your business.

 

[JAE]

zelgar, I think, again, your motivation is admirable but there's no way in hell any client is going to pay a structural engineer, on say a small two story office building, to have a PE standing out there all day watching construction so they can have the ability later to "certify" the construction.

There are ample ways in which construction oversight is currently provided (in the US anyway):
1. The lead architect or lead professional usually has an individual making weekly visits to the site to discuss progress, take photos, receive questions (RFI's), etc. They are not their full time.
2. The contractor is required to submit shop drawings and other submittals of many parts of the structure, which are the true guidance documents for rebar, structural steel, light gage framing, etc. The structural engineer has opportunity to review these against the contract documents and accept, notate or reject the submittal. The contractor in most cases here is locked into building what is shop built.
3. The project has periodic and sometimes continuous special inspectors observing a large list of items (see IBC Chapter 17). They communicate back to the design team if alterations arise.
4. The project has testing labs visiting the site and observing concrete placement, taking samples, testing welds, etc. All reported to the design team for review.
5. The structural engineer does (should) visit the site at periodic times to observe the project work and workmanship and check various work details. This is "observation" vs. "inspection" which are two completely different things.
6. The contractor can easily submit Requests for Information (RFI's) if difficulties or questions arise. Most good engineers respond to these within 24 to 48 hours.
7. The authority having jurisdiction has government inspectors visits the site as well - issuing warnings or "red tags" should a perceived code violation arise.

So there are all sorts of checks on construction to be a positive influence on quality.
But what there isn't is a situation where a structural engineer can "certify" that all is well in the world. We can't do it because we don't know everything - we aren't God.

You ask: "Do you really think that saying that since the contractor didn't tell you he had done X will get you out of the liability of signing the certification?"
No I don't ever think I'm somehow magically free of liability.

The point is I'm obligated to perform my engineering tasks consistent with the applicable engineering laws and code of ethics.
By signing a "certification" that I know that all the construction is totally per the plans I would be not stating a truthful fact...which is unethical and would possibly negate my insurance against liability.

I'll ask you a question: Do you really think that forcing an engineer to sign some silly certification document really changes anything in terms of quality of construction? It certainly doesn't in light of what I listed above of the current engineering processes, inspections, observations, and construction administration that is currently applicable to most US projects.







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

 

[dik]

Yup... and in these enviorons, too often your Item 4 is undertaken by the Contractor as part of a 'Cash Allowance' to the Contract.

Dik

 

[zelgar]

JAE, the PE doesn't need to be onsite 24/7 while construction activities are being performed, but there should be certain activities where the PE or their representatives are onsite in order for the PE certification to be valid. Many of the people in your list above may qualify as the PE's representative onsite, so I'm having some confusion on some of the conflict.

I agree, things can be missed by the PE or others that were done during construction, but the purpose of the PE certification is that a 3rd party was involved to provide assurances that the construction was performed in accordance with the approved plans.

 

[JAE]

As you state, the PE doesn't need to be onsite 24/7.
If that is so, then the PE is only passing on limited personal knowledge and other's gossip to the AHJ, not certifying anything.

[red]"I, the PE on this project, have reports from others that things were built according the plans. Therefore, I state categorically that these reports sound pretty good to me...how about you?"[/red]

How does this then accomplish anything?
That sort of certification doesn't help preserve the public safety and welfare.

And just a nod back to dik's original post - the city there was not only asking him to positively certify conditions that he only had limited knowledge of, but they were also asking him to certify absolutely things in codes outside his discipline.

zelgar, I think there are letters that can be written by PE's to government agencies that are correct and internally consistent with the facts of the PE's extent of knowledge. (see the above sample I posted on 19 Jul 17 20:39)
Unfortunately we are asked sometimes by government to go beyond our true extent of knowledge.






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

 

[zelgar]

JAE, I think you should evaluate the rules and regulations of your State(s) regarding PE and the use of a PE seal.

 

[JAE]

Why is that?

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