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

 

[zelgar]

The rules will clearly state what the PE can certify, and the use of the PE seal. For example from Indiana's PE rules

http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T08640/A00011.PDF?

:

864 IAC 1.1-7-4 Use of seal and signature; acceptance of full responsibility
Authority: IC 25-31-1-7; IC 25-31-1-8
Affected: IC 25-31-1-16
Sec. 4. (a) The seal and signature of a registrant on any drawings, documents, or instruments signifies the registrant's acceptance of full responsibility for the professional work represented thereon, except as another registrant shall have assumed a limited responsibility for portions of the work in accordance with section 3(d) of this rule.
(b) A registrant may include in the registrant's plans certain predesigned manufactured equipment or products which have become established as acceptable for the proposed use, when such items:
(1) meet standards established by nonprofit trade organizations;
(2) meet the requirements for the proposed use as indicated by tests performed by a competent, unbiased testing agency;
(3) are mechanical, electrical, or other types of machinery or systems guaranteed by a reputable manufacturer; or
(4) do not affect the structural safety of the project.

864 IAC 1.1-11-5 Qualification to undertake assignment
Authority: IC 25-31-1-7; IC 25-31-1-8
Affected: IC 25-31-1
Sec. 5. The engineer shall undertake to perform engineering assignments only when qualified by education and experience in the specific technical field of professional engineering involved.

864 IAC 1.1-11-6 Restricted services for assignment outside field of competence
Authority: IC 25-31-1-7; IC 25-31-1-8
Affected: IC 25-31-1
Sec. 6. The engineer may accept an assignment requiring education or experience outside of the engineer's field of competence, but only to the extent that services are restricted to those phases of the project in which the engineer is qualified. All other phases of such project shall be performed by qualified associates, consultants, or employees.

 

[JAE]

I'm quite familiar with many US state's engineering laws and policies. If you could be more clear on why you think a statement I made is inconsistent with state laws I'm all ears.

As far as state laws go - many have statements like this: The licensee shall not be "engaged in fraud or material deception in the course of professional services or activities." (Indiana PE laws).
If I am not on a site 24/7 as you state, then how can I certify the construction is consistent with the plans? I'd be violating this statute.

You mentioned above that: "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."

I can't guarantee that which I don't know and not violate the PE statutes of most states.

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

 

[JAE]

zelgar - I posted before I saw your post.

I don't see what that copy/paste of the Indiana statute has to do with a city requiring a PE to sign a letter guaranteeing that someone else's construction efforts were done correctly.

That section of statute deals only with design responsibility, delegated design, and practicing within your expertise.
Meaningless sections with regard to the topic of guaranteeing someone else's construction work.



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

 

[dik]

The engineering members of the various associations should sit down and decide what is a proper certification.

Dik

 

[zelgar]

JAE, I can understand your position, but I disagree that a PE cannot sign a construction certification unless they're at the construction site 24/7. To evaluate the structure, a PE should be onsite when the structural components are being installed (e.g., checking rebar spacing) and visible (e.g., column spacing). The PE should perform due diligence to verify that the materials of construction are up to specifications, but I agree that they cannot check every nut and bolt used on a job site. Additionally, a PE does not have to be onsite for all aspects of the construction (e.g., nailing roofing does not require a PE to watch).

Since the original topic was pertaining to an engineering certification that the item was constructed in accordance with all applicable codes and the permitted design, the PE needs a lot more knowledge than other engineering certifications. They need to meet the "normal" requirements for certifying the item was constructed according to the engineering design. Additionally, they need to verify that all of the applicable codes have been met. If they don't have that knowledge ad the OP did not have, they need to check with the laws governing the PE to see if they can provide the engineering certification. If they can use the knowledge of others and they're willing to accept the responsibility of using the other's judgement, then the PE can certify the construction.

 

[JAE]

zelgar I think we might be talking past one another.

I don't have a problem with a construction letter to a city stating facts.
Those facts may be things like:
1. I was only at the project site periodically.
2. I observed (not inspected) the work for general conformance with the plans and documents.
3. I've reviewed test reports, special inspection reports, contractor RFI's, etc. and they appear in order and consistent with the code.
4. Any changes to the contract documents that the contractor made us aware of were reviewed by me and approved.
5. Based on the above knowledge, we believe the construction to be in general conformance with our plans and the applicable structural code provisions.

I'm OK with the above.

Note that these are all somewhat qualified so that they will be accurate in what I know, what I don't know, and the extent of my knowledge.

dik's original post (and concern), was the city was requiring him to assert facts about code provisions that was beyond his expertise and he was going to try to strike out verbiage in the certification to that effect, fearing that the government official would resist any change to their document. This letter was asking him to go beyond the facts of what he warrant was true.

Some of your statements above have implied things that I've seen over the years common to a lot of city government engineering/permit departments in that they don't want to allow the PE to state facts but rather assert, in a particular certification language, things that go way beyond the facts.
My letter example above was of this type (see my post of 19 Jul 17 18:39).

I have been asked to certify, guarantee, warrant, etc. all sorts of things, stating that ALL codes are met, that ALL aspects of a design are built right, etc.
If I do so certify this then I would be lying. I hope you can understand this distinction.

So my ultimate point is, I guess, that as PE's - to stay true to our engineering laws, statutes and codes of standard practice, need to be careful what we assert in these letters.

No offense to you directly, but there are a lot of city/government officials that sometimes don't understand these nuances that we engineers are faced with and get carried away with inventing outlandish certification letters.

You yourself stated just above that I need to be on site to check rebar spacing. Well I do check rebar spacing on project sites - but not ALL rebar spacing.
My goal in checking rebar spacing is to verify, with spot checks, that my contract documents are adequate such that my design is being clearly communicated to the contractor.

I am NOT checking every bar space. This is the distinction between construction Observation and construction Inspection. The first is verifying communication. The latter is checking construction.

So in a certification letter, I can say, and do, that the rebar appeared to be in general conformance with the plans. If I am asked to certify that ALL rebar was constructed according to plans, I can't do it.

I can, as you suggest, rely on other special inspectors, etc. to help offer assurances that the work is done right. But again, the certification language must be kept accurate - "I have reviewed special inspection reports and based on their contents have a reasonable basis for believing the work to be in conformance..."

NOT: "I have reviewed the Special Inspection reports and hereby certify that ALL the work is in conformance..."







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

 

[zelgar]

JAE, would you have a problem with the following language for a PE Certification Statement:
I, ___(your name), being a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Indiana, do hereby state that, to the best of my knowledge, the response provided in this checklist for ___(type of structure), constructed at ___(facility name), is true and accurate, and contains all information required by the permit and appropriate regulations, I or my regularly employed and directly supervised subordinates have overseen the construction inspection activities. These activities have been documented to be in compliance with the permit/approval for the facility.

 

[zelgar]

JAE, I think we're actually fairly close in our assessment on what a PE should certify and I'm glad you take it so seriously.

Part of my issue with the OP was that in all likelihood, the PE certification language was developed prior to dik's involvement with this specific project. The time to discuss that specifics about the certification language was not at the end of the project, but at the beginning (or better yet, when the certification language was developed). That way, any issues with the language and what the City would accept was clearly established. If this required more staff to be involved at the work site or an understanding the only individuals that are considered subordinate to the PE, then it's better to find out earlier than later. This is especially true if they've been involved with performing this service for a long period of time.

 

[JAE]

Not much problem.

I'm a little wary of the [blue]"I or my regularly employed and directly supervised subordinates have overseen the construction inspection activities."[/blue] statement.

It seems to suggest that I/my subordinates had direct oversight over the inspection activities rather than having oversight over the nature and extent of those inspections.

Most structural engineers don't oversee the "activites" - but rather, they specify what inspections are required and review those inspections reports...but we don't oversee the inspections themselves, dictate their scheduling or coordination with the contractor, etc.





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

 

[hokie66]

zelgar,
That sounds like it is written by a lawyer for the authority, and has "gotcha" aspects. I would formulate my own statement, with plain language, as JAE has done in his letter above.

We, as professional engineers, certify our own work, not the work of others. Our work in the construction phase of project is to oversee, not direct, or indeed to certify, the work of the contractor. We then form an opinion as to the adherence of the work with our design, and that opinion is all we can truthfully report.

 

[JAE]

I take hundreds of words and you, hokie66, take a few lines.


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

 

[zelgar]

JAE, the language came directly from the rule regarding application of seal; signature...
864 IAC 1.1-7-3 Application of seal; signature
Authority: IC 25-31-1-7; IC 25-31-1-8
Affected: IC 25-31-1-16
Sec. 3. (a) The seal shall be affixed to documents and instruments only during the time the certificate of registration is current and has not been suspended or revoked and then only on such documents and instruments which have been prepared by the
registrant or by the regularly employed and directly supervised subordinates of the registrant. The registrant shall be responsible for seeing that the seal, however affixed, and the signature shall be legible on the document....

Hookie66, what then is the purpose of having a construction certification by a PE? If you're saying you have no control over the contractor and don't know what they've done, what's the point of you being there in the first place?

 

[KoachCSR]

The rule which you quoted is directly applicable to the documents prepared by the registrant (or directly supervised subordinates). As a PE, I agree with the statements and sentiments made by JAE et al. Having my curiosity piqued, I took a look at the state law for GA...it actually agrees with both sides:

§ 43-15-24. Construction of structures jeopardizing health, safety, or welfare; exceptions; record of building permits

(a) It shall be unlawful for this state or any of its political subdivisions such as a county, municipality, or school district, or agencies thereof, or for any private or commercial entity to engage in the construction of any work or structures involving professional engineering which by the nature of their function or existence could adversely affect or jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the public unless the plans and specifications have been prepared under the direct supervision or review of and bear the seal of, and the construction is executed under the direct supervision of or review by, a registered professional engineer or architect.


So it's acceptable (in Georgia) for the PE (or architect) to either directly supervise the construction (i.e. witness all key milestones personally) or through review (of inspection reports, change requests, etc.).

As an aside, I have enjoyed following this exchange and it has caused me to consider such aspects in my own practice. Thanks for the civil and productive discussion everyone.

 

[CWB1]

But do not the subcontracted M&E's have to sign off on their own work?

When stamping a print yes, signing a blanket certification such as this no. By signing these the PE is simply stating that the inspections were completed by an appropriately qualified subordinate. It might open the door to more liability than some like however it is done regularly. Personally, I don't see how certifying that another PE did his diligence to a commonly acceptable level is any less ethical than the many one-man PE firms doing this work with absolutely no peer review or other outside input.

 

[zelgar]

To everyone involved in this discussion, I've enjoyed it, even though it's been difficult at times

As I'm on the other side of the fence from a lot of you, we take the PE construction certifications with a lot of weight signifying that the construction was overseen by a PE to verify that everything was done correctly.

For my background, in the 20+ years I've worked as a regulator, I've reviewed CQA/CQC (Construction Quality Assurance/Construction Quality Control) Reports, Tank Integrity Assessments (e.g., tank design, installation) and Construction Certification Reports that require a PE certification. I've dealt with Solid and Hazardous waste facilities (e.g., landfills and tanks), and Confined Feeding Operations (CFO) (animal holding facilities, lagoons, and other manure holding structures). For the most part, these items with PE certifications include a lot of detail including calculations, field information, testing results, daily logs, etc., which provides additional assurance besides the PE certification that everything was properly designed and constructed.

 

[JAE]

zelgar,
I too have appreciated the discussion.

On your quote above - the emboldened section reads: or by the regularly employed and directly supervised subordinates of the registrant.

In our projects the contractor and their sub-contractors are not regularly employed or directly supervised by our firm. So that Indiana section doesn't apply.



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

 

[JAE]

zelgar,
One other thought. The statement you just made above is typical of the difference in our perspectives.
To illustrate:

Your statement:
[blue]we take the PE construction certifications with a lot of weight signifying that the construction was overseen by a PE to verify that everything was done correctly.[/blue]

I can't and won't state that "everything was done correctly".

My preferred version of your statement:
[green]we take the PE construction statement with a lot of weight signifying that the construction work performed by the contractor was overseen by code required special inspectors, with materials tested by qualified personnel, was observed by the PE during periodic visits, and that the PE reviewed all required submittals pertaining to their discipline. The construction statement provides us with a record and outline of the degree of oversight and review and provides further assurance that the construction is of acceptable quality." [/green]



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

 

[hokie66]

zelgar,

As to your last question of me, that is not what I am saying, but I think you know that. JAE has stated the PE correct position, which is responsible, and won't be changing, If the authority needs minute by minute inspection from a body other than the contractor's own QC, they can try to mandate that, but good luck. In the US, there has already been that attempt with what you call "special inspectors", but that hasn't always worked well either.

 

[dik]

Just a followup:

I had the PM provide me with assurances that it was complying with the codes I was only vaguely familiar with; this achieves the purpose that it is compliant, supported by knowledgeable people, and I'm happy with the outcome. Also paved a way forward for other structural people in the office. I haven't heard a thing... so, I assume all's well.

Dik