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]

They are unhappy because they will have nobody to blame because they did not do their job. I assume you did not submit plans or documents related to energy, plumbing, or fire.

 

[dik]

Yup... just structure... Real name is Richard, but, everyone knows me as Dik for the last 50 years....

Dik

 

[JAE]

Dik,
I think striking out the areas that you aren't qualified to comment upon is correct. You cannot perform engineering services in disciplines in which you are not qualified as that typically violates most engineering laws (I'm speaking of US laws here but presume Canadian laws are similar).

If they are trying to force you to practice - or claim to practice - or claim special engineering knowledge in these areas when you really are not, then the are breaking the law too.

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

 

[KoachCSR]

Is this certification simply a stand-alone transmittal or is it accompanying the submittal package for the building occupancy permit?

Do they perhaps expect the other applicable P.Engs to sign the certification with you - denoting each's area of qualification and charge, of course? If the structural design was subcontracted to you alone, then I agree - you are correct to line through the non-applicable codes for your scope, with the appropriate P. Engs then needing to submit their own, separate certifications as applicable.

 

[hokie66]

I'd guess there are not engineers involved with the other parts of the work, thus they would like to make Dik responsible for everything.

 

[dik]

The work has been completed and the PM is looking for an occupancy permit. Project was small... adding a new mech unit on the roof and reinforce to address snow accumulation.

JAE... that's exactly why I struck the items out... I'm familiar with parts of the referenced codes, but not enough that I'd be comfortable... The codes referenced are totally unrelated to the work. I'll have a meeting on Monday with the PM and Dept Head to determine what their thoughts are and how to proceed forward. If necessary I'll proceed through the Engineering Association...

I'll toss it around on the weekend... may get the PM or someone skilled to issue me a letter, on company letterhead, signed and sealed, certifying that compliance with the other codes has been confirmed, and will likely change the signature line to:

Yours truly,

<Company Name>,
per

Dik

Dik

 

[jayrod12]

Dik,

We've had this fight with the COW a few times. But for some reason we always end up giving in. The fact that they're liability free all the time makes this requirement ludicrous.

 

[drawoh]

dik,

You make an interesting point. Are there professional engineers out there who understand the Manitoba Building Code, AND the Manitoba Energy Code for Buildings, AND the Manitoba Plumbing Code AND the Manitoba Fire Code?

--
JHG

 

[dik]

not me... I know parts of them, but not all parts.

This is a matter that the APEGM (Manitoba Professional Assoc) should be addressing and advising the CoW of the error of their ways. The company should be addressing this on other fronts, in particular, I'm not aware of any provisions in the Manitoba Building Code or the CoW Bylaws that permits the city's engineering department to make such a demand.

I think if I can have the PM or someone offer me a letter under seal that the other code provisions have been addressed, then, I can seal the certification. The PM can use the same format as the CoW since they have likely had several lawyers review it.

I'll do that on Monday and see how it flies. If the PM resists, then I can suggest that is the reason for my reluctance to sign off.

There are now two projects that require my certification.

Dik

 

[jayrod12]

As far as I know, the COW requires one of these letters for every project that there is a building permit followed by an occupancy permit. I would like to think EGM (formerly APEGM) has already tried to have this fight with the COW as well.

Generally, the COW requires one of these letters from each of the consultants on a job, which is why the higher ups at my company don't have as much of an issue with providing this letter verbatim. In the end, it's their liability (my company's) on the line so I just do as they say.

 

[dik]

that's the reason for the change in the signature line... so the company is #1 on the list, else, you are.

I didn't know that APEGM has changed their name... thanks. I blow their eMails away without reviewing...

Dik

 

[GroovyGuy]

Howdy Richard,
I have seen forms like that in other Jurisdictions. I have never been chastised for crossing out portions of the form that I have considered outside of my scope or outside of my comfort zone. As long as some other professional-of-record eventually takes responsibility for that portion of work they (the jurisdiction) seems happy.
GG
ps Tell the CoW to pound sand.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

 

[dik]

GroovyGuy

one of the few things I have is integrity; I tend to be pretty flexible about most things... and, we'll see how things turn out on Monday.

I eliminated the additional code items on my first submission, and it was rejected as not conforming to the standard.

Dik

 

[Ron]

Dik...I agree with your strikethrough. That's appropriate as others have said.

I would go a bit further and rather than state "I hereby certify...." I would change that to "to the best of my knowledge and belief". We use such language in our final "Threshold Building Inspection" reports in Florida (a Florida law for certain types of buildings).

 

[dik]

Thanks Ron, we'll see how it turns out on Monday... I have the weekend to think about it.

The problem will be that the city will not budge, from my understanding, and neither will I.

The only work around I can think of is to have the PM certify that the other codes have been complied with and to send me a letter to that effect. It puts the onus for compliance on someone else.

My certification then then complies with the provision "I or other qualified person" and I can leave the other code references in without feeling 'damaged'. If the PM is reluctant to provide me with the letter, then, he can see my reluctance to include the required codes in the certification; he's paid the big bucks, anyway.

I'm thinking along this line, but, will probably modify this several times over the weekend.

Dik

 

[dr strangelove]

I agree that striking out portions that are outside your scope, and/or expertise, is the correct approach.
But you should also initial the portions that you change.

 

[dik]

dr strangelove:

Thanks for the caution... No need to initial... the portions struck out will actually be deleted from the body of the letter.

Dik

 

[Shotzie]

Should the PM not have to contract a mechanical engineer and/or architect to review the appropriate codes to determine if the building is compliant? If the modification to the building was small, like you say, then I'd expect the fee would be minimal for their sign-off. Sounds like the PM should have to take on the additional costs for proper sign off. It doesn't surprise me that they're looking for you to take full responsibility though, people are always looking for someone else to be liable. Especially cities...

 

[dik]

Shotzie:

The PM is a mechanical engineer, and, the work doesn't require the use of an Architect. We'll see on Monday if he's prepared to offer me the assurances I'm looking for.

Dik