CFS Delegated Design Legal Framework 4

[bookowski]

Can anyone point me to any legal or industry standard framework which clearly lays out the roles in delegated design for CFS. In particular what the responsibility of the EoR is in providing a feasible starting scheme.

For example: Mr. X is EoR on a cfs bearing wall building and provides locations of lateral resisting walls (along with associated foundation elements designed for latera) and sizes the wall stud as "6" CF stud walls". Mr. Z, the specialty CF designer, in the course of his design finds that the walls are undesignable. By undesignable this means there is no practical combo of wall stud spacing, ga, connectors etc. to resist the lateral and/or vertical loads. My Z tells client that they need more wall etc., client blames EoR, EoR says it's the CF designers problem.

I assume we all agree that the EoR has responsibility here to provide a reasonable system starting point that can be designed - but can anyone point me to industry or legal language that clarifies this?

 

[jayrod12]

I fault the owner for this, not the contractor. He chose to go for the low bid.

To an extent, I don't disagree. However the contractor's method of getting to low bid, i.e. purposely (so it seemed) waiting to submit RFIs until after the bids closed and then asking for additional money for every answer, was shady. I have a good working relationship with a couple of the GCs that missed out. Their estimators had properly assumed the missing information, or at least close enough that the changes to contract value would have been minimal from their bid price. At least that's what they claim after the fact, but I've worked with them before and have no reason not to believe them.

 

[dik]

EZBuilding: I think from Florida's approach that it likely depends on the Jurisdiction and also local case law... maybe not so open and shut. I've always taken the approach that I'm responsible and generally do some quick 'thumbnail' calcs to check what has been submitted is reasonable.


Dik

 

[XR250]

i.e. purposely (so it seemed) waiting to submit RFIs until after the bids closed and then asking for additional money for every answer, was shady.

That does sound shady

 

[Brad805]

I have been told about GC's who have personnel that read thru specs to find omissions or conflicting req'ts that allows them to reduce their base bid knowing full well they will claim an extra. If they have the staff and don't mind spending time on disputes, extra's pay well. The image below is a good summary.

 

[bones206]

You can delegate design but you can't delegate responsibility.

61G15-30.005 Delegation of Engineering Documents: Obligations of the Engineer of Record.
(1) An engineer of record who delegates a portion of his responsibility to a delegated engineer is obligated...

That does seem to be a contradiction.

 

[STrctPono]

I have been told about GC's who have personnel that read thru specs to find omissions or conflicting req'ts that allows them to reduce their base bid knowing full well they will claim an extra. If they have the staff and don't mind spending time on disputes, extra's pay well.

I work with a few individuals who work for GC's doing this.

As an Engineer who regularly is responsible for preparing PS&E packages, I know how difficult it can be to tie up all loose ends and have no mistakes, but God do I try. On the other hand, I get extremely frustrated when I see other Engineer's plan and specs that are just blatantly incomplete, illogically laid-out, and ambiguous. I feel that firms who just rush to get the project out so they can collect the fee cheapen the profession and lower the standard for all of us. Many of them think they can just hide behind the owner-engineer relationship to shelter them from some of the smaller Contractor change orders. I also blame the owner for hiring the deficient engineering firm in the first place. If they had hired a competent firm the first time, then they could have avoided many of those issues.

 

[r13]

61G15-30.005 Delegation of Engineering Documents: Obligations of the Engineer of Record.
(1) An engineer of record who delegates a portion of his responsibility to a delegated engineer is obligated...

However, the delegated responsibility loops back to the EOR, as he shall confirm:

(a) That the delegated engineering documents shall have been prepared by an engineer.
(b) That the delegated engineering documents of the delegated engineer shall conform with the intent of the engineer of record and meet the written criteria.
(c) That the effect of the delegated engineer's work on the overall project shall generally conforms with the intent of the engineer of record.

I don't see any relief of responsibility of the EOR by delegating.

 

[JAE]

Bones206,
Perhaps they are talking about different "responsibilities" here.
1) Design responsibility - who does the actual design.
2) Overall project responsibility - who is ultimately responsible for the public safety and welfare

Despite the verbiage you quoted, a judge and jury will tend to require the EOR the ultimate responsibility if something goes awry.
....as what happened in the KC disaster. Jack Gilliam lost his license and was held fully responsible despite him delegating the walkway connection design to others.

 

[bones206]

I don't disagree with that. My point was more to follow on what EZBuilding said about the verbiage of the laws being a little misleading/contradictory and an engineer might be mislead into thinking they have more legal protection than what actually plays out. There definitely seems to be room for improvement to make things a little more black and white for everyone involved.

 

[JLNJ]

Gillum (rightfully) lost his license due to his own gross negligence. His underling made the fatal decisions, but Gillum was supposed to be in charge.

This is a bit different than delegating LGMF specialty design to a supplier.

 

[JAE]

JLNJ - well not that different.
In both an EOR delegates design responsibility to another:
In KC Gillum delegated the connections to the fabricator (essentially a "specialty designer" as you state)
In this post an EOR is delegating design of light gage to a CFS designer

KC is different in that there was confusion and non-communication as to who did what and what was actually designed....that is different than this post's issue of an undesignable structure.

But in both cases we are dealing with the concept that Gillum (in KC) and the EOR (for a CFS system) is ultimately responsible.