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?

 

[r13]

I think this paper may help. Link

 

[JAE]

My guess here is that the EOR has a responsibility to design or present a feasible structural system.

To delegate a design to someone else you, as the EOR,should possess some level of expertise in the system that is delegated...after all, the EOR is ultimately responsible for the overall structure and provides a professional review of the submitted design.

Here’s a link to an AISI document (see page 10).

http://www.steelframing.org/PDF/architects/AISICodeofStandardPractice2006.pdf

Might shed some light on the question.

 

[dik]

Thanks JAE...


Dik

 

[XR250]

Bookowski,

That is one of the reasons I got out of delegated LGS design. Would run into un-feasable designs regularly.
Sometimes I would get 30 ft. wide openings to design with 6" studs. It was extremely frustrating and the EOR would rarely take responsibility.

 

[dik]

easy... W16x26...


Dik

 

[zrck99]

Could you use structural steel to break up your CFS spans in order to get the arrangement to work?

For a header, use steel beam/steel channel girt above or below for bracing out of plane.

If you have a wall that is too tall, maybe at mid-height you can break your span up with a steel channel girt and then use HSS 6x4 tubes or something similar to span vertically and take the channel girt loads to the ground and roof.

I would imagine whatever your EOR is wanting is doable if you add in structural steel where necessary. He won't like the result but at that point it's pretty easy to put it back on him for coming up with suggestions of a more economic design.

 

[jayrod12]

Could you use structural steel to break up your CFS spans in order to get the arrangement to work?

Yes, but that is precisely the beef of the engineers who do delegated design. Many times it is as simple as providing structural steel, but that isn't in the light gauge designer's scope of work. And the contractor that has hired the delegated design engineer usually does not have the capacity to provide or install the structural steel.

The EOR needs to ensure that what he is showing on the contract drawings will work. If they say 6" steel stud, then they better be damn sure that a 6" stud solution is feasible.

The biggest issue with this is the fact that the delegated design engineer is the one who ultimately looks bad, even though it is the shitty work of the EOR that put everyone in this place. "Oh we had to go to 8" steel studs because the LG designer couldn't get 6" to work". Which is bullshit because if the EOR had done his job originally they would have realized 6" studs wouldn't of worked in the first place.

edited for some grammatical errors that were driving me insane.

 

[tolchijb]

I agree 100%, Jayrod!

 

[phamENG]

I agree - it's the EOR's responsibility. I've never been on the SSE's side (Specialty Structural Engineer), but I have been on the EOR's side for these. As a junior engineer, I had the displeasure of being given a couple small CFS buildings with limited direction and even less oversight. The result was a lot of '6" studs, by manufacturer' (because that's what the architect demanded) and a whole lot of problems.

I learned a lot very quickly and made efforts to improve my work product (sometimes to the chagrin of my always fee sensitive boss), but ultimately I learned to despise delegated design - especially in CFS. I think the issue is the weakness of the AISI Code of Standard Practice. I've never met two SSE's who agree with what should be on the drawings and what shouldn't be. I've had some refuse to do anything unless I gave them exact loading (nearly to the individual stud), and some who refuse to use my load chase down and insist on doing their own. Connections to other materials are often tricky, too. Some refuse to touch them even though we mandate it in drawings and/or specs. With steel it's not so bad - I can provide an embed plate that the steel connection designer can weld to. With CFS, though, you're usually attaching directly to the substrate and the thickness of the track/stud has a big impact on the connection.

 

[JStephen]

In my unrelated-but-still-delegated work, one issue is that generally, something like this would be discovered in the bidding stage, not in the detailing stage, so as contractors, we aren't yet obligated to do the impossible- allows negotiating changes, or qualifying a bid or even no-bidding as needed.

On occasion, we'll run across a specification for some widget that seems not to exist, and simply asking the person that wrote the specification if they know of any such product actually available can help start them looking at alternates.

 

[phamENG]

allows negotiating changes, or qualifying a bid or even no-bidding as needed.

Allowing it and it actually happening are two different things. Maybe it's an isolated, regional thing (though I doubt it), but these sorts of issues have CHANGE ORDER written on them with big, blinky lights. Throw in a few billboards pointing to it if it's a government job.

 

[jayrod12]

something like this would be discovered in the bidding stage, not in the detailing stage, so as contractors, we aren't yet obligated to do the impossible

Or, as one of my most painful jobs helped me learn from, you end up with a malicious type contractor doing the bidding. They bid exactly what is on the design drawings, and as soon as there's a change because something should have been flagged as "impossible" there's an extra for a ridiculous amount. Rinse and repeat for each item in the contract drawings. They were low by 10% or so over the next closest bidder. Guess how much there was in extras charged to the project? closer to 15 or 20%. Is some of that due to poor contract documents, hell yes. Could many of them been flagged via RFI and therefore had a chance to addendum them in the bidding stage, definitely.

A learning experience it was.

And since I've now done delegated design jobs where I was the SSE, you'd best believe the jobs where I'm the EOR have ample details and directions for each item that would be delegated.

 

[bookowski]

I'm a 3rd party to such a dispute that has become pretty messy. It seems clear that most of us would agree roughly as to the EoR's expected role but I'm learning that it's not so clearly spelled out anywhere and once lawyers are involved it quickly becomes a lot hazier. I expected to find something more clearly defined but it appears to be pretty fuzzy when it comes down to it.

 

[KootK]

I attended an SJI webinar last December on ethics. It was surprisingly interesting and the speaker was a lawyer who seemed highly knowledgeable.

On the topic of delegated design, the lawyer said this:

1) Delegated design does not alleviate the EOR of any of the liability that she would have had if she'd designed the delegated stuff herself.

2) The SSE's liability ends up being in addition to the EOR's liability rather than displacing it.

Anybody able to confirm or deny that? I found it shocking given that it would mean that the EOR would be 100% on the hook regardless of whether or not the SSE is also on the hook. Hopefully this is something that heard wrong.

 

[JAE]

KootK - I believe that is all true.

The big motto that came out of the Hyatt Regency Kansas City disaster many years ago, from the judge, was: [blue] "You can delegate design but you can't delegate responsibility."[/blue]

 

[r13]

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

Very true.

 

[EZBuilding]

KootK/JAE

To my understanding; the following are the laws concerning the obligations of the Engineer of Record for delegated design in the state of Florida.

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 to communicate in writing his engineering requirements to the delegated engineer.
(2) An engineer of record who delegates a portion of his design responsibility to a delegated engineer shall require submission of delegated engineering documents prepared by the delegated engineer and shall review those documents for compliance with his written engineering requirements and to confirm the following:
(a) That the delegated engineering documents have been prepared by an engineer.
(b) That the delegated engineering documents of the delegated engineer 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 generally conforms with the intent of the engineer of record.
Specific Authority 471.033(2), 471.008 FS. Law Implemented 471.033(1)(g) FS. History–New 1-26-93, Formerly 21H-30.005.

The outlined responsibilities seems to fall significantly short of assuming all responsibilities for the scope of work of the delegated engineer. If - in the aspects of civil litigation - KootK and JAE's statements are correct, it sure would be nice that the laws governing this type of work would be re-written to be consistent with those expectations.

 

[XR250]

They were low by 10% or so over the next closest bidder. Guess how much there was in extras charged to the project? closer to 15 or 20%.

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

 

[phamENG]

EZBuilding - that sounds like the perfect legal framework for building components like large doors (and their frames) or architectural storefronts. We can define wind pressures and seismic accelerations - maybe even something as extreme as a blast load - they have to resist and give them something to which to attach. Then everything internal to that "component" is on them - we just have to do our due diligence to ensure they did their due diligence. I'd even say this applies to CFS partitions and curtain walls.

Load bearing CFS and CFS lateral systems are a different animal (though not adequately addressed as such in the code you presented). These are the structure. It's not just a piece of it - it's the primary framing. If the EOR can't be held responsible for the primary framing, what can the EOR be held responsible for?

I had a project that was load bearing CFS with some structural steel for large volume spaces inside. When the architect found out my boss had decided to delegate the CFS and the structural steel connections, he posed the following question to me at a meeting: "What am I paying you to do, exactly?" We had a solid working relationship and it was partly tongue in cheek, which was a good thing - I didn't have an answer for him.