Construction Admin - Legal Responsibility 9

[abusementpark]

For structural engineers, in general, what is your legal responsibility with regard to construction administration?

I am particularly interested in your thoughts on to what level of inspection one needs to provide to verify that the structure is being built according to your plans. Do you hold a responsibility to go through and verify every detail/every connection? I know sometimes our contracts dictate a minimum number of required site visits. However, do the contracts get specific in the level of detail?

Here's one example: Let's say you make what was planned to be your last site visit to a jobsite and notice several items that are out of compliance with the structural drawings. You note them to contractor and follow-up with an extensive field report document each problem and the associated remedial action, Is it then also your responsibility to go back on site and ensure that these problems are fixed?

 

[cvg]

As an inspector, it's your responsibility to report defects to whomever is managing the project. However, it is up to the manager to follow through with things including possibly asking you to come back out for another inspection. You should clarify with the owner that you are not managing the project. I would make sure in your future contracts that you call it "inspection" instead of "construction admin". Even better, I like to call it "post design" or "construction phase" services and then list the services you will provide including inspections, shop drawing review, RFI reviews, review of change orders, punchlist inspection, etc.

 

[Lion06]

What we typically do in our Site Observation Reports is to document everything that we note as an issue. We then require the contractor to respond to each item individually in writing or with pictures (preferred) in order to close out the item. We rarely direct the contractor on how to fix a problem - that is usually regarded as "means and methods". We task them with suggesting a fix for us to review. From that point there can be back and forth, but we usually put it on the contractor to make the first effort at a fix (unless it's something simple that can be addressed with a typical detail that wasn't needed on the job, but can now be passed along).

 

[Ron]

Don't confuse construction or contract administration with construction observation by the design professional. They are significantly different and carry differing levels of responsibility.

As for observation (a preferable term to "inspection"), it is a contractual issue with your client as to how much they want you tied to the quality aspect of the construction. It can vary from none to full time, or anywhere in between.

My approach is that if I go to a jobsite early in the process and find lots of quality issues with the contractor, I get an increase in the scope of my work or I start documenting for CYA purposes. Some clients don't want to pay for the necessary observation as part of a quality verification program. Remember that quality control is the purview of the one doing the work, quality assurance in the purview of the one controlling the worker, and quality verification is the purview of the one controlling the pursestrings.

You are under no obligation to observe anything. In my state, for certain levels of buildings, observation of the placement of all structural components is required by law. A detailed inspection plan must be submitted by the SEOR and then the owner must employ either the SEOR or someone similarly certified for such inspections by the state (must be a licensed engineer or architect with specialized experience). Interestingly enough, if the SEOR is not certified by the state to do such inspections, it must be contracted to someone who is. Yes...it does happen.


Let's take a look at your last paragraph....

Here's one example: Let's say you make what was planned to be your last site visit to a jobsite and notice several items that are out of compliance with the structural drawings. You note them to contractor and follow-up with an extensive field report document each problem and the associated remedial action, Is it then also your responsibility to go back on site and ensure that these problems are fixed?

First, you've met your obligation by observing and reporting. Wipe the word "ensure" from your professional vocabulary! You can't do it! Do you intend to stand there and MAKE the contractor follow your instructions? Not likely. You observe, you report, you let the chips fall. If your client wants you to do a follow up and is willing to pay for it, then by all means, do it; but, you have no professional obligation to do so.

 

[JAE]

Nice post, Ron. Very helpful.

I'd like to add one perspective that I use as well that helps in the observation-inspection issue:

1. Inspection - verifying that the work itself is done according to the plans.

2. Observation - verifying that the contractor understands you through your communication device - i.e. your plans and specifications and thus has the ability to do the work correctly.

For inspection, an inspector is there to duh..inspect the work throughout in an attempt to catch any and all deviations from the contract documents. SEOR's rarely are charged with this.

For observations, you are there to determine if the contactor understands you. You do this via a partial inspection of the work to see if communication is happening. For example, you might check a certain concrete beam reinforcing to see if the installation of the rebar is correct - then you have a level of assurance that if the contractor can get this one (or two or three) beam(s) right, then they have the means/understanding to get the others right.

 

[Ron]

JAE...I like your differentiation between inspection and observation...Right on target.

 

[abusementpark]

My approach is that if I go to a jobsite early in the process and find lots of quality issues with the contractor, I get an increase in the scope of my work or I start documenting for CYA purposes. Some clients don't want to pay for the necessary observation as part of a quality verification program. Remember that quality control is the purview of the one doing the work, quality assurance in the purview of the one controlling the worker, and quality verification is the purview of the one controlling the pursestrings.

How are the contracts typically structured around the EOR's involvement in the construction administration? Do you specifically indicate how many site visits you will be making and try to keep it at that number? Or do you vaguely define your construction administration services as making the number of observational visits you deem necessary?

Also, at some point, is it unethical for you to agree to provide engineering services and no construction administration? Let's say you design a building structure with a lot of unique details and features. Is it ethically responsible to allow for someone else to be checking that the contractor is complying with or properly understanding your plans? Or maybe you learn that the owner is planning on not hiring anyone at all - can you sit by and allow that to occur?

I realize that for bridge work it is typical for the construction admin services to be provided entirely by DOT officials with little or no involvement from the EOR. However, I view that as different from commercial buildings since DOT officials are usually involved in the selection of the structural system. Also, bridge work is so repetitive that the DOT officials will surely have a good knowledge of the importance of each detail and feature of the construction.

For observations, you are there to determine if the contactor understands you. You do this via a partial inspection of the work to see if communication is happening. For example, you might check a certain concrete beam reinforcing to see if the installation of the rebar is correct - then you have a level of assurance that if the contractor can get this one (or two or three) beam(s) right, then they have the means/understanding to get the others right.

OK, so let's say you check 4 beams and 2 of them are wrong. You realize that there is a good chance that a lot of them on the job aren't done correctly. Do you simply point out the problems with the 2 you checked that aren't right, tell him to check all of the other for these problems, and be on your way? Or do you then decide you need to go through each one and document all the beams that are out of compliance?

 

[Ron]

In my contracts, site visits are optional. Keep in mind that professional liability carriers prefer that you not provide observation or inspection services of your design during construction. Their reasoning is that if there's something wrong with the design, there's more likely to be enough wrong with the construction to reduce your (and their) exposure.

When we offer site visits, it is usually for a defined scope, say twice weekly for a minimum of X hours for each visit (including travel time). A field report follows each site visit.

Sometimes we are asked on the front end to be able to provide a completion letter at the end of construction or our part of the project. We will do this, but that requires more site visits and it requires follow-up visits for deficiencies found. For those, we usually give them our hourly rate, with no estimate of total cost.

I start getting concerned at anything over a 10 percent failure rate...whether that's soil tests, concrete tests, rebar placement, nondestructive testing, bolt torqure, dimensional checks, etc. If I checked 4 beams and found 2 of them bad I would recommend an immediate site meeting and let my client know that those results are intolerable and that if they want our continued involvement, then we will check everything until we are satisfied that the contractor can get it right..which usually means we'll be there full time for the duration.

 

[hokie66]

This whole inspection thing today is a slippery slope. Like skiing downhill in lanes with a tree in one, but you don't know which one until you get there.

 

[Ron]

Good analogy,hokie..

 

[dik]

I've attached a copy of my standard template for Site Visits. I'll include a copy tomorrow of one specifically tailored for a project where the QC was provided by the Contractor and the QA was provided by the Client. The latter item was relinquished for a reduction in fee.

Dik

 

[dik]

As noted...

 

[Ron]

dik...good forms. The caveats are especially important and nicely worded.

 

[mmillerpe]

Ron,

I am not sure of your PL carrier, but I know mine prefers to have construction observation by the SER, and strongly cautions against providing design services without construction phase services, including on site observation. The resoning behind this is that during construction is the only time in which you can verify that the intent of your design is what is being constructed. Additionally, if there are any errors or omisions on the part of the design professional that are discovered during construction then these issues can be resolved during the construction process and not if and when a problem arises after construction is substantially complete, reducing the cost of a repair.

Matt

 

[Ron]

Matt,
I agree...that's one reason we continue to do observation and inspection during construction on our projects. It gives me a second look at things and an opportunity to prevent problems.

My previous carrier discouraged this practice. My currently carrier is ambivalent, but does not discourage the practice.

Ron

 

[dik]

The Client wanted them removed and I refused; the office manager ran it through our legal dept and they said to leave them in... I did, however, remove the bold text... a bit of a concession... the mechanical and electrical departments adopted the same format for their site visits. Good thing too... there are some major mechanical hiccups that still haven't been resolved...

Dik

 

[hokie66]

I like Matt's insurer, for precisely the reasons he listed. No one knows the design better than the folks who did it.

 

[Ron]

hokie66...no question about it. The problem is that many insurance carriers don't recognize that, believing that obscurity is a better defense than competence.

When you fill out an application for professional liability insurance, it is one of the questions asked. Different carriers prefer to interpret it in different ways.

 

[slickdeals]

One of our firms insurance agents cautioned us against using the term "inspected" in our field reports. According to him, the in legal terms inspect means you checked every single aspect of what you looked at and can get you in a pickle in lawsuits.

He suggested to use "visual observation of the work performed". This is similar to what JAE mentioned. In addition, he recommended to use "in general conformance with the approved drawings" as opposed to saying "accepted as per the approved plans". I think you can leave a little bit of wiggle room by just tweaking the language a little.

One of my bosses jokingly says, "We are engineers, if we wanted to be so precise with our language, we would have studied literature".

We are Virginia Tech
Go HOKIES

 

[Ron]

slickdeals...your boss needs to take a course in professional liability. What we say and how we say it often determines whether we stay in business or not. To ignore the semantics of a business that depends on accuracy of communication as much as accuracy of computation is ludicrous.

Your insurance agent is exactly right. "Inspection" implies a greater duty of accuracy than "observation". If you "inspect" you had better do so. If you "observe" and say you "inspect" then you have just accepted more liability than you should have.