Contractor intends to skip permit process 7

[Geoffre14]

We are structural engineers hired by the contractor working on a multifamily residential structure. It has come to my attention that the contractor intends to construct our design without filing for building permits.

We have put it in writing that we believe he must file for permit. There is no architect or other professional consultants on the project. Permit filing is specifically excluded from my contract. They are good guys that do good work but are just trying to move quick. I would prefer not to go directly to the building department and resolve it internally, but we're not confident if our PE obligates us to.

I would appreciate any advice you can give if you are familiar with how we should proceed.

 

[JAE]

I think your PE ethics would require you to notify the building department if you know for certain that the contractor is violating the law.

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

 

[SLTA]

"Good guys that do good work" do what is required by law, and get appropriate permits. Tell them to get permits or you're calling the building department. And do they really think they can hide a multifamily residential structure?

Another thought - if anything bad happens during construction, you'll be brought into the mess as a professional engineer who knew about the lack of permits. Is it worth that risk?

Please remember: we're not all guys!

 

[Once20036]

I posted over in the structural forum as well, but I don't see the need to report anyone for failing to get a permit. NSPE has a paper addressing similar cases, though not exactly the same.

Can they hide a multi family residential? Beats me, but probably not. Regardless, their skipping this paperwork does not create any safety hazards to the public. It costs them money and slows down their construction. As long as they build it right, it's not a problem (as I see it). If they aren't permitting it so that they don't need inspections so that they can cut corners, that's a completely different issue that should be reported.

Are there any professional guidelines saying that we need to monitor contractors for permits? I'd be interested in reading them. Typically I provide the client with signed and sealed drawings that they can use for permit, but I do not submit them, do not know whether or not a permit is issued, and do not intend to ask. Is this somehow unethical?

 

[jayrod12]

I don't feel it's unethical to not know. But if you do know, then I feel you should be obligated to report them. Once20036 said in the other thread that the client wouldn't be your client for long if you reported them, I wouldn't want clients that try to make an extra buck by skirting the requirements.

In this case, you know they aren't planning on getting a permit. How would that look if something were to happen regardless of whether the design was acceptable?

 

[JAE]

Once20036,
Appreciate the comments.

In the NSPE Code of Ethics are these two prominent items:

[bold][blue]II.1.d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.
II.1.e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.[/blue][/bold]

To me the engineer is allowing his firm to be associated in a business venture that is dishonest....and is aiding the unlawful practice of building a structure without a locally, legally, required permit.


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

 

[ornerynorsk]

I'm with SLTA on that one, how do you hide something like that? And who all gets fined when they DO find out? City/County/State does not appreciate being bilked out of their property taxes.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[zdas04]

If you KNOW that they are breaking the law, then the code of ethics kicks in. If you SUSPECT that they are breaking the law then it really doesn't. Go to the site. If you don't see permits prominently posted, then ask. If they tell you that they are not going to get permits, mention to them that you personally could go to jail for that action and you are unwilling to do that. If they still stick with breaking the law you don't have a choice but to report them. A conversation could end with you still on the contractor's bid list. A call to the city without the conversation will certainly get your company off of that (and probably many other) bid lists.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[Once20036]

So, now I`m jumping between forums again.

JAE: Both of the sections you posted are part of section II Rules of Practice:
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
1.d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engage in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.
1.e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.

I believe the 1.d. needs to be taken within the context or part 1. A contractor not getting a permit does not inherently impact the safety, health, or welfare of the public.

In fact, reporting the contractor may be a violation in itself.
Note part II.1.c, Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this code.
The law does not require us to report others who are not following the law.

Note part I.3,(engineers shall) Act for each empoyer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

Note part III.1.b, Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.

 

[Once20036]

Has anyone ever gone to jail for not getting a permit? I figured that worst case, it was a slap on the wrist and some fines.
How could a professional consultant be sent to jail for the actions of a contractor?

 

[Ron]

Once20036....the likelihood of the engineer being sent to jail is obviously low; however, he could receive a reprimand from his state board which will remain on his license forever! No engineer wants that.

Next, the OP is from NY state. Their construction law says that if the municipality is required to follow the state building code, then permits are required. If one is not obtained, it is a violation of the law and subjects the person to fines and other penalties.

Further, the contractor is stupid to even attempt this on a multi-family project.....these projects are riddled with lawsuits all over the country and if the contractor builds without a permit he will subject everyone on the team to higher liability in the event of problems down the road.

Then, simply for getting paid.....if there is no building permit, the contractor likely has no lien rights on the project....there goes his money!

Dumb idea in any way you can think of.

 

[cvg]

Has anyone ever gone to jail for not getting a permit? I figured that worst case, it was a slap on the wrist and some fines.
How could a professional consultant be sent to jail for the actions of a contractor?

its likely that the project will be red tagged and shut down until a permit is issued. Or eventually, the certificate of occupancy will not be issued. The delay could take days, weeks, months or years to happen. contractor, consultants, subcontractors and vendors will probably not be paid. The penalty will likely be a significant fine. Very unlikely anybody could go to jail, but much better to get the permit up front.

 

[Once20036]

I agree that this is illegal and subjects the contractor to fines and other penalties.
I also agree that it's a stupid idea.

I don't see where/how an engineer is legally or ethically obligated to report it, or how they'd be reprimanded for a failure to do so.

The OP has it in writing that they advised the builder to get a permit. Advising other team members also seems reasonable. Going to the city? Nah...

 

[hokie66]

As engineers, we have a primary responsibility to the public. If a project is built without permits, it should be unsaleable if proper searches are done by conveyancers. Passing on the liability to obtain permits to subsequent owners is surely unethical, whether enshrined in a code or not. I would make sure of the contractor's intentions, then go to the building official if the right thing is not being done.

 

[FreddyNurk]

hokie66's assertions are correct, the end client does not get the same value for money and end product if its delivered without appropriate permits and approvals compared to when the process was followed, even if the intention is to expedite the project rather than cut corners and skip installation steps. I'd expect that the contractor certainly isn't giving the client a discount by saving all the paperwork and fees...

Every so often one of my former employers used to get phone calls from people who'd carried out exactly that, and then the insurance company and / or council would require appropriate permits, inspections and structural certification. We'd always politely decline, it wasn't worth the risk for us to provide certification without having carried out the appropriate inspections, which were usually almost impossible to carry out by the time we got the phone call.

In a lot of locations the periodic permits and inspections are there to avoid construction issues and ensure that the construction is carried out appropriately (such as high wind loading areas in Australia), not following this process gives no assurance that the building was constructed as it was meant to be, which can have negative effects on the end client.

 

[Once20036]

OP states that they were hired by the contractor. Several of the above responses appear to be based on a relationship with an owner rather than a builder. Even if the client was an owner, bringing this information to them is much more appropriate than bringing it to the city. Let them decide what they want for their project.
What about NSPE Part II.1.c?
"Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this code."
What part of the law or code authorizes or requires this reporting? If the answer is none, than the reporting itself is unethical.

I also believe that construction issues, details, and certifications are irrelevant to the question at hand. I agree that all of those must be addressed, but the question here simply deals with unpermitted construction and if it needs to be reported.

I work on a lot of industrial projects, where work inside the building doesn't need to be permitted. Often times, this work will spill over to minor site work that should be permitted, or small building addition that should be permitted. These permits would take months and often times the client elects to proceed without them. The projects are fully designed by a complete design team, get a geotechnical report, and have a special inspector on site as necessary to ensure that everything is built properly. Once a client was caught, paid the fine, and did it again on the next project. We are typically hired by the owner. Do you believe that my actions were unethical?

 

[SLTA]

And now I understand why Once20036 has been so adamantly defending the "it's not the engineer's problem" position. You can dig around and twist whatever rules you want, but you've done wrong and are really hoping this won't come back to bite you.

Here's the point, as simple as I can make it: IF IT NEEDS PERMITS, THEN THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD GET PERMITS. So what if it adds longer to the project? That should be understood from the beginning and included in the timelines, budgets, etc. YES, I believe your actions were unethical. And you'd best hope you don't pulled get into a lawsuit or called before your licensing board.

Please remember: we're not all guys!

 

[JAE]

Once - if you read some of the ethical examples that NSPE and others provide there is always conditions where one rule overrides another...so for your stated example (II.1.c) that is all well and good but in cases where you would be breaking the law, aiding someone in breaking the law, or creating risk in terms of public welfare or safety, the confidentiality rules are thrown out.

Ron's comments above are (always) well taken -

In this situation that the OP presents, my own response would be to:
1. Tell my client/contractor that I highly recommend getting the permit.
2. Asking my client/contractor if they will get a permit or not.
3. If not then I would feel a need to step back from the project.

Not sure I'd necessarily notify the city/authorities - but I would resign from the work.



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

 

[TenPenny]

I wouldn't worry about what the contractor 'intends' to do, I'd worry about what the contractor actually does.

 

[StrucPatholgst]

I liberally sprinkle my drawings and reports with "All work to be performed under an approved construction permit." If they tell me up front that they're not going for permits, I tell them I don't want to be involved. Because really, I don't. God forbid there was a fire and someone got hurt and it came out that the building was unpermitted and I knew about it. No thank you, I'd rather not get involved.

I'm also not sure how they expect to get a final C.O. without pulling permits, unless it's out in the sticks somewhere. Also, if the owner ever goes to sell the property or try to pull a mortgage, it will take all of 10 minutes to find out that the property was constructed without permits.