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.

 

[Ron]

Agree with SLTA and JAE....

Once20036 seems to imply that since the contractor is the client that makes a difference. It doesn't. Your obligation as a professional engineer is to the health, safety and welfare of the public....not just your client. You know that what is being done is illegal. That's all you need to know. You now are obligated to protect the public from such actions. This is multifamily construction. The buyers will be an unsophisticated public. They are not commercial buyers, they are just buying into commercial work. Big difference. There is no caveat emptor consideration for someone buying a residence.

Do the right thing and tell your client that you want nothing more to do with the project if they proceed without a permit and that if they continue to do so you are obligated to contact the building official.

I'm surprised that you don't see your potential liability in this. I deal with construction defects and construction litigation EVERY DAY. If you continue down this path, you are buying yourself a lot of problems.

The State of New York has NO statute of repose. That means that you are on the hook FOREVER for negligence.

Think about it.

 

[SLTA]

StrucPatholgist, that's a great note. I'm going to borrow it!

Please remember: we're not all guys!

 

[Once20036]

"really hoping this won't come back to bite me"? Nope, if I was worried about it I wouldn't describe my situation to the internet.

Legally, there is no obligation for me to report someone else who isn't following the law.
Ethically I absolutely see where you guys are coming from. From NSPE, "... shall not associate in business ventures... they believe is engaged in dishonest enterprise."
Personally, I take this within the context of "Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public." and I don't see how the city not getting their check intrinsically creates any risk to the public.

To be clear, I see this as being a separate issue and independent from concerns regarding cut corners and construction defects. I believe that inspections are critical, both for my liability and the safety of the public. If a lack of permit = lack of any inspection or oversight, I agree with you whole heartedly and would not hesitate to do what it takes to address the issue. In my case it is a separate question. In the OPs case it isn't clear to me.

I agree that if it needs permits, it should be permitted. I permitted a small deck that I built, much to the surprise of the city inspector. Apparently it was the first deck permit in years.
I agree that the contractor is making a mistake and agree that it will bite them in the rear when it comes time for a CO, if not before

Honestly, I`m surprised to stand alone on this one. I read and shared a link to an NSPE case study where an engineer was not obligated to report previously unpermitted work. Has anyone found other applicable examples?
I intend to bring this up to our in house legal eagles, but don't expect any change in our direction. I`ll report back if they share anything interesting.

 

[SLTA]

I guess all I can say then is good luck to you.

Hey Geoffre14... what did y'all decide to do?

Please remember: we're not all guys!

 

[BUGGAR]

Stripping all ethical requirements aside, are there statutes or any licensing laws that specifically make Engineers legally responsible for the actions of others if they have no control of the others (no control is key). There are gray areas of course, but what does the LAW say we are obligated to do?

 

[Lomarandil]

Once, I can get behind your latest post.

Like you said, projects should be permitted. (I also recently surprised my local building official by submitting a permit to replace a fence that was blown down in a storm).

And engineers absolutely have an obligation to make sure inspections/life safety requirements are met. If permits are tied to that process, they need a permit.

Additionally, I'd certainly be soured about the idea of working for a client who was cutting corners like this. Where else are they trying to save money, what else are they willing to compromise?

But at the end of the day, I don't see that an engineer is obligated (legally, ethically) to report an non-permitted project to the building official. And like you said, that may even violate the code of ethics.

 

[dicksewerrat]

I thought permits generate inspections. No inspection means the building MAY be unsafe to occupy. Rule No. 1 should be read again.

Richard A. Cornelius, P.E.

http://WWW.amlinereast.com

 

[nonplussed]

I know of an engineer who was reprimanded by the building practitioners board in Victoria, Australia, for 'knowingly or unknowingly' continuing to provide engineering services for a project that had not received the proper permits. He was fined something like $5000. The engineer had even done inspections at key stages in the project but just didn't know that it wasn't permitted. So I guess anything can happen.

 

[BUGGAR]

Found my answer. In the US, when a jurisdiction adopts a building code, it becomes law and is enforceable just as any law is.

 

[RocketRed]

I have had a few clients try this. My response is always the same:

"I understand why you wouldn't get permits, but on my plans you will see the "Statement of Special Inspections" and it tells you which inspections the jurisdiction has to do, and which need to be performed by a Special Inspector and turned in to the Jurisdiction for project closeout. If you don't get those permits and get caught (who is going to not see a multi-family building?) the fees for reverse engineering, demolition and re-inspection will be 3x my original design fee and it will take months longer than permit review timeline. I would recommend the permit."

Doesn't that cover you as an engineer? You have stated jurisdictional inspection is required and that the client should get a permit. I didn't go into law

We have done a lot of industrial/mill work. These guys oftentimes will make a structural renovation and not even call an engineer until it is complete and whatever piece of machinery they had to make changes for is up and running. They might call and say "Hey we cut out a column and want you to come see if we did it right." This has happened so many times in my career I could not count. We typically respond this way "Yes, we will come check it out, and we will also perform full structural inspection/design and prepare a set of permit plans for the renovation. If you have done something that creates a life safety concern we will have to shut you down." Normally, they do a plausible job, but there have been times where we had to shut down machinery or an entire building. Of course the biggest issue is moving a point load onto some piece of concrete we have no idea about (thickness, rebar etc and end up with some ugly retrofits).

 

[allgoodnamestaken]

We have done a lot of industrial/mill work. These guys oftentimes will make a structural renovation and not even call an engineer until it is complete and whatever piece of machinery they had to make changes for is up and running.

That's different than the client telling you they're not going to apply for permits, prior to you doing work. Also, mills have to live with their own changes unlike contractors who only have to worry about it until the warranty runs out.

If a contractor isn't getting permits, its because they're cutting corners. If they're cutting corners, are they doing it on components of the work you specified? Do you have a construction inspection contract to check, or are you going to spend some of your own time checking to see if they're following your design at all?

 

[Forensic74]

Gray area. I would not have put it in writing to begin with. If something fails down the road, you run the risk of a negligence claim if your letter pops up in the documentation. I think most of my jobs I have no idea whether or not they operated under permit, not my responsibility. But now that you've documented you know they're breaking the law and they're attempting to operate without external oversight, I'd be compelled at a minimum to give the building department a call to check out a new job site that has popped up.... they dont always ask for your name/info.

 

[Geoffre14]

Hi guys, OP here. Thank you for all the thoughtful discussion.

A brief follow up to what wound up happening for us: we made it clear again that proper permits were required. Some time passed and we wound up not hearing much. Turns out, the contractor hired a locally notorious robo-stamper PE / expeditor guy. I let the contractor know how bad it could be, but the robo-stamper charges maybe 10% of what going rates should be (so like $500 for a $5,000 engineering fee). So anything we say falls on deaf ears.

If this sounds ridiculous to you, it should. It's all made a little special because the project is in NYC, where there is an easily abused "self-certification" process that essentially cuts the building inspector out of the permitting process.

We're just steering clear at this point. Our preliminary (DD) documents were pretty clearly marked "not for construction," and they were not stamped. We feel like it's not our problem at this point. Our office is too busy to be dealing with this nonsense.

 

[Ron]

Geoffre14....thanks for the follow up. If the PE is a "notorious plan stamper" report him to your state board. That practice hurts us all.