Drafting and Stamping Shed Templates

[johnwow]

Hi all,

Is it appropriate to stamp a "standard" design for a number of shed template designs to be used in multiple locations? I've always been told to stamp site-specific drawings with an address. They want review for wind load rating up to 150 mph as they are looking to sell near the coast.

 

[XR250]

If it works in all locations, I don't see an issue with it other than:

1) Your insurance company may hate it
2) You will most likely earn less fee in that arrangement

 

[WesternJeb]

Ethical or not, I see them done all the time. Just make sure you put your stamp on there for each state they intend to market, your appropriate design assumptions, and a lawyer approved CYA statement(s). Your company might not want to pay for a lawyer, but they're going to be making so much profit off not having you review a "site-specific" set of plans that they should be able to afford it.

Are you putting foundation design on the local site engineer? This should be enough to get the site-specific portion you might want.

 

[JAE]

It can be appropriate but a few issues to consider:

1. Higher Risk - Multiple uses of the same design for many sites raises the level of risk for you as the odds of something going wrong and initiating a lawsuit go way up with each additional construction. This is usually something that I would want to discuss with my insurance agent to verify their acceptance of this practice as their risk goes up as well.

2. Fee for Higher Risk - With the added risk, there should be added fee. We have sometimes used the cost of insurance per dollar of fee to calculate how much each additional use of the plans would typically cost and then use that as an added fee. For example, if the base fee for one site (the first use of the plans) is $4,000, and your typical annual insurance cost results in say, 3% of your revenue each year, then we would add $120 per additional use (.03 x $4,000) to the compensation. We'd also add some additional fee per additional use based on some derived administration costs with dealing with subsequent add-ons.

3. Foundations will Vary - Soil conditions vary so the footings are usually left undone or highly qualified.

4. Who Verifies the Design Criteria Each Time? - Some statement on your part should deal with the fact that you assumed some high level of climatic loading (wind, seismic, rain, etc.) and that someone besides you should review each site application to verify that your design falls OVER the actual local conditions. Who that person is and whether they have the qualifications to properly perform this task is of course another layer of risk.

 

[RenHen]

Whether it is done or not, it's my understanding that this is not acceptable practice. The people who end up in possession of that document are not necessarily qualified to determine whether the design and referenced standards used at one time apply to their project conditions. It is also illegal for anyone else (not under the charge of another engineer taking responsibility for the changes) to modify your signed and sealed documents, to add a project name/address for example. This is not something I would consider; if I were considering it, I would be worried that knowingly taking that on could open myself up to liability, but that's probably more of a question for a lawyer.

 

[XR250]

Fee for Higher Risk - With the added risk, there should be added fee. We have sometimes used the cost of insurance per dollar of fee to calculate how much each additional use of the plans would typically cost and then use that as an added fee. For example, if the base fee for one site (the first use of the plans) is $4,000, and your typical annual insurance cost results in say, 3% of your revenue each year, then we would add $120 per additional use (.03 x $4,000) to the compensation. We'd also add some additional fee per additional use based on some derived administration costs with dealing with subsequent add-ons.

There needs to be an additional "make it worth my while" fee on top of these - otherwise there is not any further profit on the job.

 

[JAE]

XR250 - yes I should have included that as well - fee for cost of insurance, admin, and profit too.

 

[JStephen]

One issue is that your seal can be interpreted to mean that the proper design criteria was used for the location in question in the first place.
From a practical standpoint, I find there is a tendency to avoid reading any of the fine print, and if you give a builder a shed drawing, a shed will be built, regardless of whether that fine print says it's appropriate for that location or not.
If I remember right, the Texas Windstorm insurance system uses windspeed maps that are somewhat different from ASCE/ IBC, so you get some added issues on stuff like that.
Sealing it in State X when it is used in State Y would be another issue.

 

[johnwow]

I just received their RFP. Their billing proposal states: "[X] proposes to pay a one-time project fee for the generic drawings, a yearly fee for the
maintenance and consulting on a renewable yearly contract, and and agreed upon fee as needed per site specific plan."

 

[phamENG]

"[X] proposes to pay a one-time project fee for the generic drawings, a yearly fee for the maintenance and consulting on a renewable yearly contract, and and agreed upon fee as needed per site specific plan."

Hard pass. It's a shed, so they're probably thinking it's a $500 fee. For essentially infinite liability. No. And I won't even say thanks.

 

[johnwow]

Says they manufacture 3500 sheds a year. That's a lot of liability

 

[SWComposites]

so ... just curious ... do free standing "sheds" typically need a building permit and engineering? (says someone who has built / installed several in various back yards over the years without a permit or anything).

 

[Aesur]

Depends on the location/jurisdiction, some do, others don't. For instance in my area there are exemptions based on area.

 

[phamENG]

I believe the typical threshold is 256sf. Any bigger, and a permit is required.

johnwow - it's not Stateline, is it?

 

[dauwerda]

so ... just curious ... do free standing "sheds" typically need a building permit and engineering?

The unamended IRC exempts accessory structures that do not exceed 200 SF from permitting requirements. Many local jurisdictions will modify this when they adopt the IRC (and many won't). I have often seen 120SF used as a max and I have seen all accessory structures requiring a permit.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/I...-administration#IRC2021P2_Pt01_Ch01_SecR105.2

Even if a permit is required, they can often be built per the IRC without any engineering.

 

[johnwow]

pham - No it's not but in the same states. They go up to 12'x40' or something like that. We'd be producing the plans but as far as stamping that's where i'm not sold yet.

 

[gte447f]

johnwow, I would want to know more about what is considered a "site specific plan" in the language of their RFP. Is that every single shed sold?

Separate from the issue of whether or not this sort of practice is or should be allowed by engineering licensing laws, what I would expect is a fee for every unit sold. Kind of like a royalty. There have been discussions about this sort of thing on the board here before.