Engineering Ethics, Regulations and Laws 5

[kxa]

Here is a situation that while I would like to help out, I don't think it is the right thing to do. A client that did not ask me to supervise the foundation construction and went ahead and completed the work without the inspection by the town bldg. inspector, can not get his foundation approved. Supposedly, the inspector wants him to take out the foundation or get a letter from an engineer that everything was done according to the code. This client is now asking me to look at his digital photos and produce that letter.

For this situation and perhaps others, is there any reference guides out there that set the legal or ethical limits on what engineers can do or for that matter, should not do?

Thanks,

 

[haynewp]

Because the inspector wants the engineer to take total responsibility for what was built since he was not able to inspect it.

What would cross my mind is that if you did write the letter, that the inspector could decide to go to the engineering board and file a complaint against you. You would obviously be doing something he feels is not right.

I haven't read this entire thread but we used to put lots of disclaimers on drawings for certain circumstances that we thought justified (existing building situations etc). But after talking with engineers that have been involved in a lot of litigation, I don't think the disclaimers hold water in court. If you make any modifications to something, you are taking a share of responsibility for it.

I guess one example that comes to mind would be building a taller metal building next to an existing lower one that is on adjacent property. I used to see lots of CYA notes on a co-worker's drawings about doing something like this. But if your new design causes 5 feet of snow drift on the lower existing roof, who do you think they are going to come after?

 

[Anaximandar]

I thought contractors get their licenses, so that they could certify the work is done per plans?

 

[JStephen]

Contractors get their licenses to keep the guy-in-a-pickup from bidding a million dollar job. It's not intended as a certification of work done. (Specialties such as plumbing or electrical may be a bit more knowledge-based). Some states have contractor licensing laws, some don't, for that matter.

 

[FSS]

Not sure how big the town is, but if there is a head building official (and not the inspector), then a meeting would be in order. That way you can find out exactly what building official will require compared with what you can reasonably do. If all parties are in same room then hopefully something can get resolved.

 

[archeng59]

JAE, I understand the original dilemma presented in this thread. but the whole thing changed when kxa's client asked for a letter stating the foundation was designed per code instead of the inspection letter. maybe I'm missing something here, but just wondering why the client changed their mind.

 

[JAE]

archeng59 - yes, I see that once the client understood that the engineer couldn't certify something he didn't see - he then switched and asked for a letter saying that the design was per code.

kxa said: "Well, the client finally got the message that it would be against the law for me to write such a letter." so that apparently is the reason.

As I said above - certifying a sealed set of plans is redundant and ridiculous.

I think the owner just thought a combination of an engineer's letter (of any kind) and a contractor letter saying "hey - I built it per the plans" would fly.

 

[kxa]

Apparently, the client is now trying to get a letter from me, the concrete guy, the architect and others certifying their work so that the town inspector won’t make him rip everything apart. At least, this is the message I am getting. I offered to talk to the inspector but the client said “not a chance.”

Anyway, when we stamp the plans, aren’t saying that it has been designed to the code? If so, then the letter would be redundant but should also be harmless. If not, and we are not a code certified person, then we could possibly be attesting to something that would have negative ramifications.

My understanding is that only a code certified person has the authority to make such a statement and interpret the code. An engineer’s understanding and use of the code may be different than the specifics of the code but acceptable to a code official (inspector) who, by approving it, makes it official.

 

[JAE]

kxa,

Stamping the plans, in my opinion, is really ONLY saying [red]"I state that I am licensed and that I prepared these plans." [/red]

There is an implied statement that the plans meet the minimum code provisions (otherwise you'd be in violation of the licensing laws of your jurisdiction).

Your last statement I would tend to disagree with. Many inspectors and "code certified persons", if not most, know the code pretty well, but in the structural arena most of the code provisons are design oriented and beyond what a "code official" knows or understands.

 

[kxa]

I agree that a code official does not or may not understand the engineering aspects of the plans. In fact, they don’t even have to be engineers to get certified. What they say is that they have done a limited review (this is their disclaimer) and that the plans are acceptable.

The question is really whether a PE is authorized to write a letter saying the plans that he has prepared and stamped are in compliance with the code for that state.

 

[JAE]

I think we can write such a letter if we want. I just don't think there is any need.

 

[Ashereng]

kxa,

If I was in the position you find yourself, I would not be writing anything.

You have done what you have done, and stamped the drawings as requried. You have done your job.

Your client has not done his, and is trying to "wiggle" his way out of his mistake.

He made a mistake. He should own up and fix it.

Just my thoughts.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[Ron]

kxa...
You stated "Anyway, when we stamp the plans, aren’t saying that it has been designed to the code? If so, then the letter would be redundant but should also be harmless."

It is redundant but not necessarily harmless. In litigation, that second letter would likely constitute a certification of your own design....that's not good. Any perceived deviation from the code or standard of care, no matter how slight, can then get magnified to a negligence claim. Then guess what...you were not only negligent but you certified that you were negligent. Don't do it.

I mention negligence only because it is a very slippery concept and can take on a variety of forms. Your design might be very good and include everything one could imagine to cover the conditions; however, all the owner has to do is find some engineer who disagrees with your approach and interprets the code in a slightly different manner, and the negligence claim will suddenly erupt from a lawyers mouth. It might be completely groundless and false, but you then have to defend it....COSTLY.

 

[zcp]

kxa,

what does your E&O carrier say about this? what does your attorney say about this?

ZCP

http://www.phoenix-engineer.com

 

[archeng59]

zcp has a great point about talking to your E&O agent.

I would not write the letter, either.

 

[henri2]

Even when a building department issues permits, and a C of O upon completion of construction, code language similar to IBC Sections 105.4, 110.1, and 110.4 helps protect them from lawsuits. You too should do all that is reasonable to avoid being sued if something goes wrong.

The consensus opinion that you do not write a letter certifying the design seems like very sound advice.

 

[EddyC]

kxa,

You already know that the building owner is trying to get the Building Inspector to accept the foundation "as is" without a proper inspection. This is an unethical act. Is this client really worth it for you to assist him in his unethical act? I don't think that you will be able to avoid legal responsibilty by writing some cleverly worded letter that fools the building inspector into accepting the foundation and the liability associated with it.

 

[Loui1]

What is forcing this construction to be inspected?? If the building doesnt fall into the special inspection or structural observation category I dont think the inspector has grounds to reject the work unless your local residential code requires it. I would advise your client to put the inspector on the defensive stance and make him provide the specific code requirements stating where the work must be inspected. Very true it is unethical for you to write a letter stating it was done correctly, but if its just a simple footing, most of the times the contractor is taking the liability for any problems that occur in the future.

 

[JAE]

Loui1 - most residential construction falls under city inspection guidelines where foundation, framing, electrical, etc. inspections are required at the various stages of construction. This is so because for one reason residential buildings aren't engineered so the higher level of inspection by cities is called for.

In this instance, an engineer was involved but the requirement for inspection still apparently stood.

 

[kxa]

Well, I certainly did not think I would get so many responses. And, I must say, with one voice. I was never asked before to certify my own work and did not feel I should do it here. I made it clear to the client that if he wants another set of sealed and signed plans I can provide hime with that but not the letter he was asking for. I think he got the message.

Interestingly, I checked with the code enforcement department and they said there is no such rule that prevents you from producing that letter. I was told basically that it is between you and your client. When I checked with couple of certified code inspectors, I got totally different response.

For those who suggested I run this by my E&O insurance, they did not have a quick answer and asked that I send a a letter discribing the situation so that they can present it to their risk management board for review and decision. If the client still insists I will do that otherwise, I think this issue is over.

Thanks to everbody for input/guidence and support.

 

[Ron]

kxa...one last comment!..

The Code Enforcement group likely would NOT know if there was a rule against such, since in my state it is under the engineering law and code enforcement people typically don't know much about engineering or architectural law. Further, those groups routinely try to get such letters from engineers and they are successful in doing so many times because the engineers are either intimidated by their municipal position or are ignorant of liability and law.