Engineer's Duty to Respond to the AHJ

[phamENG]

Question: does the Engineer of Record for a project have a duty to respond to comments from the AHJ during plan review and permitting?

I'm NOT referring to contractual obligations - this is more of an ethical/statutory thing. State laws being state laws, it's Virginia in case anyone has any specific knowledge, but generally around the US would be good to know, too.

My specific case: had a client ask me to take a look at a prefab building. The AHJ won't give him a permit for it because the engineered drawings supplied by the manufacturer and the manufacturer's engineer don't have all of the information mandated by the code on them. The EOR has essentially told the owner of this unpermittable building that what's on the drawing is all they get.

This is completely foreign to me - I've always assumed that I was required to carry a design at least as far as responding to review questions/comments and have carried out my business that way. Once it gets approval (the AHJ essentially saying yes, the building is code compliant), then matters change and it depends on whether or not I have a contract for CA, etc. But I always thought that I had to at least go along with the review process. Am I mistaken? Is there no requirement? I'm not planning to change how I do things, but I don't want to tell my client that the other engineer is required to do something he's really not. And the flip side of that, I'd love to tell my client that the drawings are missing X Y and Z and, by the way, the other engineer is required by such-and-such to provide it. Then I don't have to get my hands too dirty in proving this building works...

 

[GC_Hopi]

Following this thread. I am interested to know others thoughts since most PEMBs do not generally follow IBC or the local adopted code. They use their own industry standards and design manuals. My initial thoughts are the PEMB doesn't have a contractual obligation but the PE may have an obligation based in the state or professional organization code of ethics/standards. Reporting the PE to the state board may be the only option and that is wishy washy since point 1 above PEMB use their of standards

 

[WinelandV]

Which permit? Occupancy or Construction?

What information is the manufacturer's engineer not providing that the AHJ wants?

 

[dik]

Have them provide the necessary information... seems simple enough.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

Construction. Roof framing is trusses, but it's essentially a large shed - they didn't use commercial truss software and didn't include some of the standard (and technically code required) output on their stamped drawing. Most of it is stuff that is required for coordination between a truss engineer and the EOR, but in this case they're one in the same, so I agree it's mostly senseless. But the AHJ is demanding it.

I've left a message with the EOR, we'll see if he calls me back.

 

[dhengr]

PhamENG:
Is the plan signing engineer registered in the state where the bldg. will be installed? It that company registered to do business in the state? It seems to me that the AHJ collects fees for permitting, plan review, inspections, etc. and actually has some obligation/duty and authority to intercede on behalf of the potential bldg. owner, directly with the plan and bldg. provider, to meet their local requirements. The AHJ should be communicating with them just as they would be with you, if you were the EOR. This should not involve the new bldg. owner having to hire his own local engineer to shepherd the project through as regards meeting all the code and local AHJ requirements. Although, the new bldg. owner bear’s some of the blame too, in that he went for lowest cost package deal (cheap and quick-n-dirty), and he should have known what he was getting into, and maybe even have read the contract, or amended it to read, ‘to meet all local AHJ requirements.’ Half the reason these guys can quote such low prices is that they leave (hide) all the serious, non-standard detail and engineering work to be done after delivery, on site. When the new bldg. owners sums all these costs, extra efforts and hours the price isn’t so cheap any longer. Why not withhold some percentage of the payments until this is fully resolved, maybe to pay for some of the needed engineering?

 

[phamENG]

dhengr - I agree. Unfortunately the plan reviewer doesn't seem to be helping either. Apparently yelled at the owner of the building to bring the truss software output and to get out of his office. So here I am, trying to fix somebody's mess without getting caught in it myself. If this had been a cold call I would have turned it down, but it came from a really good client, and so while the project isn't worth the effort, turning it down wouldn't have been worth the potential loss.

 

[ldeem]

Seems like it might be a money issue. EOR provided what is requierered per the contract now the owner (at the demand of the AHJ) wants more information.

Do you know if the EOR said if you want X it will cost Y or did they just refuse to provide the requested information?

 

[JStructsteel]

EOR providing what is required by contract aside, if truss output is required by the AHJ then the engineer should provide that. Its inherent to me if I sign a contract to design a building, then I have to provide the requirements to get the building permit. For example, I submit alot of drawings electronically, but if AHJ says in their process it must be a paper copy with wet seal, how can I tell the owner no?

 

[phamENG]

Ideem - I was told that the owner has 'everything that can be provided.' So it doesn't sound like a matter of additional fees. Still waiting to hear the EOR's side of the story.

JStructsteel - I feel the same way. Just wish there was some code provision or regulation that could be used to compel them to do so (assuming they really are stonewalling and this isn't just a horrible game of telephone).

 

[JStructsteel]

Wouldnt the AHJ have whats required published somewhere? Its on the EOR to meet state and local codes.

 

[GC_Hopi]

Part of the issue is prefab building supplier do not consider themselves the EOR and their contract is the building so they avoid the AHJ.

 

[GC_Hopi]

The owner could try re-entering negotiations with the PEMB to get the necessary information and documentation produced or hire an EOR. PEMBs generally consider their calculations propriety and do not share unless you can negotiate it in the contract/pay them for it.

 

[dik]

It depends on what his agreement with the owner was; it may be an extra service. I got 'badly beaten up' on fees for the second phase of one major project (not me, but the company I was working for) I developed an ESWO (Extra Service Work Order) for the next major project. If there was a change, I issued one of these with an estimate of the added extension to time I would need. Best invention I ever made... and I have used it often since...

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Settingsun]

GC_Hopi, does the PEMB company & engineer retain full responsibility for the building as a proprietary item? I don't see how an external engineer could be satisfied of the suitability without being provided the calculations. I'm picturing the PEMB falling under 'sale of goods' legislation that requires consumer products to be fit for purpose. The regulator could similarly rely on that s it would include building regulations.

 

[GC_Hopi]

Does the PEMB company & engineer retain full responsibility for the building as a proprietary item?

Assuming the documents are sealed by the company's PE then I would say they have the same responsibility for what they sealed as would any other PE.

 

[Aesur]

Chapter 16 section 1603 of the IBC lists the minimum requirements for information to be placed on the plans. It seems to me that the PEMB engineer doesn't realize they are the EOR which is common as I have never seen the PEMB manufacturer/engineer act as such, typically the engineer doing the foundation design is the EOR and the PEMB is a deferred submittal. Is the PEMB engineer providing the foundation designs as well?

I would argue that if the PEMB engineer is providing above and beyond the PEMB design, then they are the EOR and are subject to the IBC, which lists the requirements on construction documents and gives the AHJ the ability to request more.

 

[phamENG]

For what it's worth, when I say "prefab building" I'm talking wood - not a PEMB. Wood utility building built in a factory and delivered on a truck. Similar issue, though.

They are 100% subject to the building code - they even put it on the drawings that it's designed to the IBC - my question is what compels an engineer 4 states away to provide calculations when requested by the AHJ apart from common decency and, maybe, a contractual obligation to the client?

 

[Aesur]

Interesting, maybe section 104.11.2 of the IBC could give the AHJ the ability to require testing, calculations, etc. I'm actually not sure the code even requires calculations be submitted and that is left up to the AHJ's own policies through 104.1. I have seen projects submitted in a few jurisdictions where calculations were not required, just plans. I would agree with others here that the only obligation they may have is if they agreed to provide a permittable structure to said owner in said location, then they would be required to abide by local policies and standard of care in that jurisdiction that may include calculations, in which case the EOR would need to meet said policies and should have included this in their fee structure.

 

[phamENG]

Thanks, Aesur. As much as I like being right, I was hoping I'd missed something here. Oh well.

Thanks, everyone.

To some of the points about PEMBs - my SOP is this: if I'm brought in before the PEMB is designed, I'm the EOR and I write the spec for the PEMB. That way I can define the parameters (you know, the way the MBMA says it should be done) and not leave it up to chance. Then, when the design comes back below spec I send a copy to them and dip their design in red ink and I keep tightening the screws until they comply. If I'm brought in after the PEMB has been designed (or worse, after it's entered fabrication), I refuse to be the "EOR" and make the owner sign liability releases saying that I'll make sure the foundation is good, but I'm not responsible for the performance of the building. I don't like it, so I only do that when I'm hungry. If I don't need the work right now, I just turn those down.