Foundation Engineering Without going on site 3

[XR250]

One of our local foundation companies apparently uses an Engineer who will take the foundation companies field notes and come up with a repair plan. They said if it is a simple job, he will not go to the site. For more complicated ones, he will make a site visit. On this particular project, they installed 11 helical piers without the Engineer going out there ($24,000). Does that seem unethical to y'all?

 

[XR250]

They are not but most of the foundation contractors have similar business models.

" make the framing more expensive and the profit is larger if marked up on percentage basis."

Most contractors around here work fixed fee so their incentive would be for me to design it cheaper.
For the ones that do cost plus with, I have never felt they want to make things more expensive just so they have more to mark up.

 

[gte447f]

You are not likely to find a violation of ethics related to the contractor's pricing structure or the contractor's method of compensating the engineer, although I don't think we know either of those two things in this case. In my opinion, whether there is a violation of ethics or rules on the part of the engineer in this case, based on what we know from the OP, comes down to whether or not the engineer exercised due care in his investigation and design, since he did not visit the site and conduct his own investigation, but instead presumably provided a design based on only on information provided by the contractor, who is not under the engineer's supervision or direction or responsible charge, and who is paying the engineer's fee. Furthermore, if the engineer did not exercise due care, was he/she simply acting as a rubber stamp "yes man" for the contractor to promote the financial interest of both the contractor and the engineer.

 

[stevenal]

I am looking at a roof framing reinforcement plan for a rooftop PV system. It bears the stamp and signature of a PE. In a prominent box: "The design is based on the layout, site photos, and structural information provided by -- Solar. -- Engineering has not performed an in-person site observation for this project." Perhaps disclosures and disclaimers make the lack of responsible charge okay?

 

[XR250]

I wonder if a savvy building official would flag this?

 

[LionelHutz]

In responsible charge of designing a solution based on what appears at your desk. Being able to use that solution in the field seems questionable. I suppose it all depends on the quality of the information provided.

 

[gte447f]

XR250, I would be surprised if a municipal plan reviewer would flag a disclaimer like that, but maybe there are some that would. It seems to me that most of the plan reviewers that I usually encounter will accept almost anything with an engineer's stamp on it. I am not generally in favor of overregulation, but I might welcome it for an AHJ to have a written policy in place that required an engineer site visit for design of repairs for existing conditions.

 

[phamENG]

I think the keyword is 'over.' I'd consider a requirement for a licensed individual whose work directly impacts people's health and safety to do their job to be regulation, not over regulation.

I have done this in the past - accepting photographs from a trusted source when I can't be on site. I don't like it and I minimize it whenever possible. I also try to use Skype or other video messaging (no Apple here, so no FaceTime) so they can show it to me live, we can discuss it in real time, and I can tell them what else I need to see. But only with clients I trust - contractors who actually know what they're doing, really good architects. And only when me getting to the site is not possible (I just left for vacation and I'm 4 states away, but an issue came up and delaying for a week until I get there will cost $200,000).

In this case my problem is more with the fact that the engineer is just following the contractor's lead, seemingly without question. I'm all for collaborating with the contractor, hearing their opinion, and considering their abilities when designing the repair. But it sounds like, even if he ran all the numbers, he's essentially rubber stamping the contractor's assessment of the situation. And that's not acceptable. The contractor may say "I think this is what's wrong" but the engineer needs to make a holistic assessment to see if the contractor is correct or not.

 

[phamENG]

Also, such "disclosures" don't make the failure to do your job okay, it just announces to the world that you didn't (and probably hurts you in court since, you know, you're admitting to not meeting the standard of care).

 

[XR250]

I have done this in the past - accepting photographs from a trusted source when I can't be on site. I don't like it and I minimize it whenever possible. I also try to use Skype or other video messaging (no Apple here, so no FaceTime) so they can show it to me live, we can discuss it in real time, and I can tell them what else I need to see. But only with clients I trust - contractors who actually know what they're doing, really good architects. And only when me getting to the site is not possible (I just left for vacation and I'm 4 states away, but an issue came up and delaying for a week until I get there will cost $200,000).

I do the same.

FWIW, in my area of practice, the AHJ's require PE's to sign off on helical pier installations. No one is willing to pay an engineer to sit there for 8 hours to monitor this so I sign off based on photographs and boring logs - this is standard practice in my locale (I do the original repair design). Even if I went there after installation, I would not be able to gather any further information. I only do this with long-time contractor clients who I trust and also provide the lifetime guarantee for the product and install.

 

[gte447f]

XR250, your area is leaps and bounds ahead of mine. In my area, there is no engineering involved in helical pile underpinning for residential foundation repair/remediation, neither in design nor in installation.