Interesting Dilemma 1

[dik]

The City of Winnipeg is insisting on certification as noted. Apparently, the association has agreed to the wording.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

That doesn't bother me much. It's essentially what we say when we complete Special Inspections.

I don't like that there's no definition of "appropriate stages". Hopefully they limit it to projects that typically have design team involvement during construction and protections for designers that get blindsided by requests for these after the fact.

 

[dik]

My work is designing steel connections for metal fabricators. This should be the responsibility of the EOR/Arch.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[phamENG]

This should be the responsibility of the EOR/Arch.

I agree with you there.

 

[JAE]

Check with your professional insurance company on this as well.

You signing something like this, even if OK with you, might give the insurance co. a reason to void out your coverage.

 

[dik]

Thanks, Jeff...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JStephen]

I don't see anything in the wording that requires that the person doing that observation was the person that generated or was responsible for the plans. They have to be familiar with the paperwork, but looks like that could be signed by a 3rd party.

 

[BAretired]

If some important structural element has been covered up by the contractor without inspection, the professional cannot in good conscience, certify it. If he does, and something goes wrong with that item, he will be held wholly or partially responsible for its non compliance. No one should sign a certification of compliance for things they have not seen.

 

[Brad805]

This does not seem that dissimilar to what BC has done. Take a look the Schedule S-B and S-C we have in this province. APEGBC SB SC

 

[dik]

Concur... and the engineer reviewing shop drawings should not be certifying this. I occasionally put comments/corrections on shop drawings I review to fix/improve the work. Occasionally unrelated to my work, for the EOR to approve.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

Standard boilerplate for the whole extent of the work, not details, shop drawings, etc. Signed it many times. But whether this certification exists or not, you are responsible for your own work. So request that your insurance company accept the certification wording, because they will have to represent you in case something goes wrong.

 

[dik]

This is a professional issue and beyond the insurance company. It could affect them, but that's a different issue.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[DanKile]

This looks like a certification for the whole project. You designed a small part of the project. I would submit a certification to the EOR/Arch that the connections were designed per relevant design code. Then let the EOR/Arch fill out the certification form for the city.

 

[dik]

Based on their wording, you cannot do so. I've submitted certification for my work based on exclusions. We'll see how it flies. It's also an issue where the professional associations are WRONG. You should be free to certify what you are responsible for. I have no idea if the work is compliant with the Manitoba Plumbing Code, or the Energy Code, or the Manitoba Fire Code. The Energy Code and the Fire Code, I could possibly wing... just based on my background. There are a lot of engineers I know that cannot do this...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[wrantler]

Is it the EORs responsibility that delegated design items are fabricated/installed as per the others design?

Say you have a PEMB that is just erected. Does the EOR do field review on the PEMB to certify its install or does the PEMB supplier?

 

[dik]

I'm not sure... that's a whole 'fuzzy' (and legal) area, but I'm quite happy to certify my design items in accordance with the EOR loading requirements.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

I should have noted, when I design connections and seal shop drawings, I include a list of 'Project Exceptions'. This is the criteria that I use for designing. I may not be aware of the actual Contract requirements. I may not have complete drawings, Specifications, Change Orders, or whatever. I really don't have time to review the Contract issues (I can, I just prefer not to.) My stipulations, I consider as exceptions to the Contract Documents. I'm happy with that approach and it's not generally challenged.

My exceptions file is a 21 page 36K text file that I edit for each project (This generally reduces to two pages).

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[skeletron]

So both associations are wrong... APEGBC took a member to task for using the latest code and not the one that was used by the building code. IMHO, an engineer should be using the latest and by extension, the most correct, information. These are issues are serious and should be decided by the general membership... not something arranged between the AHJ and the association.

Dik, you've mentioned this many times before on the forum. I can't seem to find out which disciplinary case this is related to. Any idea or source? The notices are located here and archived here.

The wording is almost identical to a Schedule C-B in BC. This is the document that is supposed to be filled out by the EOR for each discipline. Any delegated design component (e.g. steel connections, guardrails, miscellaneous metals, etc.) should use the Schedule S-B/S-C, as Brad805 pointed out. The difference is that the Schedule S's are just intended to go from professional to professional, while the B/C-B are part of the permit documents by the EOR's. The changes to the PGA in BC implicitly imply that any "structural design" needs to have a "field review". This has complicated steel connection design because whether you design 1000 shear tabs or a single base plate, you are required to observe those design items in the field. In general, I would say that steel connection designers are remote workers that do not have direct access to the shop or the field.

Back to the official letter...as a steel connection designer, such as in dik's case, the standard practice is to include a statement overtop or adjacent to your seal that states "FOR STEEL CONNECTIONS ONLY" or other similar limitations. Perhaps this could be included in your letter. I've always annotated my Schedules and it also seems to be common practice with others. It's a 50/50 chance whether the permit department squawks at it.

I don't think the wording is totally out to lunch. I would tend to disagree that this would void any standard E&O insurance policy; in my opinion, that thinking is overly-cautionary. I interpret the second part of the first statement as "I've documented the project and the project changes in a manner consistent with standard practice and normal construction". The other statements I interpret under the "duty to report" tenet that is in the Code of Ethics.

 

[wrantler]

Field reviews can be delegated. Under the direct supervision of the engineer. So the construction supervisor can do this.

I just want to bring a separate topic to the table. What is the intent of this document that EGM has put out? I do think this is to try and help engineers get sufficient documentation during construction so they can sleep at night. So this can force the construction company to take the engineer seriously during construction. Gone are the days where u give a contractor your design and they go into the bush and come back with a finished bldg and say its 'good'.

 

[wrantler]

@dik your association has collaborated in this document. Maybe you should call them?