Multiple engineers designing and stamping a design

[TehMightyEngineer]

Working on a design-build, precast arch bridge project and got a weird situation. The EOR performed the structural engineering design and stamped the project drawings. Two outside manufacturers designed the proprietary arch structure and the proprietary retaining wing walls and supplied us with the documentation to manufacture them. We will be manufacturing the arch and walls and I will be reviewing their designs.

However, the state DOT is apparently asking me (we're trying to confirm the details) to prepare a 100% separate, independent design of the arch and wing wall structures and stamp and submit that design. This seems highly irregular because I would be assuming joint liability with the original engineer and it would become a huge cluster of who is liable for what...

Any advice on this? I'm probably going to have our companies lawyer weigh in on this if they actually are asking us to do this but figured I'd get the advice of you fine folks first.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[JAE]

A couple of thoughts:
1. There is an overall EOR of the entire project. Typically they are responsible for the overall integrity and safety of the structure.
2. They are apparently delegating a portion of the structure as a component and requiring a separate PE to sign and seal that component. This is done all the time.
3. The EOR is still the ultimate responsible party.
4. Under many (if not all) state departments in the U.S., bridge designs must always have a second, independent calculation check design performed.
5. It sounds like the EOR and DOT is stating that the delegated component design must have a primary design and a separate secondary design.
6. The use of a seal (vs. still doing the work but not sealing it) in my view doesn't change liability. The seal simply identifies the practicing engineer who did the work.



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

I'm quite familiar with the typical "component designed by another PE" process as this is my primary function at my company. This is for a project in Maine and I've done a lot of work for them in the past it being my home state. MaineDOT has typically required a full review of my calculations by another independent engineer but never a separate design. That's my I thought this unusual.

From your note 6 it sounds like as long as I specify a scope in that I am only responsible for the correctness of my design and not the overall project nor the other engineers design then I will be all covered liability-wise.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[MintJulep]

Do you have a contract with the state DOT for design work on this project?

If not your reply is "We would be glad to submit a quote for design engineering services to perform this work."

But most likely the message has gotten garbled. Wait for clarification of the details before getting too worked up about anything.

 

[JAE]

You could, perhaps, submit your calculations with a boxed note on the cover page stating that the design you are submitting is for the applicable components only and do not represent a design effort by you on the overall structure.



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

JAE: The could work, if we do this I'll see what the lawyer says.

MintJulep: Yeah, I'm awaiting an official response from our DOT contact. The only info I have right now is through the grapevine from the general contractor. I agree about not getting too worked up but wanted your folks' thoughts on this so I could tell my boss what to expect.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[EngineeringEric]

Engineering jargon through a GC... I think you found your problem

Does sound odd, Check your project specific contract with the state. They cannot expect you to design everything unless they did and told you. If not, i see a nice CO coming your way.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

hahah, that maybe a contributing factor.

We're starting to sort this out a bit and it looks like the design specifications could be made a little clearer. The paragraph about the design heavily implies that I must perform a complete design check but that I don't need to submit a separate design. However, it very clearly states that I must double stamp the engineer of records design submittal for the component, which I will obviously note under my stamp that my scope is the review only.

Still seems to be a little weird on the liability side but it's not as bad as double submitting a design in my mind.

This is definitely change order material and we've made that clear to the GC which they're fine with.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[allgoodnamestaken]

which I will obviously note under my stamp that my scope is the review only.

Do you think that will actually change anything liability-wise? I don't know about your locale, but where I live any lawsuit would be for joint and several liability and you would be exposing yourself to liability similarly if you did the original design and vouched for it, or reviewed someone else's design and declared it compliant.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Do you think that will actually change anything liability-wise? I don't know about your locale, but where I live any lawsuit would be for joint and several liability and you would be exposing yourself to liability similarly if you did the original design and vouched for it, or reviewed someone else's design and declared it compliant.

Oh I fully agree and, as noted in my original post, I'll probably request the consultation with a lawyer to confirm whether we can protect ourselves from assuming joint liability. If we can't then that's fine but I'd request more compensation than just a typical review. I have no problem designing this myself.

The major attempt of the scope note under my stamp would be to show that I am not in "responsible charge" of the design and that I'm only stamping my "review" of the design and drawings.

The Maine PE ethics lists: "Licensees shall approve and seal only those design documents that conform to accepted engineering standards and safeguard the life, health, property and welfare of the public."

Further Maine PE laws:


2. Each Licensee is responsible for the proper use of the Licensee’s seal.


5. A seal shall be applied, signed and dated, including hardcopy or electronic versions, in the following cases:

A. On all professional engineering plans, specifications, reports, or calculations prepared by or under the direction of the responsible licensed Professional Engineer;

B. On all professional engineering plans, specifications, reports or calculations formally filed or offered for filing with any public body or agency; and

C. On all professional engineering plans, specifications, reports or calculations formally submitted to contractors for bids or estimates, or when released for construction.


7. Any licensed Professional Engineer may apply a seal on any plans, specifications, reports or calculations, provided such documents are prepared or reviewed personally by or under the supervision of that licensed Professional Engineer. By affixing his or her seal to any professional engineering document the licensed Professional Engineer takes full legal responsibility for it, regardless of whether the Professional Engineer receives any compensation.


8. Licensees may accept assignments for coordination of an entire project, provided that each design segment is signed and sealed by the licensed professional responsible for preparation of that design segment.


9. Where plans, specifications, reports or calculations are bound together, the application of the seal on the first sheet or page is considered sufficient if the intent is to cover the entire document, otherwise the first sheet must also include a statement of the number of sheets covered by each Licensee’s seal.



Please let me know what you think. This is obviously a very weird area and I want to make sure I'm not leaving stones unturned here.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Took what we talked about here to our companies owners and we decided to politely refuse to double stamp the component drawings and submit a more traditional stamped report that states we reviewed the project and give our approval/rejection/comments. If the state DOT rejects that then we'll bring in the lawyers.

Seems like it's the best approach with the least probability of lawyers involved.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[allgoodnamestaken]

Another approach will be to look through your DOT's standards documentation related to submission of engineering designs and see if they have anything there written about the requirements they've put on you for the double stamp.

 

[MintJulep]

In light of Paras 7 and 9 that you cited I think that your stamp on a report stating that you reviewed plans is exactly the same as your stamp directly on the plans.

 

[allgoodnamestaken]

In light of Paras 7 and 9 that you cited I think that your stamp on a report stating that you reviewed plans is exactly the same as your stamp directly on the plans.

The DOT and his employer have some sort of business relationship that is not governed solely by laws on PEs. It's possible that legally those are the same thing, but the DOT has further requirements that are beyond what the law requires.

 

[Ron]

MJ...using the independent report approach is not the same as sealing the plans. If carefully worded by limiting the review to a standard of care review, it becomes an opinion of validity/approach. TME should be careful about using terms such as "approved", "accepted" and other terms that would imply or state a greater responsibility than intended.

Something like.....

We have reviewed the design prepared by ABC Engineering and through independent analysis of specific features of the design, find that the design is consistent with the standard of care and accepted practice for such engineering services. The review does not incorporate an opinion on the design concept as this is unique and proprietary to the EOR and is limited to the engineering computation check of the concept proposed by the EOR.