Odd situation with an EOR 2

[SteelPE]

I fielded a call this morning from a client who is in a bit of a pickle (a contractor). He installed some RTU’s onto a building that is 40+ years old. The units are causing the metal roof decking to buckle and sag. The building is a open-web steel joist single story building. The project is under the direction of a EOR who lives 1,000 miles away. It’s unclear what is specifically causing the sag, but it sounds like there was no support placed under the units (only under the deck openings of the supply and return). The EOR has no comment on the issue and is refusing to offer solutions to the problem (so I am told).

I am being asked by the contractor to make a visit to the site and make a determination on what needs to be done to fix the problem. On top of the sagging deck, I have been told that the units weigh 3,000# and little to no reinforcing was done to accommodate them (which may not be an issue but I may find out). I have not accepted the project yet as it sounds like a hornets nest of issues.

I told the client that if I were to help him that my letters and details would be more focused on solving the issue rather than focusing blame on who caused the problem. I am wondering what steps I need to take to make sure I am not being unethical? I would think a call to the EOR would be warranted, but I am not sure if he is going to be hostile or not (I’m sure he is sick of the issue by now). How would others approach the situation?

 

[kipfoot]

I think you're right to be cautious. And yes, call the engineer of record. It's appropriate to let him or her know that you're considering the project, to ask if they've been paid for their work, and to probably learn another side to the story. Whether there is hostility or not, I think this will inform your decision on how to proceed.

 

[thebard3]

Are you being asked to assume responsibilities of EOR? I would consider that a no-go without a total project restart. Otherwise I believe you would be assuming any and all liability, whether right or wrong. Otherwise, I don't believe you could make any modifications without approval of the existing EOR, without the same result.

Brad Waybright

It's all okay as long as it's okay.

 

[MrHershey]

Is this a contractor you know and trust? If so and EOR is refusing to offer solutions then you have no ethical obligation to contact him or her, at least in my opinion. The contractor gave them the opportunity to address things, they declined, and now contractor has to go elsewhere. Would just make sure that anything you engineer be submitted to EOR so they can look at it if they like (they probably won't).

If it's a cold call from a contractor then I'd tend to either decline or do some more homework (potentially including a call to the EOR).

Unfortunately this situation is becoming less and less odd in my experience. I'm increasingly seeing contractors left to their own devices on things they really shouldn't be, not even just their own screwups anymore.

 

[John2025]

I place my bet on: Contractor didn't bother to ask EOR if they could put the unit on the roof and now doesn't like the answer they're getting from EOR.

 

[SteelPE]

From what I am being told (from the contractor) no details were provided to support the perimeter of the RTU. I am suppose to be getting drawings at some point so I can better determine the situation. I can't think of a single project where we didn't provide a frame under the decking (using 4x4 angles) or above the decking (using a C6x8.2). In fact, we have standard details we place on our S002 for both cases on our S002 drawing. I think the EOR was either hired by the owner, or by the future tenant and not by the GC. The person calling is the mechanical contractor.

Is this a contractor I have worked with before, no, but the recommendation came from a architect client who is someone I have done lots of work with.

 

[gte447f]

I believe you have an ethical obligation to contact the EOR before getting involved.

From the NSPE Code of Ethics:
"Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated."

I guess you could argue that you would not be reviewing the work of the other engineer, but, at least indirectly, I think that you would be. I guess you could also argue that the work with the other engineer has been terminated, but I would want to get that info from the other engineer rather than trust the contractor's statement.

P.s. Maybe this should be in the Ethics form.

 

[WARose]

From what I am being told (from the contractor) no details were provided to support the perimeter of the RTU.

Yeah that's what he says......but I would contact the EOR (and owner) to be sure that is actually the case. Contractors can have selective memories.

 

[gte447f]

OK, so your last post you say the EOR may have been hired by the owner or tenant, whereas you would be working for the contractor. Not two engineers working for the same client, so maybe that clears it up, but for me it actually just muddies it more. I would cover my bases by contacting the other engineer. I feel more of an obligation to the profession than to a random contractor.

 

[EZBuilding]

It's possible the Structural EOR was not aware of the locations of the units by the Mechanical EOR which was not coordinated by the Architect. Instead of pointing out the inconsistencies and issuing an RFI it seems like the contractor just moved ahead. It is a mess, but, eventually someone needs to fix the issue at hand. It is rare that we have the opportunities to set terms, but it seems like you can probably negotiate for yourself hourly fees and "we are doing it my way" mentality at the start of the project. I would agree with the other posters that contacting the original EOR should be your first step. You can also try and enter into an arrangement where your work becomes a "delegated engineering design" and the EOR reviews your deliverable. Permitting requirements differ so I am not sure what your municipality would require.

Good luck.

 

[birneys]

I get these types of calls regularly from contractors. It seems to me there are two different scenarios. One is that the EOR doesn't want to expend the effort fixing a contractor mistake, omission, etc. because they aren't going to get paid for their time by the architect, contractor, etc. Scenario 2, as already mentioned, is that the contractor doesn't like the initial answer from the EOR, so the contractor hires their own engineer to either design a fix or serve as a counterargument to the initial answer. Two very different scenarios that have to be approached very differently. If the EOR has already given an answer, you could be in for some conflict if you disagree with them. I try to avoid Scenario 2, but Scenario 1 can be profitable and good work.

Frankly, it might not be worth the headache if you're not trying to keep your architect client happy (the one that referred this contractor to you). If you decide to pursue the work, I would recommend digging a little more with the contractor to see if you can figure out more of the story. I would also insist up front that whatever you come up with will have to be submitted to the EOR for review. The goal is to create the situation where you are acting like a delegated design engineer. You're providing a fix for a specific issue, but the EOR is still responsible for the overall project.

I would also push for a conference call with all the parties, so you can understand the situation from all sides.

 

[SteelPE]

Thank you for your responses.

So the client sent over the drawings and there appears to be no support given under the RTU. They only show reinforcing for the supply and return ducts. My guess is that there is some disagreement between the mechanical sub and the EOR.

Things that are interesting:
They are not using the correct building code
They are using the wrong ground snow load for the location
They are not using the minimum flat roof snow load for the location
They are showing the wrong wind on the note sheet for the location
They are using the wrong SS and S1 for the location
They do not indicate the weight of the unit on the drawings (just a pet peeve of mine)

They are very specific about the joist size on their drawing.... calling them out as 16H6 and 24H11. They are also showing the standard joist web reinforcing (at leas they have that going for them).

 

[gte447f]

SteelPE, regarding the joist sizes on the drawings... In my experience where I practice, it is common for the EOR to call out the SJI joist designations selected to support the design loads in the case of uniformly distributed loads, so I would expect that level of specificity. For RTU's, we sometimes designate an RTU zone (e.g. 1 bay width) and specify KCS constant shear joists in the RTU zone.

 

[SteelPE]

gte447f

I am well versed in the design and reinforcement of open-web steel joists. I know how they are specified and how they are designed.

At the beginning of this post, I said the building was 40+ years old. I am a little surprised that they were able to actually give any joist size on their drawings. The sizes they give (as 16H6 and 24H11) seem correct (although I have yet to look in my 90 SJI manual) even for the time given. I am just wondering if they have the correct sizes shown on their drawings.

I placed a call to the company of the EOR. There are no names on the drawings. no initials and not secretary to answer the phone so I had to play engineer roulette and dialed a number of someone who wasn't there. I left a message.

 

[gte447f]

I get it... You were surprised they were able to nail down the joist sizes for a 40 year old roof. I forgot we were talking about a 40 year old roof and assumed you were looking at original drawings. My apologies.

 

[MrHershey]

They are not using the correct building code
They are using the wrong ground snow load for the location
They are not using the minimum flat roof snow load for the location
They are showing the wrong wind on the note sheet for the location
They are using the wrong SS and S1 for the location
They do not indicate the weight of the unit on the drawings (just a pet peeve of mine)

I placed a call to the company of the EOR. There are no names on the drawings. no initials and not secretary to answer the phone so I had to play engineer roulette and dialed a number of someone who wasn't there. I left a message.

Yeah unless this contractor is a real good current or potential client I'd consider turning it down. Smells like there may be a bunch of problems that you probably don't want to make your problems.

And if I am helping, they're signing my proposal with a bunch of terms and conditions limiting my liability and I'm doing everything hourly.

 

[KootK]

? I would think a call to the EOR would be warranted, but I am not sure if he is going to be hostile or not (I’m sure he is sick of the issue by now). How would others approach the situation?

I'm glad that you've chosen to make the call as I believe that is the correct course of action regardless of whether or not it's legally required etc. Logically:

- Call cost you nothing unless your a flaming agoraphobe of some sort.

- If you call and a call was legally required, thank bloody goodness you called.

- If you call and a call was not legally required, calling has cost you nothing.

Engineering rationality as applied to social situations.

 

[Ron]

SteelPE...you are ticking off all the things you should be doing. Qualify everything you do with the fact that there was no response from the EOR and you are providing your remediation design based on the information you have and applicable codes.

I think you are doing all the right stuff!

 

[SteelPE]

At this point the contractor is not going to move forward with my services. After my last post the contractor sent some pictures over and I am beginning to see the picture more clearly. The roofer, being over zealous, cut out the roof deck under the entire unit (idiot). The roof joists are spaced at 6'-0" o.c. and the unit is 8'-0" long and overhangs 2 joists on each side of the unit. So we basically have roof deck with no support on each side of the unit (as 1'-0" of deck is removed from each side of the outside joists). That is why the roof deck is buckling and sagging.

I told the contractor how dangerous the situation was and that if I was hired to come up with a repair that I would be looking at everything, not sure solving the deck issue. I told them they needed to get a repair for the problem from someone (didn't have to be me).

The whole thing is not a good situation. If the EOR does call me back I will relay the information to them that I have found and hopefully they will come up with something.

 

[birneys]

SteelPE, thanks for the updates. Also, I'm always encouraged to read about other engineers providing quality and ethical responses to tricky situations. That definitely sounds like a big mess with multiple sources of error. I'm curious where the AHJ is in this situation, or the architect, or the owner. I sure hope the building isn't occupied before they fix all of the issues.