Out of state engineer, local resident wants me to do an inspection

[JStructsteel]

So a resident had a local basement wall company do a inspection, and engineering for a repair. The engineer that stamped it didnt come out, just went of the company rep that looked at it. They got drawings, got a permit, but their mortgage company wont sign off unless a engineer does a inspection before and after.

My thoughts are to go out, verify the issue, mildly agree that their repair looks reasonable (stating I didnt check their calcs) and then inspect again after its installed and in compliance with the repair drawings.

Any issue with this?

 

[TRAK.Structural]

But what if you get there and don't agree with the other engineers assessment and repair scheme?

Even if you do agree, and you state that you didn't check the calcs and don't certify that the repair is adequate, I think you are taking on some responsibility that you may not want.

I find a lot of these gray areas are mostly about risk tolerance, I would probably say "no" to this but that's just me.

 

[jerseyshore]

Sounds like Q1B or one of their other shady 200 companies they've bought up over the years.

I'm okay performing reviews after installation is complete if it's based on our recommendations/ drawings.

Never sign off on another engineer/ basement repair company. Ever. We get involved in a lot of fixes/ lawsuits/ insurance claims from those companies.

 

[XR250]

Usually the quality of these designs and repairs suck big time so I would be careful.
Also, any engineer who is involved in that business model (doing work remotely for local foundation companies) is sketchy IMHO.

 

[Eng16080]

Messy. I wouldn't do it.

I might offer to provide an independent solution of my own, but that's about it.

 

[BAretired]

Sounds to me like a project best avoided.

 

[ANE91]

“We’ve reviewed ____ installation for general compliance with drawings produced by ____, a professional engineer registered in the state of ____ at the time of sealing. We have no understanding of ____’s design intent beyond that the drawings purportedly address an issue with the basement wall. We were not asked to evaluate any issues with the basement wall, and we developed no opinions regarding the suitability or effectiveness of the drawings or the associated installation. Such an evaluation, while beyond the scope of this report, could be performed, if desired, for a fee.

Further, we understand from ______ that the drawings were produced without a substantiating physical inspection rendered by the EOR or others under his/her direct responsible charge, as required by statute _____. Correspondingly, and as a matter of standard practice, we recommend that any previously engineered solutions associated with this work be validated before occupancy. This report provides no such validation. Regardless, considering that the work was permitted by jurisdiction _____, we proceeded to simply check whether the installation was per the drawings or otherwise.

The installation generally complied with the drawings for the following reasons, based on an inspection of the as-built condition of the basement wall:

We noted the following discrepancies between the as-built condition of the basement walls and the drawings: ______. Discrepancies must be addressed with and reconciled by _____, the engineer of record for the subject project, as indicated by his/her signature and seal.”

 

[phamENG]

Nothing to add. The hive mind seems to be correct.

 

[XR250]

“We’ve reviewed ____ installation for general compliance with drawings produced by ____, a professional engineer registered in the state of ____ at the time of sealing. We have no understanding of ____’s design intent beyond that the drawings purportedly address an issue with the basement wall. We were not asked to evaluate any issues with the basement wall, and we developed no opinions regarding the suitability or effectiveness of the drawings or the associated installation. Such an evaluation, while beyond the scope of this report, could be performed, if desired, for a fee.

Further, we understand from ______ that the drawings were produced without a substantiating physical inspection rendered by the EOR or others under his/her direct responsible charge, as required by statute _____. Correspondingly, and as a matter of standard practice, we recommend that any previously engineered solutions associated with this work be validated before occupancy. This report provides no such validation. Regardless, considering that the work was permitted by jurisdiction _____, we proceeded to simply check whether the installation was per the drawings or otherwise.

The installation generally complied with the drawings for the following reasons, based on an inspection of the as-built condition of the basement wall:

We noted the following discrepancies between the as-built condition of the basement walls and the drawings: ______. Discrepancies must be addressed with and reconciled by _____, the engineer of record for the subject project, as indicated by his/her signature and seal.”

When you say "generally complied" you are still making judgement calls between what was built and was was drawn as they are NEVER the same. This leaves you open to taking on liability of the design regardless of the boilerplate.

 

[ANE91]

When you say "generally complied" you are still making judgement calls between what was built and was was drawn as they are NEVER the same. This leaves you open to taking on liability of the design regardless of the boilerplate.

Yep. Such is the work.

 

[gte447f]

ANE, when you spell it out like that, on the one hand the inspection sounds almost comically worthless, yet on the other hand this is basically the IBC Special Inspections process exactly, and that process is viewed as providing a level of assurance that construction is executed according to approved, engineered, plans.

One difference that might be important in the case of the OP is that it sounds like the mortgage company requires an inspection before and after. That, to me, makes things a bit different than just checking for general conformance with approved plans.

Anyway, I would avoid this work on principle if for no other reason than to make it harder for these remote engineers to succeed with their shady (in my opinion) business model.

 

[JStructsteel]

Thanks. I think I will turn it down. Sounds like another residential headache.

 

[GaStruct]

When you say "generally complied" you are still making judgement calls between what was built and was was drawn as they are NEVER the same. This leaves you open to taking on liability of the design regardless of the boilerplate.

Whenever I look at anything in the field, I have that general compliance note on my report but also include that not everything was looked at (worded more sophisticatedly). I also call everything structural observations - not inspections.

Annoying how much CYA we are forced to do but thus is life in this litigious business. Unless I build the thing it's not possible to see everything.