PEMB special inspections 2

[JTPE]

I agree the idea of special inspections is good, but as more and more projects enter into construction I am finding trouble. In general, my time is stretched to breaking as contractors are calling for special inspections. It seems we have releaved contractors (who are on site all day) from responsibility of assuring compliance with the design drawings, which is why we make drawings in the first place. Now as EOR I am held responsible that 'the building is fully constructed in compliance with the drawings and code'. This seems wrong to me, I or my agent is not on site all day. Surely there is opportunity for non compliant issues to slide by my(our)periodic review. Yet there will be a document floating around that has my seal saying that I certify its total compliance. This document will carry lots of weight in the event of trouble. Am I alone in this worry? Am I shirking my responsibility?

In a more specific case, what about pre-engineered metal buildings. My company does a fair amout of foundation design for these. The structure of course is bought by the contractor and designed by his metal building designer. Code officials are calling me wanting a steel section to my SSI. I contact the contractor to get him to instruct the PEMB manufactureer to write the section, but the manufactureer refuses. Now what? When I seal a inspection report reference a metal building structure(to keep the project and client happy), am I certifying that the original design was correct? If you say "no" then consider who is going to separate design mistakes from construction mistakes if a failure happens? A lawyer?

any thoughts are appreciated.

 

[henri2]

I comprehended what I read until I came across the acronym SSI in the second paragraph. What does it mean?

 

[JAE]

Special Inspections do not relieve the contractor from building the structure per the contract (sealed) plans and specifications.

Your presence on site as a special inspector (code required and hired by the owner) is simply an added effort, mandated by the codes, to increase the probability that problems with construction-not-matching-the-design will be caught.

If you are the EOR, its not mandatory that YOU be the Special Inspector. But if you are, it in no way affects the plans that you sealed. When you seal a set of plans/specs, you are not certifying their accuracy. You are not certifying that the construction matches the plans, even if you go on site.

Your seal simply "says" the following:

1. I am a licensed engineer in this jurisdiction.
2. I designed these plans either directly or under my direct supervision.
3. I have made every effort, consistent with our profession's standard of care, to design this building/structure in accordance with codes, specifications, ordinances, and laws applicable in this jurisdiction.

That's it. There is no warranty of perfection, there is no certification of anything else other than the three points above.

RE: PEMB - you shouldn't be sealing a Special Inspection report, in my opinion. It is not an engineering document that requires a seal. We have Special Inspectors from various labs performing these tasks all the time (they are ICC certified) but no engineering seal is required.

When you do submit a Special Inspection report, simply report on what you saw. If there are missing requirements, that's a monkey on the contractor's back - not yours. Even if you are the EOR.

 

[JTPE]

Thanks

henri2, SSI stands for statement of special inspection.

JAE, thanks for your input. Your description of what the seal means is interesting. I have never known of a limited definition such as that before, where did you learn the limits you described? I thought that my seal was a guarantee (strong word) that the structure was code compliant in design. Surely when buildings fail it is the EOR (the sealer) who is held accountable, not necessarily the company or the actual designer. True?

I digress though. Reference the PEMB problem, may be I was not clear. The statement of of special inspection that we have to fill PRIOR to obtaining a permit requires:
1. identification of inspectors, their actual name.
2. identification of items to be inspected, ie steel, concrete, masonry, soil, etc
3. indentification of the type of inspection, ie periodic or continuous

It is this document that I must seal, prior to permit, that makes me the proffessional in responsible charge.

Because I am in resposible charge, I think, I am supposed to receive all of the reports and then submit a final report to the building department certifying compliance. I'm not sure of this part because I have yet to be through to the end of the process. This final letter is the one that seems place undue liability on me.

Thanks for your time, this issue has been eating at me for some time. I am still trying to finalize my understanding. Any thoughts are appreciated.

 

[henri2]

JTPE,

Thanks for the explaining what SSI stands for. I shall certainly add it to my repertoire of technical acronyms. Undestanding what SSI means clears things up a whole lot more.

As the RDP/SEOR you are ultimately responsible for preparing the SSI. Ref: IBC Sec 1704.1.1

During the construction phase of the project, you are expected to review inspection reports, NCRs, corrective actions reports etc. At the end of the project and when you are satisfied, you send in your final report.

As the example in page 4 of the link below demonstrates, the final special inspections report prepared by the RDP is not a certificate of compliance as would be the case for specimens tested in a lab. Some jurisdictions require a final report from both the RDP and inspection and testing agency.

http://www.chesapeake.va.us/services/Development2/pdf/Statement_Special_Inspections-NS.pdf

 

[henri2]

Great points JAE.

 

[JTPE]

So in your understanding henri2, the person in responsible charge is:

1. making sure someone competent is performing the inspections,
2. receiving and handeling the reports,
3. sending the final reports to the building official along with a statement of what descrepencies were identified, and confirming correction.

specifically, the person in responsible charge is not stating that the building is properly designed, or even every component is properly constructed. They are only stating and summarizing the inspection events over the construction period.

If that is true, that is the clearest this process has ever been in my mind. If that is true, the special inspection seems not to have much use though. If all that is stated is that what was checked is okay, then no one can be much more confident about the strength of the building then if nothing was done...and why the seal?

Thanks so much for your thoughts, I do think this is getting clearer.

 

[JAE]

I thought that my seal was a guarantee (strong word) that the structure was code compliant in design. Surely when buildings fail it is the EOR (the sealer) who is held accountable, not necessarily the company or the actual designer. True?

Your seal doesn't "guarantee" or certify your design. In most states of which I'm licensed (about 20) the engineering practice laws generally deal with the concepts of engineer qualifications and the practice of engineering. They only state that engineering plans/reports/documents must be sealed and by whom and when. One midwestern state has the following statement in its laws:

[red]In practicing engineering or architecture, the engineer or architect shall act with reasonable
care and competence, and shall apply the technical knowledge and skill which is ordinarily applied by
engineers or architects of good standing, practicing in the same locality.[/red]

If a structure fails, yes, the EOR is responsible, but the standard of care to which the engineer is judged is based on what any other engineer would have "reasonably done" in the same situation.

So we are judged, not based on perfection, or guarantees of perfect designs, or certifications that there's no mistakes, but rather based on what our engineering community reasonably expects....This allows for a good range of judgement, weighing the facts, and considering the quality standards that we as engineers set for ourselves. No one is perfect, no set of plans are without errors, and to hold us to that sort of level is unreasonable.

 

[Ron]

JTPE....I would suggest that you take a professional liability course...it would clear up some of your issues.

JAE is exactly right. We are not required to be perfect in our practice, but we do need to meet an established standard of care in the way we practice. The standard of care for us is that level of service ordinarily provided by other competent members of our profession, providing similar services in the same locale and under the same or
similar circumstances.

Keywords here are "ordinarily", same locale, and similar circumstances. These are important concepts that every practicing engineer should understand.

 

[JTPE]

Would others feel comfortable being the "Design Professional In Responsible Charge" for a building that was not designed by them? This is the case when I write the Statement of Special Inspections for a PEMB and include the structural steel that was designed by the metal building manufactueer.

Thanks again.

 

[rholder98]

I share your concerns, but think about steel bar joists. Say you are the "Design Professional in Responsible Charge" of a building for which you specified bar joists. You did not design those joists, yet would you be comfortable taking responsibility for the design of the building? I realize it is just a single component, vs. the majority of the structure, but it is still a product for which you require a certain performance. You are expecting someone else to design the component based on criteria you specify. Are you providing design loads, wind speeds, deflection criteria, etc., to the PEMB designer?

I throw that out there for discussion--I'm not sure I buy it myself.

Perhaps the Architect for the project should be the DPiRC? I've seen that done several times, especially when Special Inspections include EIFS, mech. equipment, and other things that go beyond the scope of a single engineer.

 

[JTPE]

rholder98...thats a good point. I will give it some thought.
I think no matter how comfortable I am with the liability and the lawyer stuff I am still going to end up being the DPRIC for these projects, including the steel erection. My dad always said "if it were easy they'd get school girls to do it". So I will suck it up and do the best I can.
Thanks for the discussions

 

[bjb]

The special inspection requirement can be confusing. The American Council of Structural Engineers has some good info. They have a pamphlet called "Frequently Asked Questions about Special Inspections", and a booklet called "National Practice Guidelines for Special Inspections".

As JAE says, you don't have to be the special inspector. I have never been the special inspector for one of my projects, and in general, the engineer of record at my company does not act as the special inspector. In our statement of special inspections we indicate firms that are acceptable to us to function as the special inspector. We have a specail inspection spec where we further delineate the requirements for the qualifications of who can be the actual special inspector, who can perform tests, etc.

We always include in the SSI a statement indicating the the SI program is not a substitute for the contractor's quality control program.

I strongly recommend getting in touch with the American Council of Structural Engineers for information about the SI. They have a spec section you can have, and they also have various forms for the Final Report of Special Inspections and the Statement of Special Inspections.

Good luck.