problem with architect - need help 1

[Bevans]

I have a problem on a job involving a large resort hotel. The architect showed 4' (up to mantle) of stone veneer (15 psf) on the room fireplaces in one of his sections. The interior designer showed a 20' vertical height of stone veneer. The floor is not designed for the 20' load and the architect is blaming me for not looking through the interior designers drawings (they number about 100 in quantity) The architect's drawings were incorrect and unbelievably, the Owner and architect are blaming me. Is anyone aware of any AIA or other documents that I can reference, which state that the architect is responsible for advising the structural engineer of decorative materials that require support?

 

[haynewp]

I have never heard of any documents like that. Did you have a copy of the interior drawings? If so, I am not sure you can get out of it. They are going to say that if you had both the arch dwgs and the interior dwgs, you should have raised the question.

 

[JedClampett]

When you say they're blaming you, what do you mean? Do they want you to pay for the fix? Are they just mad at you? There's different solutions for each scenario.
If they're just mad, a few mea culpas and apologies may be in order. Or just decide you're not going to work with that owner or architect anymore. If there's a monetary component, you need to talk to your error and omissions provider.

 

[Lutfi]

I think it is the structural engineers duty to ask all relevant questions from the architect, owner and other users to arrive at the real loads the structure will see. Claiming that the ID plans are 100 sheets is a lame excuse if you ask me. You can always weed through and go to the right sheet that you want (I am sorry to sound like I am beating up on you).

It sounds like, although conflicting, you had the Architects plans and the Interior designers plans. Normally I rely on the architect’s plans just because he is a design professional and they like to claim the lead.

Interior designers scare me because on one of our projects, they changed all the light fixtures on our final design that the breakers and circuitry had to be revised. To them all it was we are using prettier lights!

I am like JedClampett, can you elaborate on the scenario? I tend to agree with his thoughts.


Lutfi

http://www.cdeco.com

 

[jike]

I generally agree with JedClampett on resolving this particular issue.

There, however, is a related issue here that can jump up and bite any of us at anytime. Architects can provide engineers drawings throughout the project and then can change things just one time near the end of the project and void your complete design. This is not what happened in this case but, I have seen them change structurally significant items right at the end of project and then be quick to point the finger at the structural engineer for not noticing it before the project went out.

We must constantly review their drawings to "find that hidden needle in the haystack". Don't they have some responsibility as the lead design professional to notify their consultants of some significant change? It seems like we have seen a trend lately of some architects communicating less and just assuming that everything will just be "discovered" on the drawings without having to discuss things.

 

[VoyageofDiscovery]

I am not familiar with Engineer Owner or Engineer Architect contracts of this nature, however should there not be a section addressing procedures wrt changes and extras.

Check your contract, if you need a lawyer, don't admit to anything and require access to memos and correspondance for significant changes that led to this situation. You may not be to blame here depending on the situation.

VOD

 

[Lutfi]

VOD,

Lawyers will always manage to get and subpoena the records! It is up to the defense attorney to quash the subpoena.

I suggest that a meeting between the architect, owner and the engineer take place and they should attempt to resolve matter in a professional manner.

I do not like the sound of things going to E&O, lawyers and even admitting guilt. Just set a meeting, and be proactive in resolving the matter and then settle the money and or issues later.

Most of my clients want the problem to go away instead of festering and mushrooming and finger pointing. If you try this, I think you will come ahead just for trying.

In the future do not work with this architect who is blaming you instead on working to resolve the issue at hand. I always tell them if this one finger point away, there are three pointing back!!

I must say that I am very lucky to work with great architects. As a matter of fact, I had 4 hour meeting with them on Friday to coordinate several issues as the design matures. We came across few items that would have been crucial and frankly embarrassing if they were not caught. I say communicate, communicate and make sure you coordinate and talk with them whenever they change backgrounds. Your stakes are as high as theirs on any project because on are on the same team.

Good luck


Lutfi

http://www.cdeco.com

 

[JStephen]

Let me ask a question (note that I am not a SE, so don't normally do these things): To what extent are specific items or features in a building included in the structural design? For example, you'd normally use a design live load for a floor that includes furnishings- but you wouldn't try to itemize where each sofa or file cabinet or refrigerator went. How is this veneer different? Or is it just expected you'd go through and itemize what is sheetrock and what is not, etc?

One issue you didn't address above is when you got those interior drawings and under what circumstances. If someone sent them to you and said "Look through these and see if they affect your design", that's not good. If you got them after the fact, that's different.

Another issue- do you have a contract? Who with? Who is obligated to furnish you information?

 

[JedClampett]

JStephen: We have certain standard live loadings depending on how a structure will be used. These were developed by industry groups or by ASCE (see ASCE 7-02). A library or warehouse will have much higher live load than an apartment building. It would be very unusual for these loads to be exceeded. If they were, it would probably be by just a little bit which would only affect the factor of safety. And in the very rare case that the loads exceeded the standard loadings by enough that it would be dangerous, we have the loads posted on the drawings or even in the building and can warn the user not to exceed them.
In this case there is a very heavy dead load (the veneer), that needs to be designed for in addition to the standard hotel live load. It must be added in. You cannot just say that this load is accounted for in the live load. The load must be treated differently than a filing cabinet or a piece of furniture.

 

[EddyC]

The owner expects a building that works. It is not his job to devine out who's fault it is when there are problems. I suggest that you get together with the entire design team (Engineer, Architect, Interior Decorator, Etc) and somehow solve this problem. If the individual design teams begin to blame each other when problems occur, the owner won't trust any of you. Design Professionals are also not supposed to make statements that attack the reputation of fellow design professionals. Think about it from the owners perspective. The owner, if he/she so desired, could buy a 747 without having to babysit anyone. Why then should he/she have to go through something like this when a building is designed & constructed? My employer went through something similar to this. In this case the conflict occurred between the engineer and the contractor. When there were problems, the contractor blamed the engineer and the engineer blamed the contractor. The owner blamed both because he got a building with problems. His attitude was: "I paid for a building that works. It is not my job to find out whats wrong. It both of yours (engineer & contractor). Give me a building that works and you'll both get paid."

 

[VoyageofDiscovery]

Lutfi,

That's sound advice, I agree, meet and solve the problem first then try to smooth things out.

VOD

 

[DaveAtkins]

I think the important thing is to resolve the problem. We all make mistakes. Offer to design a solution, at no charge, but do not offer to pay for the fix. There is a good chance you can argue that the extra joist(s) in the floor would have been required anyway, and so the extra the Owner has to pay is "value added" to his building.

DaveAtkins

 

[Bevans]

Wow! Thanks for all the help!
Here are answers to some of your questions.
We did not have the architectural finish (interior design) drawings until after the drawings had been issued. However, the drawings were issued a year ago and there was plenty of time to do a revision had we identified the excess weight. On the other hand, the architect had plenty of time to correct his section, or give us a heads up. The architect did give us a heads up on a heavy faux timber frame that appeared on the interior design drawings.
Regarding the stone veneer, it did show up as full height stone on an elevation on the interior design drawings. It was not labeled as stone, but clearly looked like stone. We did not notice that drawing and assumed that the architectural drawing section, which dimensioned the height of stone as 4, was correct. We have designed a structural fix for free, but since the bldg is under construction, I am pretty sure the cost of the fix is more than it would have been if the "fix" had been identified earlier. It seems we are taking all the blame from the Owner. I do not know if we will be asked to pay for the fix, but the Owner is writing memos saying we heave full responsibility.

 

[EddyC]

I don't think the owner should have to pay for the fix. Its the fault of the design team (Architect, Interior Decorator and Engineer). At least the problem was identified prior to building completion rather than being unnoticed until structural failure occurs.

 

[SlideRuleEra]

Concur with EddyC. I usually represent Owners. At this time, the Owner should be holding the Architect accountable, not the Structural Engineer. Highly recommend that you take EddyC's advice, and insist (in writing is necessary) on a joint meeting - the Owner needs to hear your side of the story, directly from you. The Architect is almost certainly telling the Owner the "other side" of the story.

Best Wishes

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

 

[JStephen]

JedClampett, thanks for the response. I actually wasn't suggesting that it be included in the floor live load, but rather that it might be included in the average wall dead weight, without being itemized out as a localized load.

Bevans, another way to look at the issue- once the discrepancy was discovered, your response should not be to design a fix, but to inquire which drawing is actually correct. At some point, you should have written direction from the owner or architect or someone telling you which drawing is correct. If that has never been issued in writing, request it. That could be an important document down the road, in showing that there actually was an error on someone else's part.

 

[apsix]

"The architect did give us a heads up on a heavy faux timber frame that appeared on the interior design drawings"

How was this information given to you? If there was the implication that the Architect notified you of all the significant loads resulting from the interior design, then not listing the full height veneer was an omission by them.

 

[JAE]

You talk about the cost of the fix being higher since it was so late in the process.

Don't forget here, that the owner is obligated to pay for whatever he would have had to pay had the error not ever occurred. So the cost to the owner is:

Owner cost = (cost of the fix) - (cost of the original sized beam to hold the veneer)

Design team cost = (cost of the fix) - (owner cost)

Just because you found out that a beam was undersized late in the project, doesn't mean the owner isn't obligated to pay for the beam that SHOULD have been there. But the owner should not have to pay a premium costs due to the late-ness of the fix.