Question on sealing report. 1

[MiddleCE]

Our small civil engineering firm prepares civil engineering documents describing design intent.
County agency requires that engineer certify that the project has been installed in substantial compliance with deign.
During installation of the project staff views completed phases.
I see a final statement certifying the installation as per design as a "report" requiring engineer's seal.
We are in California, I expect there is not too much variation from state to state on laws sealing.
The county has a simple form with a signature, but I am saying we should prepare a letter with engineer's seal for such a report.

What are others take on this?

 

[phamENG]

As long as the EOR or his/her designated representative is the one filling out the form, I'd say there's unlikely to be anything wrong with sealing it. Now, if you feel that additional information is needed, they should have a notes or comments section of the report. But keeping bureaucratic paperwork uniform helps to streamline the process and reduce wasted time. Imagine if they have to have the city attorney review every engineer's disclaimer paragraph at the bottom of a report! It would cost the city a fortune...

 

[GeoEnvGuy]

My jurisdiction has a 1 page template stating the work was completed to the design intent with the following exceptions listed, page is stamped. As-built report not stamped just signed.

 

[JAE]

I'm always skittish about "certifying" constructed things.
Even if I have a site-engineer or staff member out there once a day for a couple of hours there could be things that got built that didn't exactly meet the plans.

Any type of letter like that required by a city or county agent should usually be heavily embedded with qualifiers stating what we did and what we did not do and see.
This is similar to a geotech report where they (correctly) state that their analyses and recommendations are based on discreet borings and conditions may exist between those borings that could affect their report conclusions.

Our contracts usually do not involved construction phase INSPECTION, nor does the IBC. Rather, it requires engineer OBSERVATIONS.
INSPECTION means you were there all the time and verified everything.
OBSERVATION means that
1. You were there some of the time
2. Your focus was on verifying whether the contractor was correctly interpreting and understanding your plans
3. The portions of work that you did see corroborated that they did indeed show the evidence that they could correctly interpret their plans.

OBSERVATIONS do not mean:
1. You saw everything that was built and installed
2. You checked everything that was built and installed.
3. You are God-like in your abilities to know with omniscience that it's all Okey Dokey.

Having said all that, preparing a letter to the agency with your seal, or filling out their form, is acceptable as long as their language doesn't go over the line in stating things you cannot possibly know are true. "General Conformance" is fine, certifying that it is "built to the plans" or exactly correct is not.

 

[dik]

I like the word 'Review'... never inspections...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[ACtrafficengr]

I like the word 'Review'... never inspections...

One local consultant uses the term "construction inspector." They always lose points on our RFP evaluations because of it.

Security monitor

My glass has a v/c ratio of 0.5

Maybe the tyranny of Murphy is the penalty for hubris. -

http://xkcd.com/319/

 

[dik]

I don't think that, other than maybe my very earliest work, that I've used inspections. When I first started engineering, it was common to use the term.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik