Rehab work: Responsibility of checking loads from Scaffolding supports: EOR vs Contractor’s engineer 2

[AK4S]

This is regarding a Rehab Project where the contractor is performing some work on the roof of a multi-story building.
The Contractor needs to install Scaffolding & Shoring for his work.

Typically what I have seen on Projects:
[ul]
[li]The Contractor's engineer is responsible for the load of the scaffolding on the Existing structure and for any damage or distress it so imposes.[/li]
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]The Contractor submits documents for EOR review and approval, including drawings indicating proposed Scaffolding & Shoring plan, relevant Calculations with a stamped letter from a registered engineer responsible for its preparation, acknowledging that the scaffolding does not overload the structure.[/li]
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]The Contractor is responsible for any engineering support required to accomplish his/her work.[/li]
[/ul]

I have drawn the below sketch to share the proposed plan submitted by the Contractor:
[ul]
[li]The submittal did not included a stamped letter or calculations by the Contractor's Engineer.[/li]
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]The contractor is supporting his Scaffolding & Shoring from existing suspended floor slabs and only provides reactions at these locations, with a note that " EOR shall check and approve the ability of the existing structure to safely support loads imposed by the scaffold.”[/li]
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]Since the Existing Building is in use during the rehab work, to avoid overloading the existing structure, I would generally expect the contractor to carry the shoring loads down to the soil/footing level by adding additional shores below the supporting floor (See markup in blue)[/li]
[/ul]

Looking for opinion on how this is typically handled on Building rehab projects.
[ul]
[li]Is EOR responsible for ability of the existing structure to safely support loads imposed by the scaffold? If so, how is the responsibility and legality handled. Since if the EOR does check the existing structure based on the support locations/loads provided by the contractor, what happens if the Contractor's loads are not correct (EOR does not know full details of how the loads were calculated) or the actual installation in field is different (EOR does not typically verify field installation of scaffolding and supports)[/li]
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]What if the existing structure cannot take the loads, the the scaffolding plan has to be revised. This needs a close coordination, back&forth between EOR and scaffolding engineer and Contractor. [/li]
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]EOR getting involved will lead to conflict of Interest problems (Contractor paying EOR for performing these calculations, while EOR is still employed by the Owner for overall work).[/li]
[/ul]

****** "TIL":You suddenly understand something you've understood all your life, but in a new way ~Doris Lessing ******

 

[phamENG]

How were the specs written? Did you clearly direct the contractor to hire a PE to design the scaffolding? If not, you can bet your life saving's they didn't put it in their bid. And it also means they aren't contractually obligated to hire an engineer.

So, if you now require it, the owner will get a change order.

If you do it, you're taking on the liability. If you charge the contractor, then there will be a change order to the owner.

Usually, this is a means and methods item but the requirement for a PE stamp is called out in the specs (or notes on the drawings). Assuming you didn't, it looks like the shoring arrangement is making the contractor nervous and he wants an engineer to sign off. Since he didn't put that in his bid, he's taking advantage of this situation to try and get some free engineering.

This is not likely to make you any friends and isn't the most team oriented approach, but this is a possibility: inform your client what is being requested and inform them that this is outside of your scope of services. Then inform the contractor that shoring is means and methods, and it is his responsibility to ensure the shoring used in the execution of the work is safe and adequate. There will probably be a fight and you'll end up designing it in the end anyway and will have made your client mad.

If you did put it in the specs, just point to that when you reject it.

 

[dik]

First thing is that I don't often approve things... I review them.


Dik

 

[AK4S]

@phamENG: Thanks for your thoughts.
This was primarily a architectural rehab job, with a few structural upgrades in a different part of this building.
The question on the adequacy of the shoring came up based on the notes on the Contractor's submittal which required EOR's review.
So you are correct, without specs calling it out we cannot enforce a PE stamp.
I am inclined with the approach to clarify this request with owner and inform the contractor that shoring is means and methods, and it is his responsibility to ensure the shoring used in the execution of the work is safe and adequate, including its effect on the supporting structure.


@dik: you are right, these shops are to be reviewed only for general conformance with the contract requirements, but not subject to the designer’s approval.

****** "TIL":You suddenly understand something you've understood all your life, but in a new way ~Doris Lessing ******

 

[dik]

As noted... the whole thing hinges on what the contractor and his sub-trades were contractually obligated to do.


Dik

 

[AK4S]

@dik:
Irrespective of the PE stamp, the Contractor still has the sole responsibility for construction means and methods and shoring is Means and Methods. So it is his responsibility to ensure the shoring used in the execution of the work is safe and adequate, including its effect on the supporting structure. Doesn't this hold ground?

The Architect/EOR only reviews the proposed plan for conformance with the design intent for the completed construction.

 

[dik]

AK4S: "Contractor still has the sole responsibility for construction means and methods" that may depend on the jurisdiction and the judge... if the contractor is out of his league and the engineer is the only technical one, it may tilt the balance. I'm not big on absolutes.

An interesting dilemma if what is proposed cannot be constructed... is it the contractor's fault or the engineer's? If the contractor is obligated to provide sealed drawings contractually, he should. That does't excuse him or the EoR... but, makes him less liable. It becomes a battle of the tekkies and depending on local case law and jurisdiction, justice may or may not be served.

Dik

 

[r13]

I've reviewed and advised the contractor of support weakness, which required revised supporting scheme. I won't question the strength of the support system, as it is considered "means and methods", but it is my duty to protect the owner's interest by pointing out potential problematic areas, for which are usually hidden, and I'm the only expert who knows where and why.

 

[AK4S]

Thank you all for your inputs.

 

[Tomfh]

So it is his responsibility to ensure the shoring used in the execution of the work is safe and adequate, including its effect on the supporting structure. Doesn't this hold ground?

If they break the building because they didn't know what they were doing and you had knowledge of what they were attempting but didn't intervene in any way then you carry some responsibility regardless.

 

[ldeem]

I agree this is a real pickle of a problem and will hinge on the exact wording of the contract documents. I would be sure you keep the owner in the loop as to situation as well as the possible problems which could happen.

Secondly (if it was me) I would take the worst case and run a few calcs to see if you are dealing with a potentially catastrophic problem. Regardless of the outcome on who does what you don't want on your conscious for someone to be hurt or killed because everyone was running from liability and CYAing.