Relevancy of code date-Opinions sought 5

[VQ]

Background:
United States project, Texas, along the Gulf Coast. A public works project for the local Municipality was started in 1999 and then "put on the shelf" by the Municipality (for various reasons unrelated to engineering that I will not get into) while the project was at a 70-80 % level of completion. It was restarted in late 2000 with the Municipality demanding 100% (not final) submittal within a couple of months (very very little money for restart-up). At the end of 2 months drawings were stamped 100% whether they were or not and submitted to Municipality for final review and comment. The project was once again shelved after submittal. Now in 3rd quarter of 2004 the project is once again re-starting, probably actually start in November (+/-). We are to submit a proposal for re-starting and completing the project. This would be fees associated with restarting a shelved project and does not include any original design fees (not that there is any money left.) Initial phase of project is approx. 3 million dollars. I'm purposely not giving out specific details, sorry.

My Question:
As the structural EOR I designed for the latest codes at the commencement of the project in 1999. Codes used: local building code SBCCI 1997 (it just ref. the other codes), ASCE 7-95 (didn't have 1999), ACI 318-99 & 530-99, AISC-LRFD 2nd. Ed. (1995), and AISI-Cold formed steel design, 1996. Would you estimate hours based on redesigning/checking original design for the latest design codes? Or, would you assume the codes used at the time are relevant and no need to check for code difference? I think all of the current codes are 2002 except the local code now IBC 2003. IBC ref. the other aformentioned codes but no dates.

If the project was completed in 1999 and the local Municipality waited to start construction, I see no reason why they would come back to the engineer to verify design was still applicable. I don't believe they are under any obligation to check with the engineers and I know of no requirement from the state board requiring that the latest codes be used in all designs. But, to me it would be good engineering practice to verify code changes wouldn't affect the design, on the other hand would 5 years really make a difference? You see where I'm going with this...baffling.
Thanks for your time.
VQ

 

[VQ]

Ron,
I agree, the Client will have to release the Company from liability which will likely help the client make the decision.

IRstuff,
Point taken about codes, that was somewhat of a cheap shot at people working hard to develope and maintain them. I was not sure what you meant by your last sentence.

JAE,
Thank you! You used the phrase "bound legally to meet the current code". This means you can tell me who I'm leagally bound to. The Clinet is one of those entities you mentioned and they control the codes and have the power to decide if they want the design to the lesser. The state board of engineers rules state:

"The engineer shall endeavor to meet all of the applicable professional practice requirements of federal, state and local statutes, codes regulations, rules or ordinances in the performance of engineering services."

I does not state "latest" or "current" statutes, codes regulations, rules or ordinances because each local entity adopts their code of choice and decides if and when they will adopt a new code. I can gaurantee you that in the state of Texas there are many local entites using various codes. So who am I legally bound too?

I received a package from a Fabricator yesterday for the design of a truss tower. It's a 2004 federal project and the design specifications require the tower to be designed to ASCE 7-98 even thought ASCE 7-02 is the latest. Which all goes back to my point that a previous code does not become irrelevant just because a newer code is out which takes me back to what started this thread; structurally the project started in 1999 per those current goes are still structurally sound and there is no structural reason to update the code, possibly a liability reason but not structural.

Your "legal" comment JAE reminded me that I can submit this issue to the engineering board for interpretation or response. If anyone's interested, I'll let you know their response. They aren't the quickest thought so may need to wait a bit.

I do appreciate everyones opinion and time.
Thanks, VQ

 

[pmkPE]

Although ASCE 7 is referenced by various codes it is not a code.

 

[Ron]

VQ...you are bound to your client to provide the design according to the applicable code (contractual standard of care liability) and to the public at large (engineering license liability), even though a municipality might use a different code than its neighboring municipality. This is relatively common.

Codes are adopted by municipalities or other govering bodies by statute or ordinance. It varies from location to location. The "codes" we ascribe to are model codes with no legal authority until adopted at a local or state level. In most cases, due to laziness, lack of resources, or ignorance on the part of the governing body, the model code is adopted in its entirety without supplement. So in many locations you will see that IBC 2000 or some other model code has been adopted as its building code. Unless directed by the state governments, municipalities are free to adopt any code they see fit. As you can also see, this requires "revisiting" by the governing body to adopt code updates and revisions. I can't tell you how many times I've started a design or investigation assuming current editions of the applicable code, only to find that the municipality was still working from an old version of the code without updates.

Sorry JAE...didn't mean to jump into your reply...please expand.

 

[JAE]

Well said - just one thing I might add is that VQ's reference to the "owner controlling the code" DOES apply to some cases such as the Federal Gov't, Military, etc. where they can essentially dictate their own provisions as the local cities, etc. have no jurisdiction.

Also, agencies such as the National Park Service and the US Postal Service have many or most of their properties on federal land as well and can specify whatever they want. Most cases, they stick to the local adopted codes anyway.

 

[peker]

Do you need codes?

 

[BigH]

Just a ? beyond design - if the design was already tendered, the contractor builds to the code at the time of tender - if it is insisted that a later code be implemented, then he would be in a position of contract variation. Yes?

 

[jheidt2543]

IMHO, the Contractor builds to the plans and specifications prepared by the Designer of Record (DOR). I really don't think it is the Contractor's duty to interpret the codes. If a change in the adopted code occures and is required to be implemented in the work, the Contractor must be notified by the DOR in the form of a Change Order Request or Directive.

Also, as I think was mentioned above by others, the DOR prepares his plans and specifications to meet the ADOPTED code, not necessarily the latest version. Only the code version ADOPTED by the municipality is the legally binding code for the project. I believe that the use of any newer version would have to be approved by the code adopting authority before including it in the project.

 

[HgTX]

Unless there's a "most recent version" provision. I'm not sure exactly how that works for design codes, but for construction codes that's most recent version at time of contract letting.

Hg

 

[jheidt2543]

HgTX:

Just a couple of comments:

I've seen the "most recent version" requirement used quite often and is mainly for material or industry codes like ASTM or ACI etc. I thought we were talking about building codes adopted by a municipality rather than industry codes. It makes quite a difference in the discussion.

I've always thought the "most recent version" requirement in a specification was an arbitrary CYA provision put in by specification writers that didn't take the time to their research. Why should a contractor be held to a standard the the designer hasn't taken the time to include in his specification? If you want the "most recent version" of a material or industrial standard to control, then get it and use its provisions in the specification.

I just think the specs should be specific to the job and written clearly and completely. The Owner gets a better job, a better price and there are fewer ambiguities to fight over during the course of the project.

 

[JAE]

Agree - there are numerous times we've reviewed other engineer's documents and noted the "most recent edition" phrase. In most cases, when we point out that they are violating the exact code they are referencing, they remove the phrases and state "the edition as referenced by the governing code"....i.e. chapter 35 in the IBC.

 

[JedClampett]

We use it but not for Code references. We use it because many of our master specifications have a list of ASTM sections in them. It's almost impossible to do the research for every project to see which of these have been updated. However, if we don't use the latest ASTM, we might be exposed to some liability if the update significantly revises the section. Plus, we've had contractors say that they can't buy some widget to a previous revision, now they're not available. So to cover ourselves we just state to use the latest revision. The joke is we don't even have the latest revision.

 

[jheidt2543]

JedClampett:

You just made my point, CYA! If the designer finds it NEARLY impossible to keep up, and he is supposed to know what he is specifing and wants in the project, how can the contractor be expected to keep up?

I'm not really sure what the answer is, but I think there is ALMOST more liability with the statement "most recent version" without knowing what it is, as to leave it out.

If you really know your specification and what it requires, I think you are better off and the job is better off. How many times, when a problem comes up, do we scramble to order the "most recent version"?

 

[JAE]

But you don't have to keep up - simply refer to Chapter 35 in the IBC (or whatever code you use) and the entire ASTM, ASCE, AISC, ACI, etc. references are listed there. You can have a global statement saying all references shall be per Chapter 35 unless noted otherwise.

 

[HgTX]

IBC, which publication year? They're gonna revise it sometime, and maybe even renumber the chapters. How can you be sure you've kept up?

If it's okay to say "latest available" for ASTM (which can change several times a year), why would that same mechanism not work for any other referenced standard?

We have a 1000-page book of standard specifications containing references to ASTM, AWS, federal law, numerous internal specifications, etc. There's simply no way to keep on top of all that from a document management standpoint--especially with projects sometimes getting delayed for months or years. On the other hand, for each contractor and supplier to look up which editions apply to the specific job at hand at the specific time at hand is not at all unreasonable.

We keep previous editions of the internal specs available so that when work begins, they can still go back to whatever was in place when they bid. We also hang onto past editions of ASTM, etc., although what happens in the shops usually is that they'll just work to the latest edition available at time of work for all jobs, which we encourage--neither we nor they want to deal with different standards for different simultaneous jobs.

But those are construction and materials specs. The rules and practicalities might be completely different for design.

Hg

 

[JAE]

ASTM is a specification for a particular material and is designated in the IBC editions under specific years. Technically you HAVE to keep up in that the language, logic, and order of your plans and specifications should be consistent with the applicable code for that particular project, so yes,.... you have to adjust your specs to account for different codes.

We have specifications where we designate the ASTM number, or the ACI number WITHOUT the year attached and then state elsewhere that you must use the appropriate edition of that ASTM spec as indicated in the building code.