Residential Design. To notify BCO or not? 2

[EngineeringEric]

A client (friend of a coworker) walked in and wanted us to analyze a proposed deck that the county rejected. The deck is not typical. Carbon Steel W10 beams, Stainless Steel Columns, Cold Formed Steel Joists, concrete-gyp panel decking, heavy finish tile... all on a steel slope and up to 10' tall on a hillside. Oh and the deck is supporting a suspend spa and 6' deep swimming pool!.
-
Now the issue: The county only rejected his plans because he didn't have steel calcs. He wanted only steel beam clacs. We moaned and said that this deck requires a lot of Engineering. Since he was a friend (!!!!) we decided to analyze the beams and write a report stating we only looked at the beams, nothing else. We noted in the sealed letter that we did not evaluate the structures's connections, lateral, footing sizes, slope stability, steel interaction, the deck, the joists, all these things are of concern. We wrote the owner multiple times stating what is wrong and that it needs to be engineered and that an engineer should analyze it. He has some overloaded 4'x4' with a column located 8" from the corner, and so many problems.
-
He took our letter and submitted it. The county approved it with no questions.
-
I want to contact the county but my boss feels we are safe from our letter stipulating everything we didn't look at. What do you all have to say? Are we correct that it is out of our hands? Is is appropriate to notify the county from my personal email to remove my company?

 

[EngineeringEric]

Matt,
You are correct that i am obviously debating this as an ethical dilemma and was looking for other opinions. I am not 100% in agreement in the legal aspect of the second letter making things worse, but that is why we are engineers and not lawyers . It is my opinion that the letter to the HO is what would save us by clearly stating that these issues are not adequate and need further attention, but maybe you are correct.
-
All said, I just sent a letter to the head BCO. We will see what happens.
-
Thank you all for the conversations, I appreciate the insight through discourse.

 

[Ron]

EE...you cannot disclaim negligence! If an engineering board considered that because you became involved as engineers, provided some engineering, admittedly noticed engineering design deficiencies but elected to do nothing other than to hope that the non-engineer plan reviewer would stop it....they could cite you, your boss and possibly your firm.

You've thought about it...now do what you think is right.

Keep in mind that there are many technical tasks/functions that can legitimately be performed by non-engineers; however, when an engineer takes on the same task he is ALWAYS held to a higher standard.

 

[ztengguy]

If you see something that is unsafe, life safety issue, do you have a duty to report it? Its not like we ever hear of decks failing.

 

[CELinOttawa]

Hey ztengguy; I hope you turned /sarcasm before going back to work...

 

[racookpe1978]

Yes, he ALWAYS has a higher obligation to point out failure and future problems.

No question.

BUT - Does not the client, the future builder and future owner and future contractor NEED to read warnings and cautions and become responsible for the whole task once warned? I cannot, in truth, do the whole job if not funded and contractually and morally obligated?

"I" am not even allowed on the property unless invited and funded to fly up there and look, right?

Asked differently, how can "I" - as a single sub-contractor or observer - be held liable for failures that "I" as a single contractor or observer could not completely analyze? The sub-post dirt - that area immediately under the long post of this example - cannot be know unless looked at, right? I "cannot" get to that state and make a real estimate unless "I" get there and dig up the dirt or "feel" the as-is condition and look at and analyze the slope and the amount of real-world resistance that slope will have over the next 10,15,20 years, right?

You 9and the above posters) are right: "how will this play out in court?" is the financial question. But the moral question is even more important: Did "I" ask the right questions and did "I" give the opener enough of a doubt and a question so "HE" could ask the right question to the people who ARE funded to answer it?

 

[LionelHutz]

I had to give OHIOMatt a star for his first post. I too have to ask why you sealed this letter in the first place? The first post reads that there was a conscious decision to purposely do the beam analysis only to get the approval as easily as possible. I suspect there were conversations at your firm about how to do as little work on the project as possible and still get the building approval which led to the idea of only analyzing the beams. I too would agree with Ron that the letter was purposely misleading.

 

[ztengguy]

So how was your letter received at the BO office? Has anything been done, or is it still a mess?

 

[EngineeringEric]

Since it was asked. I called the BO and talked to them. They were nonchalant and took note of what of i said, the head BO then withdrew the permit on the elements i was concerned and notified the owner that XY&Z were needed for a permit. I followed up our phone call with a letter.

Now, to my defense. When I started this thread I had 100% of the information and the story line unlike reality. When it unfolded it was not as cut and dry nor was anything that i did done with bad intentions. When I discovered more information about the project it become an issue. There were no conversations internally about doing partial work. We were not aware of the issues until additional digging was done. I am sure i worded the post poorly, and for that i apologize... Although i suppose all i did was hurt my credibility.

Thank you all for your input I do appreciate the various angles and have considered this a lesson learned.

As the saying goes never work for a friend; even if they are paying!