revision to another's (architect's) design

[jgeng]

Lets say an architect prepared a complete set of house plans and did not use an engineer. The contractor has now requested from you as an engineer to provide an alternate foundation construction detail. Is there any reason why you shouldn't do this? My concern is that the architect is the "design professional" responsible for the overall structure (on a seperate note I disagree with this) since no engineer was involved. Is it a requirement to notify the architect of the change? who's responsibility should it be to notify the arch? the engineer or contractor?

Thanks for any opinions on the topic

 

[ishvaaag]

The question is who will held responsability for design changes made at works' time. I understand in definitive in the USA such professional is called the Engineer of Record or Architect of Record; or whomever is holding such accountability.

By as well communicating the fact of design changes ongoing to other parties you make them aware of the thing, maybe affecting potentially somewhat their potential liability (and enhancing their awareness) yet mostly they shouldn't be greatly affected by changes made without their consent, nor to say awareness if they are not holding presently the responsability of directing the works to sound completion.

Certainly they will retain the liability from what they did at project time, but will be relieved of the potential negative or at variation effects the introduced changes may produce.

So except they retain oversseing and direction authority duties, I don't see mandatory notification to the project's parties.

The owner should have charged someone with the continuous review of the works corresponding to the description and general and particular intent in the project. Has the owner made or not such thing, you bet he thinks himself entitled to know everything ongoing with the works trough the proper representative.

 

[IRstuff]

While it may not be "mandatory," to verify that the changes you make won't affect anything the previous person did, shouldn't it be part of your own due diligence to discuss this with the previous person?

Seems to me that should something happen later on down the road, wouldn't you want to have a written record that shows that you discussed the matter with the designer and both agreed that your changes should have no impact? Wouldn't look really bad for you, if something should happen, and the plaintiff calls up the original designer, and he says, "Oh, yeah, if he had talked to me, I would have said, No, because...?"

Your apparent disdain for architects may mislead you into thinking that your changes are completely valid and impact free.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[OHIOMatt]

The profession of the person preparing the original documents is irrelevant. If the jurisdiction allows architects to do structural design then they should be treated with the same respect and courtesy as an engineer.

If the original design was performed by a structural engineer, would you change it without discussing the project with the engineer?

 

[a2mfk]

Its best to try and talk to the original designer, but sometimes you can't (can't find them, moved, retired, dead).... I have had to do similar, and in theory it is no different then doing renovations or modifications using the original CDs for any building as a guide. As long as you recreate ALL necessary calculations to perform the foundation design, and CYA with notes about the rest of the structure from the foundation up being by others, there is no technical or ethical dilemma that I see.

 

[ishvaaag]

IRstuff,

I have no disdain for architects, I am precisely an architect. I simply signal that there maybe circumstances that may impel to third parties to proceed without consulting the authors of some previous design.

I might have just added that I may find courteous -as I find- to give notice to the designer/s, and maybe just that way avoided your rant.

But in reality if the designer intent is so appreciated and to be mired, better (if he wants) retain him as the authority deciding the matters, or at least as some kind of supervisor consultant. I can assure you that if I have a project and they don't want me as the director of the works, and further know that they are just ready to change enough the project (without being required) that one starts to think that his works becomes unappreciated, the wish to stay involved with the straying ways of what is initially your project get much diminished.

Respect what happens "down on the road", frankly, I have seen more of ill will and cunning in resolving trial causes than intent to establish justice, so I think communication or not, it won't affect but minimally the result. That is what my experience dictates, I have not see those members of the public service friends of the 2+2=4.

I have, again, no disdain for the architect's work, that is precisely mine, nor I have such thing for anyone doing his work the best he can.

I precisely advert that the one that NEEDS be adverted is the one directing the works, so HE/SHE/THEM ascertain if there are affections that need be considered and reconduced to congruence, and I direct the advertence to THEM, because it is their current and standing duty to so perform.

The architect work as a designer ended the day he was not retained as part of the works' party; it may be in your interest, or the property, or good ways to keep him informed, but if out of the project and not retained even for consult or supervision, it is clear that every kind of decision affecting the works are by now assigned to others for proper decision, including whatever the changes to the original project, and I stand with what I said.

 

[IRstuff]

The "you" in my post is referring to the OP. In no instance was I addressing anyone else.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[BAretired]

As a matter of professional courtesy, I would advise the Architect that I was proceding with work requested by the Contractor.

BA