Seal on calcs but not on plans 6

[nhtr86]

I have a strong opinion about this but I wanted to see if there were differing opinions:

Licensed PE A "designed" a pole building by selecting the overall dimensions and layout, but engaged licensed PE B to handle the structural calculations and detailing. B provided sealed structural calculations and sketches with notes. A produced the project drawings incorporating B's details and notes. A sealed all drawings, B has a seal but it does not appear on any drawings. After questioning A, he stated that B is responsible for the structural engineering. When being challenged that if B is responsible for the structural aspects of the design, then his seal needs to appear on the plans, A stated that B's seal on the structural calculations was sufficient to make it clear that B is responsible for the structural aspects.

When B was told that if he is responsible for structural, his seal needs to appear on the plans, he refused and claimed that this would be "plan stamping" since he did not produce the plans.

When I have seen this situation in the past, an Architect needed a bit of structural work done but didn't want to pay enough for the PE to justify making his own S sheets, so the Architect incorporated the PE's details into the A sheets and the PE reviewed the plans and then each person stamped the same sheet. Under the PE stamp would be a note "structural aspects only" and under the Architect stamp a note "excluding structural"

I am purposely not going to say what part in this I am involved in to avoid biasing the response.

Is it acceptable for the structural engineer to seal the calculations and not the plans that contain his notes and details?

Is both professionals stamping the same drawing and adding notes about the limits of their work that right way to handle small jobs where it isn't economically feasible for everyone to make their own plans like is conventionally done?

 

[lexpatrie]

Engineer B can't seal drawings produced by engineer A as they aren't produced under their direct supervision, gre. Unless Engineer B produces and stamps their own drawing.

Maybe A is "doing the foundation" and establishing the design criteria for Engineer B?

 

[chris3eb]

I'm surprised seeing the reactions to fel3 since I've also heard that the geotech report shouldn't be part of the contract documents. I've always heard that geotechnical reports are aimed at providing information to the architects and engineers who can then work those recommendations into their construction drawings, but they aren't aimed at contractors to build from.

Here's a structure mag link that seems to agree with that position:

https://www.structuremag.org/?p=137...gineers,included with the contract documents.

It seems like structure mag is having issues right now - here's a link to a SEAONC guideline document that has similar recommendations:

https://cdn.ymaws.com/

http://www.seaonc.org/resource/resmgr/bookstore/free_publications/guidance_for_geotech-reports.pdf

 

[Aesur]

Maybe the confusion here is "contract documents" as the structure mag article says you have to reference the geotech report and it is often a requirement of jurisdictions as well. My understanding that referencing the document makes it part of the contract documents typically, at least this seems to be the case in every state we have worked in. Does simply referencing it make it contract documents or not? I have heard many times in the past that it should never be referenced on the structural drawings, and I will not agree with that no matter what if I am using a geotech report on a project. This is kind of like saying, Simpson isn't liable if their epoxy fails for the published values or saying the EOR needs to write out the entire ICC report and installation guide for EVERYTHING on their drawings... it doesn't and can't happen, the fees don't allow for that and it leaves too much room for error when the information is already in the report.

 

[Smoulder]

The Structuremag article matches my understanding. Also agree partly with Fel3 but disagree in some ways. 1) Fine and normal to reference geotech report on the drawings. 2) Geotech engineer is on the hook for their advice even if transcribed onto structural drawings or structural design correctly uses the advice. But geotech requirements should be in specification language when given to contractors.

 

[BridgeSmith]

In our office at the DOT, what the OP describes is standard practice. An engineer in the work group does the structural design, it is checked by another engineer, typically in the same work group, and the calculations get stamped by the designer (if the designer is a PE), the checker, or the work group supervisor (if neither the designer or checker is a PE), When the plans are complete, the supervisor reviews the plans, and stamps them, taking the responsibility that the plans are in accordance with the design.

 

[chris3eb]

@Aesur I think the big thing is that construction documents (to use a more precise term) should show the final product and any required means and methods to get there (m&m not shown become contractor's m&m). The geotech report is more of a basis of design document that the structural engineer relies upon much like we rely upon the IBC/ASCE7/ACI etc. ICC reports and manufacturer's instructions have specific sections with installation instructions which the drawings can require the contractor to conform to - I think that notes telling the contractor to comply with those are more of CYA notes, and the contractor should obviously be following the manufacturer's instructions for the products that they use whether or not the engineer points it out to them.

 

[phamENG]

chris - then why don't we show architectural and MEP on our drawings? (this is hyperbole, by the way) They are split out for a reason - each specialist shows what's required for his/her specialty. The same goes for geotechs. If they say that to get to the necessary allowable bearing pressure you have to excavate 6 feet, backfill with a certain type of material, compact it to a certain density, etc., then that's what the contractor has to do. There's no sense in duplicating the language, especially since I'm not a geotechnical engineer.

It is worth pointing out, of course, that geotechnical reports are not really meant to be static, and the ones we usually use for design are preliminary. Once our design is done and we have actual loads on the foundation and actual sizes and configurations, the geotech needs a chance to confirm any assumptions, adjust their calcs as needed, and remove any superfluous language (maybe they gave options for pile foundations OR spread footings on a job).

 

[chris3eb]

I think JAE had a great explanation about 20 years ago:

https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=63946

 

[BR0]

The OP's question is one that I see a lot with deferred delegated designs.

When B was told that if he is responsible for structural, his seal needs to appear on the plans, he refused and claimed that this would be "plan stamping" since he did not produce the plans.

On deferred submittals, quite often they consist of unsealed shop drawings and stamped calculations. I have reached out to the local building department to see how they handle this and what codes or other regulation specify. It seems like it is a grey area in some ways or at least convoluted path to it.

IBC Section 107 covers Construction Documents, Section 107.2.7 states for structural Information go to 1603. My reading of this is that these are the requirements that must be met to put out construction documents. Also, most structures in my state require an engineer to stamp structural construction drawings. There are a few exceptions for specific structures, one is wood-framed construction that meets the residential building code. These exceptions are specifically noted.

My interpretation is that the EOR should be required to put out signed and sealed construction documents to reflect his calcs. I haven't seen where pole buildings are exempt, but it might exist.

 

[DTS419]

It doesn't matter who produces the plans. I am old fashioned and still use drafters to make my drawings and so my seal always goes on drawings that were not produced by me.

What mattes is who was responsible for the design that the drawings show and directed the producing of the plans.

I agree with OP's last sentence, and I believe most state boards would say the same: both engineers should seal the plans and indicate what each is responsible for.

 

[lexpatrie]

This geotechnical discussion, while (maybe) fascinating, is not relevant to the OP's question and it is, to me, a vastly different "separable" or "distinguishable" situation. Can we get a new thread or shelve it?

DTS - the requirement is NOT for the drawings to be produced personally by you. The requirement is they be produced under your responsible charge, i.e. you are supervising the work of the drafters, whether in-house or 1099 or whatever.

Drawings produced by an outside entity don't fulfill that requirement. Read the Minnesota ruling/disciplinary action, if you like.

Engineer A did not produce the design, it would be inappropriate for them to seal the drawings. Engineer B did not produce drawings, they produced calculations, it would be inappropriate of them to seal Engineer A's drawings because they were not prepared under their responsible charge. I don't think this is "shop drawings and calculations" from Engineer B.

It's not appropriate for both engineers to seal the plans, either, because one isn't an employee of the firm, and the drawings weren't produced under their responsible charge.

 

[fel3]

Aesur (and others)…

Listing the geotechnical report in the drawings or in the specifications does not make it part of the contract documents, it only makes it a referenced document.
 
A Geotechnical report is written for the engineer and not for the contractor, although the contractor will benefit from reading it. Geotechnical reports are not written in contract-style language and format, and thus are not suitable for inclusion into a set of construction contract documents. Geotechnical reports provide opinions and recommendations, but do not provide enforceable requirements like contract documents do. Consequently, telling the contractor to do work according to the geotechnical report creates unnecessary ambiguities. The engineer's job is to create contract requirements based on the geotechnical report, not to punt that responsibility back to the geotechnical report. A construction law attorney can provide a better and deeper explanation of this topic than I can.

If you want the geotechnical engineer to provide documents for inclusion into the contract documents, then have the geotechnical engineer write the Earthwork specification and any other related specifications that the project requires, along with preparing any related details for the engineer to put into the drawings. Some (many?) geotechnical engineers offer this service.

============
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[fel3]

chris3eb…

Thanks for posting the SEAONC document. The practices at every place I have worked over the past 44 years were/are similar to SEAONC's recommendations.

Fred

============
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[lexpatrie]

Listing the geotechnical report in the drawings or in the specifications does not make it part of the contract documents, it only makes it a referenced document.

This kind of blanket statement is categorically false and misleading. It would depend on the language attached to it. What needs to be understood is NO language will be without legal "contest" in the event of a dispute.

It didn't count, it wasn't a requirement, it didn't say "shall", etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. The geotechnical report is referenced in the Contract Drawings. Done. The intent is established that this is a contract requirement. Done. It's on the Contract Drawings. Let the lawyers spend 5,000 hours arguing it. NORMAL construction will take into account the compaction and subgrade preparation in the report, because it is referenced in the Contract Drawings, regardless of whether their hypothetical in-house attorney says it's non-binding. Ignoring it violates the standard of care, isn't workmanlike construction practices, etc. etc. etc.

I've not seen any disputes regarding an "improper" reference to a geotechnical report, but I'd expect it to show up in a large bridge project or new freeway project.... at least potentially, provided the contractor deviated from the requirements AND it caused a lot of problems.

Not exactly related, but in the neighborhood:

https://casetext.com/case/posen-constr-inc-v-lee-cnty

Some people get overly hung up on the idea that there needs to be a 400+ page specification in order for it to be "binding". That's not accurate. Many projects have notes on the structural drawings that are in lieu of specifications, i.e. "short form" specifications, that doesn't make them invalid just because they aren't in a separate three ring binder done in CSI format.

(as a side note, I've done it both ways).

This is still NOT on point regarding the original question. I again ask for either a new thread or for this element to be dropped from the thread as irrelevant.

 

[chris3eb]

Lex,

Can you calm down with the accusations? Fel was clearly responding to Aesur who asked "Does simply referencing it make it contract documents or not?" Fel was just trying to say that the act of referencing it does not automatically make it part of the contract documents.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of references saying that the geotech report should not be considered to be part of the construction documents - including from structural engineers (structure mag, SEAONC memo), and from state agencies such as this NH DOT doc:

https://gis.dot.nh.gov/plan/16301.GEO.pdf

I honestly don't know why you're now bringing up book specs and saying that "some people" don't think that drawing notes are binding - I don't see anyone arguing anything close to that.

Finally, it's a fairly common occurrence for ET threads to veer off in different directions especially when the OP hasn't engaged at all with the thread. If you want to start a new thread to discuss, feel free, but I don't know why you think you should get a last word in and no one else should have an opportunity

 

[DTS419]

DTS - the requirement is NOT for the drawings to be produced personally by you. The requirement is they be produced under your responsible charge, i.e. you are supervising the work of the drafters, whether in-house or 1099 or whatever.

Correct. That is what I said.

It's not appropriate for both engineers to seal the plans, either, because one isn't an employee of the firm, and the drawings weren't produced under their responsible charge.

There is not a single state board I am aware of that correlates use of seal with employer. There are states that want to see a statement of the certifying engineer's scope, and there is plenty of precedent for engineers who don't work for the same employer sealing something that was jointly worked on. I have seen it many times. Now, insurance companies might take issue with that, but sharing the same employer is a non-issue as far as state requirements for who seals what are concerned and again, in some jurisdictions it might even be required that all engineers who worked on something put their seal on it.

 

[phamENG]

There is not a single state board I am aware of that correlates use of seal with employer.

1. No professional shall affix a seal, signature, and date or certification to plans, plats, documents, drawings, or other works constituting the practice of the professions regulated that has been prepared by an unlicensed or uncertified person unless such works were performed under the direct control and personal supervision of the professional while the unlicensed or uncertified person was an employee of the same firm as the professional or was under written contract to the same firm that employs the professional. (Emphasis mine.)

To the original question, that situation stinks a bit. If engineer A performed the initial layout and proportioning, Engineer A started making the design decisions of his/her own accord. Engineer A is the Engineer in Responsible Charge of this project (the EOR, to make it easier). They would be well within their rights to hire engineer B to carry out the calculations. But then Engineer A would be responsible for checking to ensure they are correct before incorporating that engineering into the plans. Once it's in the plans, it belongs to A and A needs to seal it. It would be inappropriate (where I practice) for Engineer B to seal the plans.

 

[BridgeSmith]

But then Engineer A would be responsible for checking to ensure they are correct before incorporating that engineering into the plans. Once it's in the plans, it belongs to A and A needs to seal it. It would be inappropriate (where I practice) for Engineer B to seal the plans.

I agree. As I stated before, this is analogous to what we do. The engineer who prepared or checked the calcs, seals the design calcs. That person then is responsible for the adequacy of the design. The person who seals the plans in responsible for the plans correctly reflecting and clearly conveying what's in the design. Rarely is the person who sealed the design the same one who seals the plans.

 

[TLHS]

These are two different deliverables and items that the engineers are in charge of. The calculation engineer is providing a calculation deliverable to the drawing engineer. The drawing engineer is using that as one of the inputs that he's relying on to create these drawings.

This is delegated engineering. The person sealing the plans is responsible for the implementation of the work, but they've relied on the work of the other engineer. The plan sealing engineer is likely the coordinating professional and is responsible for making sure the delegated engineer has the right information, is understanding the work properly and for following up if there items that need to be clarified.

From a practical liability standpoint, if there's a problem in the future, the plan sealing engineer is definitely on the lawsuit list and the calculation engineer is 95% on the lawsuit list. If there is an issue with the calculations, the plan sealing engineer would have cause of action against the calculation engineer.

Basically, this would be fine as long as the plan sealing engineer agrees that he's the engineer of record on this even though he's relying on other engineering. The issue with this kind of situation is communication holes where the engineer using someone else's work doesn't acknowledge that they're responsible for determining whether using that work is valid for the conditions and for ensuring there aren't gaps. If you are using someone else's deliverable to develop yours, then you need to fully understand its scope and fit it into your work. You own your interpretation and implementation of their work.

Personally, it seems weird to not provide the drawings to the calculation engineer to validate that their work has been interpreted correctly, even if they aren't responsible for things like the detailing.

I actually don't like dual stamping drawings if it can be avoided. Unless there are clouds, it's very unclear where the lines of responsibility are. The engineers stamping the drawing can both have different ideas in their heads and things an sneak by that neither thinks they are responsible for and didn't look at. The point of stamped documents is to show that you're taking responsibility for the contents. Anything that degrades that is worrying to me.

 

[Aesur]

At this point, this is all speculation, unless the OP provides more information we are all just offering opinions on what we believe the real situation is. I believe overall this is a contract question, how was it written, who is the EOR and was the other guy a 1099, maybe the OP will someday log back in...