Stamping Plans... 2

[DaveVikingPE]

A buddy of mine, for whom I do free work - I'll never charge him for anything - has a problem.

His brother-in-law built a large deck onto the side of his house. The house is owned by my buddy's father. Both my buddy and I advised, a couple of years ago, against building the deck a certain way. Our advice was ignored and the deck was built anyway. (My buddy's bro in-law didn't talk to us for a couple of years afterwards.)

As all engineers are aware, things built "incorrectly" oftentimes stand up for thousands of years under loading conditions well in excess of what would be considered normal. This deck is ugly, it functions, but doesn't reflect a well-engineered design (Home Depot provided the "design" - which was substantially modified by the builder on-the-fly).

There's some sort of permitting dispute, now, and the local authorities require as-built plans of the deck in order to "close" the building permit.

As a favor, I drew up the as-builts. They're good, too, if I say so myself; did 'em on PowerCADD with my Mac G4 Cube at home.

Issue: the permitting authority, who are "busting someone's b_lls" want the plans to be "stamped." Well, they issued the building permit based on my buddy's brother in-law's, unstamped, half-a__ed hand-drawn sketches. What is to be done?

My thoughts: a) As-built drawings don't necessarily reflect what was originally designed; they reflect what's been built. b) There is no "official" engineer of record, so stamping the plans isn't an approval of a design or an endorsement of what was built or anything else; it's a "certification" that these as-builts as properly-done as-builts and nothing more. c) For some reason I don't think the permitting authority will agree with me on the last point... d) Compromise: get a registered surveyor (not a P.E. - after assuming I successfully argue the point with the local officials) to stamp the as-builts (the PLS will be paid for his time and expected to make a site visit, etc.) and simply certify that yes, this is what's been built.

Thoughts?

 

[BML]

I would be very cautious if I were you. It sort of sounds like the local permitting authority is trying to cover their collective rear. If they are willing to accept as-built plans that you have signed as the drafter and certified in legalese as "this is what was built, but I don't endorse or recommend it, etc." then I suppose that's their business. But if they want you to sign as a PE and certify that the plans meet requirements and are structurally sound, then I wouldn't touch it. Too bad it had to involve your buddy and his family.

 

[PM]

I'm surprised there is no exemption from the usual requirement for professional engineering / architecture related to low value private residential structures in your jurisdiction. It might be worth checking your local statutes to see if engineering or architecture is required for residential structures under say $10,000. If an exemption exists, the local building authorities usually require structures to comply with the building code. If the structure does not, then a PE or architect is required to confirm that the structure is safe.

In your case, I assume that the deck does not conform to applicable building codes and the building authority requires written confirmation the deck is safe. I'm sure your buddy's brother-in law will need a PE or architect to inspect the deck, perform some calc's and sign the drawing and spec's (as-builts).

Snipped from DaveViking: "b) There is no "official" engineer of record, so stamping the plans isn't an approval of a design or an endorsement of what was built or anything else; it's a "certification" that these as-builts as properly-done as-builts and nothing more." I disagree. No ethical professional will sign & seal drawings produced by someone else without confirming code compliance and safety first. If this deck does not meet the life safety requirements of the code and a professioanl signs the drawings, that professional will be liable for any damages should the deck fail.

Snipped from DaveViking: "d) Compromise: get a registered surveyor (not a P.E. - after assuming I successfully argue the point with the local officials) to stamp the as-builts (the PLS will be paid for his time and expected to make a site visit, etc.) and simply certify that yes, this is what's been built." Problem with this is that if you succed, you will have counselled a surveyor to practice engineering or architecture without a lisence. I doubt your local statutes include this activity within the definition of surveying.
Regards,

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Thanks, PM!

Good opinions and I needed to be set straight.

Thanks to your insight I discovered that the municipality in-question has this in their building permit process website:

"PLANS Two sets of plans, with a signed seal, dated and prepared by an Architect or a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of New York for any structure exceeding a construction cost of $20,000 or as required by Section 7307 of the State Education Law."

Section 7307 of the NY state eduction law pertains to who is and what is an Architect (fyi:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=30&a=137)

This gives my friends an out (the deck didn't cost $20k by a long shot). And it takes a bit off my mind.

 

[Qshake]

Another $0.02 on this subject. Recently, I've come into the process of final plans for government projects. The government entity has engineers etc. but often consults with engineering firms for design and detailing. Using these plan sets which are sealed as required the civil works are constructed and when "as-builts" are ready to be finalized the government engineers seal a modified copy of the original plans noting, of course, in great detail what their seal constitutes as far as responsibility in the constructed works.

 

[jugglerbri]

Just as an aside, we recently had a class provided by our insurance provider and we where told to NEVER use the term As-Builts. This implies that you know how the project was built and, unless you built it or watched every step of the process, you don't know (and often can't tell, especially in underground work). We have been instructed to call them record drawings. Also, we don't do "cost estimates", we do "engineer's opinion of probable cost" (gotta love them lawyers).

Brian

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Jugglerbri,

Sounds like you're juggling a lot of responsiblity there...

Off topic digression:

Interesting point. My understanding of "the law" is that words mean what they say. Thusly, if the term "as-built" is a legal term meaning, "it's built like this" I think it's wise to avoid using the term. HOWEVER, I think the lecturer who advised not to use the term "as-built" should be challenged to elaborate. There's got to be some flexibility in the use of the phrase, for instance, would "as-built" mean that, indeed every single A325 bolt was tested to certify that the AISC criteria for, say, shear, was met?

This has the effect of rendering the well-known phrase "as-built" obsolete. Is that good? The term "record drawings" to me implies the same thing as does having the president of a company sign off on a memo some project manager wrote, whose boss initialed and sent up the chain. Is it a record of what was built? Or is it simply a form that was filled out?

On the subject of "cost estimates" an "engineer's opinion of probable cost" sounds weird. Everyone has an opinion...

My first boss, a cranky old man, always had me write "I visually observed" instead of "I saw" on inspection reports.

 

[PM]

jugglerbri's comments are appropriate and certainly not new. My first encounter with the admonison th use the term "Record of Construction" instead of "As-Built" came in 1981. Likewise, engineers in our consulting firm were qualify the nature of construction cost estimates ever since 1985.

DaveViking is right. Words take the common meaning documented in the dictionary unless qualified otherwise. The problem arises at least in part because engineers often use jargon that does not mean the same to them as it does to the latman.