Structural Shenanigans 9

[Eric C.]

I am working on a project where I am to design and develop a plan to renovate/repair/rebuild the structure of a 100% burned out commercial building. Client is a GC(first bad sign). This building is approximately 24'x60', exterior walls are unreinforced/ungrouted CMU(~20' tall), basement and one floor, backfilled 7'-9' on two sides. All that remains are the exterior CMU walls and the basement slab.

Right away my concern was the structural integrity of the CMU walls, any damage done by the heat to which they were exposed, the level of backfill and the lack of any reinforcing or grouting. I advised my client of my concerns and I also informed them that the forensic analysis and design of structural masonry was not in my tool bag and that I would need to retain the services of someone capable in this area to do an inspection, analysis and a remedial plan if needed. My client agrees to this. Additionally, my reading and understanding of the IEBC 2018 is that an analysis of the lateral load bearing system, exterior CMU walls, is needed to determine whether or not the current code requirements are met. Two birds with one stone, so to speak. So, I contacted an engineer whom I trust, received a proposal and passed it to my client for approval before proceeding.

This is where the fun begins. All of the sudden there is NO money for this masonry analysis and even LESS time. Client is demanding that I "stamp some drawings" so that they can submit for the building permit and get going on construction. Even going as far as telling me to omit any reference or drawing notes concerning the masonry and just wait and see if the Codes Dept. catches it. I'm not buying in to this. My position is that I'm not going to "stamp some drawings" as long as I have not satisfied myself that the structural integrity of the building is intact or until another engineer with masonry expertise can provide me with a plan to make the structure sound(if needed). I'm ready to tell some folks to go pound sand.

I know the answer to this...Surely I'm not being as unreasonable as I'm told??

What have I left out of my story? I've been in the practice of engineering for many years, out of school for many more. Maybe my tolerance for shenanigans has reached an end.

 

[JAE]

Just write them a letter withdrawing from the project in that:
1. You don’t have the expertise to analyze the CMU and
2. You can’t sign off on a portion of the structure knowing what you know about ( or don’t know about) the walls and
3. The client would get more bang for their buck using a different engineer.

Maybe not the bang they expect, though.

 

[oldestguy]

Time to go elsewhere. Even if you actually think it is a paying job, then I'd only do work be getting paid up front for every step.

 

[JoelTXCive]

I would do what JAE recommends. I might also refund any fees associated with this project just to wash your hands and be done with it. If you have unbilled time, then the client's probably not going to pay anyway, so might as well flush that too.

In Texas we have slabs on grade. I heard a story where a builder attempted to rebuild a home that had burned to the ground. They went to test the drain pipes and all the PVC had melted several feet down into the slab. I don't know if the story is true or not, but I think that all sorts of unexpected things can get damaged and screwed up in a fire.

If the builder doesn't want to do extra due diligence to prove the structure is good, then I would get off the project as quickly as I could.

 

[PropertyGuy67]

Run.

 

[msquared48]

I would take the advice above, BUT I would also write a letter to the local building jurisdiction discretely informing them of the situation. You do have an obligation of safety to the public here with the knowledge you now have and need to do your due diligence.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA, HI)

 

[Eric C.]

I've got about 10 unbilled hours in the job. Cheap enough cost to get away from the liability.

I'll be running from this project in the morning. Professionally, of course. My knowledge and experience are, apparently, not a good fit for this project and client will be better served by someone else I'm sure. Heck, the client is a GC. He knows more about this than me anyway.

I do recognize and take seriously the engineer's obligation to the health, safety and welfare of the public. I plan to notifying the building codes department of my concerns. Hopefully, they can straighten this out.

After 53 years I still get flabbergasted by people sometimes. Maybe when the rest of my hair falls out I wont be so naive.

 

[msquared48]

No... You would be naïve if you DIDN'T run away!

Good choice!

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA, HI)

 

[dhengr]

Eric C.:
It sounds to me, like the GC doesn’t know more about the problem than you do, but he is trying to put something over on everyone in the rebuilding process, and have you be the fall guy when things start going south. He doesn’t want to spend the time or money to do it right but he wants you to be the insurer of last resort, for a fee which won’t cover the hours needed to engineer it right, let alone pay some of your insurance premiums associated with the work.

 

[msquared48]

The proper term for this GC is a Congeneer...

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA, HI)

 

[WARose]

My advise: Run! Get to the choppa!

 

[kipfoot]

contractor during design/construction:
"I'm not an engineer, but...[choose one "I've been doing it this way for 30 years"; "you could drive a tank on this floor"; "that will affect the schedule"; "I've never had a problem"; "that's overkill" ]

contractor when there is a problem:
"I'm not an engineer."

 

[dik]

Mike:
I would advise against informing the AHJ... not my style... I would, however, run from the project.

The true Chinese curse (from a Chinese engineer I knew) "May your name be know to those in authority".


Dik

 

[JAE]

I'm also not sure a letter to the building department is a good thing to do.

What are you going to write? "Dear AHJ, I think this contractor might be trying to pull a fast one on you someday. I don't have any proof that they will skirt the law, but my gut tells me they will."

You could get sued for innuendo like that.

 

[phamENG]

I think the letter the the AHJ is treading a fine line. Instead of going that route, maybe you could write a letter to your state's licensing board for GCs informing them of exactly what this guy has demanded you do. Don't imply anything, don't make any assumptions about what they meant, just state what they told you to. If the board doesn't see anything wrong with it, so be it. If they do, then whatever punishment comes down should have the effect of informing the AHJ, but you (probably) never ran the risk of libeling anyone.

 

[msquared48]

I disagree here. I really feel a letter is needed here to protect your liability in case the building fails in the future. If this contractor is willing to not address a possibly compromised wall, what else is he going to ignore. No... protect your heinie here.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA, HI)

 

[Rabbit12]

I'm kind of with Mike on this. The GC asked the OP to omit anything about the CMU wall on the drawings hoping the building department wouldn't catch them. Going from what is presented in the original post, the GC has no intentions of looking at the CMU wall.

You could write a letter to the building department that says you are removing yourself from this project and will no longer act as the EOR. In the letter present facts. No chance of libel if you do that.

 

[msquared48]

I agree.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA, HI)

 

[Bill West]

How about this: just inform them that should your name come up, it was a job you only looked at but you withdrew because the fire damage was outside your expertise.

Bill

 

[JAE]

All you know is the GC/client here asked you to not do something (not deal with CMU in your rebuild/design).

There has not been anything done or not done [red]yet. [/red]
There has not been any laws violated[red] yet.[/red]
You don't know [red]yet [/red]whether the next engineer will also insist that something be done about the CMU.
In other words, you don't know jack.

Writing a letter to a governmental board, stating that you withdrew and didn't violate your ethical obligations but that the GC [red]"might"[/red] do so in the future is unprofessional.

We are obligated as engineers to report violations....not a futuristic possible violation.