Good Afternoon all,
I'm looking for advice/comments centering around what I feel are excessive requests by an owner for backup calculations.
I read through JAE's thread507-89434 and a few other but haven't quite found what I'm looking for.
I primarily work with temporary structures/support systems used for construction.
Original designs get submitted with calculations as per typical contracts with government agencies.
Typically, if things are built in the field that are different than the original design, I am asked to inspect the final product and approve the as-built in a letter to the owner. No problem.
I am currently involved in two projects who's owners insist that I provide caculations for every minor change in the design. From pads being six inches too short to deadmen being shifted 12" out of position. Basically they are trying to use this "provided Calculation" spec. as an excuse to hold up work in the field(for various reasons).
At what point is the boundary crossed between legitimate independent review of a submitted design and a breach of the Engineer's Code of Conduct?
My feeling on calculations is that they provide a roadmap for the reviewer to follow so they can understand my train of thought. If my designs are questioned, it is usually done with an independent analysis that provides the foundation for discussion. If I have provided my roadmap in the original design and calc. submittal, and I approve minor changes in writing so it's binding and legal, at what point in time does the oweness fall on the reviewer to show me that I'm wrong rather than me proving every minor change is right?
This is the first time in 15 years where I've had this problem seem to continue to spiral out of control.
Problems on the jobsite are finding their way into Engineering analysis and professional courtesies.
What courses of action have you all seen to keep the two separated?
Best always.
BM
I'm looking for advice/comments centering around what I feel are excessive requests by an owner for backup calculations.
I read through JAE's thread507-89434 and a few other but haven't quite found what I'm looking for.
I primarily work with temporary structures/support systems used for construction.
Original designs get submitted with calculations as per typical contracts with government agencies.
Typically, if things are built in the field that are different than the original design, I am asked to inspect the final product and approve the as-built in a letter to the owner. No problem.
I am currently involved in two projects who's owners insist that I provide caculations for every minor change in the design. From pads being six inches too short to deadmen being shifted 12" out of position. Basically they are trying to use this "provided Calculation" spec. as an excuse to hold up work in the field(for various reasons).
At what point is the boundary crossed between legitimate independent review of a submitted design and a breach of the Engineer's Code of Conduct?
My feeling on calculations is that they provide a roadmap for the reviewer to follow so they can understand my train of thought. If my designs are questioned, it is usually done with an independent analysis that provides the foundation for discussion. If I have provided my roadmap in the original design and calc. submittal, and I approve minor changes in writing so it's binding and legal, at what point in time does the oweness fall on the reviewer to show me that I'm wrong rather than me proving every minor change is right?
This is the first time in 15 years where I've had this problem seem to continue to spiral out of control.
Problems on the jobsite are finding their way into Engineering analysis and professional courtesies.
What courses of action have you all seen to keep the two separated?
Best always.
BM