What would you have done? 1

[grogannc]

So I got a call to go out and investigate a potentially "sagging" wall with "some cracking". I told him over the phone my initial fee was $X for a typical inspection. He asked if I could look at the roof as well for the same price since they were having leaks and I do roofing design also. I said sure no problem-already there why not.

I get to the job to find a really old one story commercial building with a walk out basement. Long story short-the members are all rough sawn timber with joist/girder/column construction. The timber is large as you would expect and everything is one piece i.e. no plys for any of the members.

The back of the structural system rotted out due to insects, moisture, etc. Owner had a contractor come out and "fix" the problem using (5) ply 2x12s for columns and girders and sistering rotted joists with 2x12s as well. The conversation got uncomfortable when I asked if the contactor used an engineer and where were the stamped design documents. I told the Owner I couldn't do it for $x anymore and would have to validate what I can see (which was most of it) and discredit things like the new concrete which I can't verify. Also mentioned anything I came up with that needed to be fixed, replaced, etc. would be a requirement and not optional. I told them I would do it for double the original price with disclaimers about I can't check what I can't see, etc. Pretty sure I scared them off. The Owner was going to talk to the tenant about it. Thoughts?

 

[AELLC]

If your intent is to not take the job unless it brings a very large fee, then I agree - but the chances of them defaulting on payment will be very large.

They will hire someone else in your stead.

The definition of a structural engineer: overdesign by a factor of 1.999, instead of the usual 2.

 

[jayrod12]

WHen we walk into a job that looks like it is going to be a significant amount more work than expected we talk to them about working hourly and give them our rate schedule and let them decide. When we don't know what the actual scope of work is going to end up being we feel this is the fairest way of operating. On the odd occasion we'll do hourly up to a maximum fee then consider it a lump sum.

 

[grogannc]

The fee wasn't anything crazy. Just enough to make it worth my time and stamp. My question was more if you came across something which was done recently without an engineer, where there should have been one, in the location of the new problem, would you take the position that it needs to be designed by an engineer. They didn't pull a permit for this work from my understanding. I felt I couldn't ignore the repairs potentially not meeting code.

 

[jayrod12]

I think you're obligated to note the non-code compliant items, or at least suspected non-compliant items and let the client decide whether they want to hire you to either certify or specify repairs or whether they choose to ignore your recommendations.

 

[AELLC]

It is mandatory to notice items that need to be engineered and corrected, even thought the history of those items occurred before you first started investigating that structure.

It is obvious that, by doing engineering on one particular component, that you assume liability and responsibility for the entire structure because of the nature of a typical retrofit/repair job.

On the other hand, if Client B asks you to design a small addition to his existing building, then yoare NOT responsible for any design defects in the existing building.

However, if you happened to notice a defect in Client B's building, and your comment was documented somewhere, that COULD come back and bite you in the rear.

The definition of a structural engineer: overdesign by a factor of 1.999, instead of the usual 2.

 

[SteelPE]

I'm confused, where you hired to do an inspection or to certify the structure?

 

[grogannc]

The initial call I felt was an inspection. When I got there-I did not feel I could sign off on a report without certifying the repair which was from the last column line back to the exterior wall. That was in part due to knowing it wasn't designed by an engineer. If an engineer designed it, he would be calling that engineer to look at it for free, not me. The repairs are only 2 years old. They cut corners and are now having "new" deflection issues in the location of the repairs.

 

[dik]

Just a heads up... if you have fungal problems, these can be extensive. You may have significant strength losses without the condition being noticed.

Dik

 

[Jerehmy]

ust a heads up... if you have fungal problems, these can be extensive. You may have significant strength losses without the condition being noticed.

I find it odd that a wall has mold. Mold is a ventilation issue, how is a wall having problems with ventilation? How is so much moisture in the wall?

 

[Jerehmy]

Well, 9/10 times its a ventilation issue. Long term leaking can also cause mold*

 

[ztengguy]

I usually in this situation explain that in my report, I will mention problems 1,2,3....and say that a engineered solution should be provided. I then say that its out of the scope of this letter and 'Building Reiview' to provide engineered fixes, and that I can provide a price, or a outside engineer can be brought in.

 

[CELinOttawa]

I agree with your approach entirely. In our practice we wind up with a lot of these old jobs... We recently looked at a converted barn which was sold to us as "historic"; This made me think I was dealing with a field-tested structure condition. I quoted our rate for review, testing coordination, result interpretation and report regarding the applicability of this being a field tested structure.

When I arrived, the structure was obviously new. Like 15 years old at most. Apparently there had been a fire, and it was rebuilt with very minor members according to (at a guess) the Farm Code of Canada.

We provided a one page disclaimer-report at a fee of $250 which read like a quote for works. Haven't received a call back, and have not received a payment. I don't care about the money, and it was MUCH more about the disclaimer. Something similar may be of value to you, as you don't want to find yourself being "the engineer was here and said xxxx____xxxxx_____xxxx."

 

[grogannc]

The water damage was from a roof leaking which is still leaking so could easily be material property degradation. I won't get into too many details here but its not a cookie cutter job to start with. The floor is heavily loaded due to the nature of the current business, on-going leaks, non-engineered repairs, building is 90-100 years old etc. I wanted to run not walk away from the job but I gave him a very fair price in my mind. If he came to me wanting me to design the repairs initially I would have charged a little more probably so I think I was being fair to the guy.

CEL-that's exactly what I was worried about. He offered to pay me for my time there but I politely declined and said either I evaluated the location 100% or not at all. But technically I have nothing in writing to him saying he needs to have that part of the building designed/certified. I am thinking about emailing him to formally offer the new price and clarify what its for as kind of a CYA if nothing else. What is the flavor of the disclaimer you use if you don't mind me asking?

 

[ztengguy]

Im still confused, your free was for a inspection and report. Does he expect the report to include fixes for everything wrong?

 

[grogannc]

ztengguy- The Owner just wanted a report saying there is not problem and everything is fine. I would have been happy to do just that in any part of the rest of the building. I don't mind either looking at areas that have had minor repairs performed and evaluating the repair if required to make an assessment. I don't however design large portions of buildings for inspection fees. In my opinion that is what would have been required to make an informed statement about the cracking and settlement they are experiencing.

 

[frogit22]

I would refer them to my most loathsome competitor!

 

[ztengguy]

Ok, so sort of along the lines of what I do. Here is building A. here is what is wrong with building A. Get it fixed by an engineer, Me or Engineer B at this cost. End of report.

 

[CELinOttawa]

grogannc:

I think I've posted something like to help someone before, but here it goes. Note that I have removed job-specific paragraphs and replaced with statements as to what they were...

-Intro, thank you, etc-

-Reported to site (date & time), weather, who we met-

-What areas entered; Review of potential work, not in any way an inspection-

Your existing barn structure appears to have been designed to a version of the National Farm Building Code of Canada (NFBCC), a code specifically intended for buildings with a low probability of loss of life, in addition to increased requirements due to the quasi-industrial nature of farm work. Such structures are not easily adapted to the requirements of the OBC if recently built, but ironically older examples of these structures are frequently easy to adapt. In order to argue field testing of such a property, it is key that the property have been structurally unchanged through a substantial period of time as well as be in very good to excellent condition. While our review was of a limited and preliminary visual nature, your structure appears to be in excellent condition (though specific verification would be required). The age of the roof structure, and particularly the duration through which the current layout has been subject to load is unlikely to be found sufficient to justify the field tested argument under CBD 230. Given the preliminary nature of our visit, we do not have sufficient information to offer you a professional opinion regarding the applicability of a modern code to your structure, however our initial findings indicate that your structure does not qualify for exclusion of the application of the structural requirements of OBC-2012 outlined above.

-Closing, signature line, etc-

- This report was prepared for <<Client>> and represents the best judgement of <<YOU>> given the information available at the time of writing. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance upon, decisions made in response to or in any way influenced by this report are the responsibility of such third party.
- Sufficient information to make a definitive professional recommendation is not available and would require further investigation at the cost of the Owner. As such any advice or recommendation(s) made herein are entirely without responsibility.

 

[XR250]

I like your third party disclaimer. I think I will start putting that in my reports.