Working on unpermitted work that should be permitted 7

[BR0]

In the area I work (California) there are legal requirements for contractors that work on construction that is unpermitted. There are civil penalties and suspension or revocation of their license if they work on these projects.

Does anyone know if there are similar rules for engineers in the Professional Engineers Act or elsewhere? I'm probably looking in the wrong places but I've exhausted my searching abilities for this.

This would mainly involve construction phase work, responding to RFIs, change orders and observations. Both myself and the company I work for won't work on projects like this, but it can get awkward as we don't know about it until the construction phase.

Thanks in advance.

 

[wikidcool]

Interesting thread. This is how I address the concern in my contracts (this has NOT been reviewed by an attorney whatsoever): "Client acknowledges and understands that obtaining a building permit is an important step in the process of designing and executing safe, code-compliant construction. Client agrees to hold Engineer harmless for work performed prior to approval of the building permit as well as work performed without obtaining and passing building department inspections or third-party special inspections, as applicable."

 

[BR0]

Client agrees to hold Engineer harmless for work performed prior to approval of the building permit as well as work performed without obtaining and passing building department inspections or third-party special inspections, as applicable."

I like this idea, but I wonder how much hold harmless clauses work. If your work is shown to be wrong, would it matter if the person got a permit?

 

[wikidcool]

I like this idea, but I wonder how much hold harmless clauses work. If your work is shown to be wrong, would it matter if the person got a permit?

Yeah, I'm not sure, either. My main concern for adding the clause is not so much to skip being held responsible for negligence and "bad" engineering, but to address situations like (for example): I look up on ASCE's website that there is no flood hazard and design a slab on grade. The client builds it, then later finds out there really was a flood zone there (I've found ASCE to not always be right about this), and it should have been on a raised foundation above the flood elevation. Fairly easy fix if it comes up on plan check, but it could cost $100K to fix if they skip the permit and it's discovered later.

Legality and liability often don't follow logic, but I would think that for gross negligence, someone getting hurt/killed, etc, the clause wouldn't do much good. But for a myriad of situations like financial damages in my example, it hopefully would.

 

[BR0]

But for a myriad of situations like financial damages in my example, it hopefully would.

That's a good point. We have a bit of a moving target when geotech reports are required. Sometimes a plan check comment will force the client to get one, when I didn't think it was absolutely necessary. Although, I do appreciate a geotech report for the most part.

 

[wikidcool]

Exactly. Soil reports are an issue for me as well in this department and I have that same problem. I was actually going to use that as my example, but not everyone on here understands that not all projects are required to get one. I have another clause in my contract that states I'm not a Geotech and they are advised to get a soil report. If they don't, and it's allowed by the jurisdiction, I'll use the code default values. And then I exclude liability for soil performance failures - it's either on the Geotech who made the recommendations or on the Owner for relying on code defaults without getting a report, but either way - it's not my fault.