Conflict of Interest 2

I don't know the technicalities, but as a general principle the answer is yes that is OK. You are putting your profeesional rep on the line just as if it was a job for a third party.

But, if as an inspector you raise a niggle with the builder over the interpretation of the plans, I'd guess it would escalate rather quickly.





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

I agree with Mr. Locock.

You can do either in my mind.

However, if you are the originator of the site plan, then you should not also be the 3rd party inspector - even if the plot of land is not yours. This, I would think, is a conflict of interest.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

I agree with all. I'd add that if you are the EOR, and someone else is the inspector, it is not unethical for you to provide unofficial inpection/observation for the good of your own investments. However, you are stepping on the bounds of the inspector and contractor will be frustrated.

Ashereng's got it. In fact, in PA, USA, it would not be legally allowed for you to sign off on the inspections if you did the design. But, sure, why would you not design your own house, if you are capable? My cousin is a GC. He did not design his home, because he is not qualified. But, he did build it, because he is qualified.

Signature under construction, sorry about the mess - Steve

I disagree with that, LHA. The purpose of any inspector is to watch out for the best interests of the Owner and help verify that the contractor is performing work in accordance with the dseign plans.

There is no conflict of interest because the Owner's interests align with the designer and the inspector who are all the same human being.

Jae,

I agree, I fail to see where the conflict of interest is with a personal home.

No engineer in their right mind would design their house to anything less than the code.

The only reason a separate engineer needs to be involved in the first place is because the owner doesnt know how to design it.

I personally would want to be the one that designs and inspects my own home and I would not trust it to anyone else.

I don't know the legalities, but the conflict is clear to me.

The conflict lies in that it may not be engineer's home for long. He may decide to sell it. To get it done cheaply he would have incentive to cut corners.

-b

So bvanhiel - are you saying the conflict is when the guy acts as his own engineer?

Or is it when he inspects the work?

Thanks to everyone for the responses, thus far. bvantheil is right on ther

Personally, I find it a major conflict of interest...hence the initial post.

The "engineer" in question used his position to create a nightmare for me,,,, a "mega-mansion" on (quite literally) a sand hill immediatly above and adjacent to my property...without soil and erosion controls.

I guess an engineer with ethics would have been tolerable...but this the kind of guy who makes the professional look bad. I have only revealed a little about "the situation" but intend on bringing this to the state professional licensing board.

bvanhiel was right on...exactly.

Thanks

Well, I still have my doubts. It may be that the "engineer" in question has cut corners, screwed their neighbors, and allowed work to be performed poorly.

But the pure question originally asked was - is it UNETHICAL to be your own engineer and is it also UNETHICAL to perform your own inspections on your own design on your own property after the governing jurisdiction has reviewed the plans and issued a construction permit.

I would say to both - no it's not unethical per most US state laws.

The fact that no erosion controls were present is not an ethical issue. It's a design issue and one that should be governed by one neighbor filing a claim against their neighbor, not by notifying the engineering board.

As an engineer, there has been no conflict of interest in that the parties involved in the direct project (owner, constractor, and engineer) are not in "conflict" at all.

Another way to look at it is that if there were separate humans involved in this project, the same lack of erosion controls could still have happened (it does all the time in my city area) and thus isn't necessarily due to any ethical situation...just poor performance.

What is the function of the "third party" inspector and who does he represent? If he functions as or replaces the building inspector representing the government, the conflict is clear. If he represents the owner there is no conflict. But neither of these situations really describes a "third party" who represents neither. Is this language in the building code law, and does the statute offer some guidance?

In PA, USA, "Third Party Inspector" is a legal term. It is a private entity legally contracted to a Municipal (or County) government to do inspections for any number of reasons. I do them for Performance Security Bonding reductions, for sitework, others do them to ensure conformance to UBC, for inside the bldg (and outside, for ADA compliance).

If I do a site design, I can not legally inspect that site and release security. Specifically, because of Conflict of Interest (another legal term in PA, USA). I can (and quite often, do) inspect the site right next door, where I did not do the design.

I can't believe there is a place that allows a bldg designer to perform Third Party Inspections, but, apparently, there is/are. Glad I don't live there.

Signature under construction, sorry about the mess - Steve

(NOTICE: I in no way have professional experience or qualifications in this field)

I would have no problem with a PE doing the engineering and certifying the plans for their own home or property. I see no ethical conflict there. What I am not clear on is whether the inspection is strictly for the homeowner's own benefit or if it is to certify that the project conforms to the standards and codes, and that inspection is required by law.

If there is a legal requirement for the inspection, I would have a hard time with the person who did the design ensuring that it was executed properly, let alone if that person was also the homeowner. I see a way to slip substandard engineering through without the proper checks and balances. On the otherhand if the inspection is just a formality, or a check on the contractors performing the work, I would think that the engineer who certified the plans and what is more, the homeowner, would be the best choice for the task.

David

Keep in mind we're talking about private property here, not open to the public.

I agree that there may be a distinction here between "inspection" and engineering "observation" or "special inspections".

If I were to build a new house in my city, the city has inspectors that must inspect the house at various stages and approve the building for occupancy. That, I would agree, is not for the engineer to do themselves, but the proper city authority.

Other "inspections" that are required by the owner, architect, or engineer, simply to hold the contractor accountable to the contract documents can (and is often) performed by the engineer.

JAE:
Other "inspections" that are required by the owner, architect, or engineer, simply to hold the contractor accountable to the contract documents can (and is often) performed by the engineer.

LHA:
True, but that person is not called a "Third Party Inspector", as the OP asked about.

Signature under construction, sorry about the mess - Steve

"third party inspector" isn't a very common term in most of the states I'm licensed in regarding state ethics rules.