Designated structural engineer of record

I'm not sure a designation form is what I would use here - to me that implies you are performing supervision of their work. Perhaps at best a letter saying you did not perform any field review for the project, and XXX performed the field review without your supervision and are responsible for the work. Only if it's a good client though, otherwise probably a letter saying you weren't informed of construction and did not perform any field review and let them hash it out with the city.

Have you been paid for this project?
Is it an important client?
What if you were to just ignore the request?

If he's qualified to do the inspection then why be upset or do anything other than ask for a copy of the inspection report? Third-party inspection is a standard ethical and legal requirement. You cant inspect your own work anymore than you can peer review your own design before it goes out the door. Yes that's a challenge for one-man firms and many in less-regulated areas lie/cheat the system, but it doesnt change the requirement.

The companies that have employed me have all performed special inspections for projects that did not involve us as part of the design team. We have also provided design services for projects that used other firms for special inspections. Is there additional information you can share to help us understand your concern?

@ canwesteng,

That is not a bad idea. I can just let them know the situation and have them deal with the inspector on it.

@ SWComposites,

No i don't care for this client. I was actually retained by the project Architect who I no longer work with after realizing how shady their clients were. All the issues I have are from those projects.

@ CWB1, This is not an inspection.. this is an observation, a very different thing and treated differently. It may be different in the Mechanical field.

@ TigerGuy, again, this is not an inspection, this is a STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION.

From the other side... as the engineer asked to do the review.

I've had a couple of instances like this... one, I was asked to do construction review (never do inspections) of a project with another engineer's seal on it. As a courtesy, I wrote him a letter confirming him that I was. He phoned me and informed me that he hadn't been fully paid. I declined the work. Had I taken the work, my response would be similar to Canwesteng's and that the work was substantially generally in conformance with the original sealed drawings. This would be with the caveat that the originally sealed drawings had not been reviewed (I would do a quick review, anyway).

The other one, I was asked to do construction design and review a project with another engineer's seal on it. He had since retired and he was one of the first engineers I did work for, forty fifty years earlier. I wrote him a letter (eMail) and let him know... and we spent an hour or so on the phone chatting; a lot had happened in the interim. He was quite pleased that I had considered him one of the better engineers I had worked with. I was lucky... the first four engineers I worked with were exceptional.

A few years back I did a powerpoint presentation for the engineers at the company I worked for. It was on forensic reports, and the report I critiqued was the one prepared for the Algol Mall collapse. The work was never for public information, but I wrote the EOR for the report and informed him that I was using his report for this presentation. This was just a common courtesy.


-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Similar thing has happened to me in the past on two projects.

In one project, I kind of hammered the "designated" inspector to go back out and give more photos and do a bunch of paperwork. Under that situation it was the most practical way to handle it, but not my ideal strategy.

In the other project, I ended up sending a letter of withdrawal to all parties. I wasn't comfortable with how the other engineer responded to some of my requests and he seemed to do a "drive-by" field review, got paid, and then expected me to sign off on it. The letter of withdrawal is spelled out in some of our professional guidelines about what to do when there is a change of professional. There are different degrees to which you can reduce your liability. In this case, I waived all my liability for any design and any field work. The other engineer (likely) had to re-submit their own drawings and project forms.

After those two situations I added a statement in my standard contract stating that (paraphrased) I do not consent to the Client engaging another party for field reviews and reserve the right to withdraw from the project if that happens.

Added to my current 'Project Notes' file. Thanks... It's sort of in there already as 'third party use', but, I've improved it...thanks again.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

I was absolutely livid to hear that there was some other engineer out there signing off on someone else project

Click to expand...

This is not an inspection.. this is an observation

Click to expand...

Those are contradictory statements. Regardless, the point remains - why do you care?

A vaguely similar situation happened to me a few weeks ago. Drew up a foundation plan, but a few things weren't aligned so the contractor had their engineer write a repair letter. The building official rejected it and said the EOR must review and approve any repairs. I appreciated that. And the other engineer is someone who notoriously will sign anything. And I mean anything.

Idk the details of how things work in CA, but I would immediately get your statement in writing sent to all parties. That way everyone is informed of the situation and your stance.

Will the building department accept this other engineer's observation or not until you provide the letter?

CWB1 - Not necessarily contradictory.

An engineer could be singing off on the observation of a project.

I think the OP cares because the client apparently perceives the OP as still having some sense of responsibility on the construction of the project and, sometime after construction has been progressing, feels that the OP needs to step forward and (after the fact) delegate some of the OP's original responsibility to this new engineer.

Our jurisdiction uses a form for the Structural Observer to sign before commencement of the project.
This identifies the responsible party for observation. The IBC code does not require this engineer to be the EOR but rather a registered professional engineer.
The Observer doesn't accept responsibility for the design merely for the structural observation requirements.

Usually we observe our own projects but I think the setup of the code is to allow any registered professional to do that work.

I always review and never inspect. My report has the main title of objects as 'Observations'.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

Following up on dik's post - just my own definitions of the difference between inspection and observation:
[blue]
1. Inspection - verifying that the work itself is done according to the plans.

2. Observation - verifying that the contractor understands you through your communication device - i.e. your plans and specifications and thus has the ability to do the work correctly.

For inspection, an inspector is there to duh..inspect the work throughout in an attempt to catch any and all deviations from the contract documents. SEOR's rarely are charged with this.
With inspections - you are looking at most everything back-checking the contractor's actual work.

For observations, you are there to determine if the contactor understands you. You do this via a partial inspection of the work to see if communication is happening.
For example, you might check a certain concrete beam reinforcing to see if the installation of the rebar is correct - then you have a level of assurance that if the contractor can get this one (or two or three) beam(s) right, then they have the means/understanding to get the others right.

Two completely different goals but both provide a means of improving quality.
[/blue]

And there is a lot less liability attached to the one.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik