Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Steel Joists - Shop drawing review

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
At 02:17 PM 03/02/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>
>If the steel joist calculations and drawings are designed and stamped (with
>a stamp from the state where the joists are going to be installed) by the
>manufacturer's engineer, can the city building department rightly demand
>that the EOR for the building also stamp the drawings?  If the city can,
>should the city demand the EOR's stamp?
>
>Or should the EOR only review the drawings, etc. and place a shop drawing
>review stamp on it since the EOR did not design nor have responsible charge
>for the design of the steel joists?  The EOR only specified loads, etc.
>
>I am on the cusp of having a discussion with a city plan checker about this
>and would like to get some input.
>
>Mike O'Brien, SE (as of 2 days ago)
-------------------------------------------------------

Mike, hearty congratulations on your new license. Now you're worth more but
the bounty on you is higher. (:()

If the project is under the UBC, Section 106.3.4.2, 3rd paragraph ('94 ed
cited) sets out the duty of the EOR to review such deferred submittals as
steel joist designs and forward them to the building official with a
"notation" indicating certain findings the review resulted in.  The review
itself would seem to be a licensed professional's practice function, not a
mere courtesy. 

If the state is California, the EOR would not properly sign and stamp the
steel joist drawings as to being in responsible charge of their preparation.
Someone else already did that.

The review findings "notation" however looks to me like it is an
"engineering report", by its nature. The Cal PE Act regulates use of
engineering stamps and provides that civil engineering reports are to be
signed and stamped by the engineer responsible for same. (Sec 6735)  The EOR
would stamp and sign in that capacity.

Since a stamp and signature by themselves say who done it, but not WHAT was
done, it is important to indicate that the stamp and signature pertains only
to the added review notation per Code Sec 106.3.4.2.  That way everything
and everybody are satisfied, hopefully without misunderstandings. 

Many people however believe a stamp always indicates authorship of all
that's seen on the document stamped, and often more yet. This presumption
has to be overcome in some appropriate way that is readily seen alongside
the stamp.

It seems equivalently complying, and safer, to place a different kind of EOR
review notation, that omits the PE stamp, on the steel joist documents
themselves, and make the "engineering report" a separate letter that
discusses the review and is stamped and signed by the reviewing EOR. 

I recall reading in Cal Jur 3d in the law library under "public officers"
that it is up to the regulated person to be sure the official is acting
within his/her authority, so as not to put oneself at risk by obeying an
improper order. A local official would not have same authority to override
or re-interpret the stamp use controlling PE Act that the official has with
respect to the building code.

Charles O. Greenlaw SE   Sacramento CA