Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"
- From: Samir Ghosn <sghosn(--nospam--at)harris-assoc.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 14:51:51 -0700
Try the UBC as a basis for standard of care. See section 1601 and 1605.1. It seems to define the basis for design requirements and minimum standards. Samir Ghosn, P.E. Harris and Associates At 10:29 AM 10/3/2000 -0400, you wrote: >In order to clarify the intent of my "Proposed Standard of Care", I would >like to offer the following: > >My intent is to provide wording which is to be incorporated into standard >forms of contract for engineering services. It is not currently intended to >be part of a building code or a formal code of ethics. As with any contract, >these provisions could be modified by the parties entering into the contract >as they see fit. It is only intended to provide a means for an Owner to know >what level of quality assurance they are contracting for. > >The portions shown in italics were not intended to be part of the formal >contract but rather to be a guideline on where each level of quality >assurance might be used. I'm not sure exactly how such "guidelines" can be >included with standard forms of contract and could use some advice of how >this could be done. But no one would be "legally bound" to follow these >guidelines in my proposal. > >I would like to thank those who have offered some initial response to my >proposal. (I recognize that it takes some time to develop a complete >response, although I was surprised that my initial post did not at least >generate a little discussion.) > >I recognize that we cannot "legislate ethics" - but we can provide defined >quality assurance procedures. Similarly, we cannot legislate that >contractors provide the best quality in construction but we can require >inspection of their work, which UBC has in fact "legislated" via the >building code's special inspections requirements. I don't see why we can't >do the same in engineering. The proposed checking procedures do not define >ethics but they do provide specific procedures to follow as a means to an >end of achieving better quality. As I stated, I am not "currently" proposing >wording to be included in a building code; however, I must state that I >would not be opposed to doing just that. Nevertheless, I felt that starting >with "optional" contract language would be easier than proposing actual code >requirements. > > >Regarding a couple of specific comments by Christopher Wright: > >> Not to rain on the parade, but you're not going to be able to redefine >standard of care >> in an e-mail because it already exists. > >You have a good point that I cannot redefine "standard of care" since it is >a legal term which is already defined. However, this does not prevent a >contract from including defined quality assurance procedures. I will simply >need to modify the wording from "The standard of care for this project shall >also include the specific quality assurance procedures ..." to read "This >project shall include the specific quality assurance procedures ...". > >> As far as the quality levels go you're only addressing existing standards >for engineering >> practice covered in state engineering law. > >Please clarify this statement. I do not know of any existing written >standards or state engineering laws which explicitly cover the types of >quality assurance procedures I have proposed. > >On a number of occasions I have received contractor submittals of designs >performed by Professional Engineers which were unchecked and which included >significant errors. What standard or law can I point to regarding their >unchecked and erroneous designs? I have also reviewed previous designs by >Professional Engineers for existing structures which also were unchecked and >contained errors. It does not appear to me that there is a consistent >standard of care regarding "checking". If a client purchases engineering >services, how does the client know what level of quality assurance they will >receive from the engineer? Why shouldn't each engineer contracting for such >services be held to the same standard of service? > > > >
- RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"
- From: Sherman, William
- RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"
- Prev by Subject: RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"
- Next by Subject: RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"
- Previous by thread: RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"
- Next by thread: RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"