Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Proposed Standard of Care "again"

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
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? 
>
>
>
>