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

RE: EOR (Kansas city Hyatt Walkkway)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
When I read the posting by Peter Higgins I misinterpreted  his statement
"If you exercise the authority (i.e. design something and apply your seal
to it), then you had better ensure that you retain responsibility for its
proper implementation."   I assumed that since that part of the engineers
design included the specification of welding electrodes and welding
practices, that Mr. Higgins meant that the EOR needed to "retain
responsibility for its implementation."  

If I were to remain responsible for the implementation of the welding I
would assume that I would need to:
1)  Provide the weld inspection services.
2)  Manage aspects of the steel fabrication operations.
3)  Take charge of the steel erection procedures to the extent of selecting
and supervising the welders.

Mr. Higgins informed me that:  

"The EOR is responsible for the design, not the construction." An that
""Proper implementation" of your design extends to all facets of it,
including shop drawings, RFI's, etc. By definition, design is not the
execution of the work."

Mr. Higgins believes that it is necessary to produce the shop drawings in
order to clearly communicate his design while most other engineers who show
connection designs on the construction documents believe that the
information can be communicated clearly without resorting to producing shop
drawings.  The only difference is where you draw the line in the sand.  

Part of my confusion is related to the fact that the AISC Code of Standard
Practice states that the EOR is responsible for the completed structure and
I thought Mr. Higgins was taking a similar position.  But that is another
topic.

Part of the problem in coming to an understanding about the
responsibilities of the EOR, is the difficulty in communicating our meaning
without misunderstanding.  When there is a lack of clarity in our
communication not only do we spend a lot of time and energy in resolving
the misunderstanding it also opens up the possibility that some individuals
that do not have a good appreciation of the issues will go away with a
mistaken impression.  

This is especially a problem when an Architect or Owner has an erroneous
understanding of the EOR's responsibilities.  In such situations they may
feel that the Engineer is avoiding his responsibilities and as such they
may either make unreasonable demands or they may be more likely to
litigate.  If the Judge and the Jury also have mistaken expectations then
it makes it all the more difficult to prevail in court.  

We not only need to have a good understanding as to what we are responsible
for but we also need to communicate this to those we  do business with. 
The question is how do we best communicate this?



Mark Gilligan