Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: When is an Architect or Engineer Require[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: When is an Architect or Engineer Require
- From: "Dennis Wish" <dennis.wish(--nospam--at)verizon.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:09:53 -0700
Bill, To add to Roger's comprehensive work, let me add a few things from local experience: 1. Local jurisdictions here do not require an Architect or Engineer if the roof is to be stripped and replaced with the same weight material. Ponding may be due to creep that has been set in due to excessive layers of composition roofing if this is what existed. 2. Local jurisdictions also do not consider the need to upgrade any lateral systems as long as the materials used are a replacement equivalent to the weight of the materials removed. 3. Plans may be prepared by anyone - including the building owner on a napkin if the building department is willing to accept this. However, when a roofing contract or is used, most building departments in this area do not require a designer or professional to prepare plans and it is usually the roofer who provides the sketches necessary to add new materials. These generally show only the footprint of the building and a copy of the ICBO report for the materials placed on the roof. 4. An engineer is required when the new materials exceed the older materials. For example if a roof is sheathed with composition roofing at 4.5 psf and a new tile roof is installed at 5.0 psf - most building departments will require a professional to verify the capability of the existing materials to support the new load. 5. Specific specifications for work to be done (a scope of work) is used to insure uniformity in the bidding process. If the homeowners association chooses to disregard the specifications this becomes their prerogative although they also assume responsibility for what is presented and what is omitted from the original specs. The building department has no liability or responsibility over who the HOA chooses to accept. >From your explanation, the HOA hired the Facilities person to develop a scope of work and documents so as to obtain uniformity between bids and then deviated from what was provided to them. The Facilities person may provide a disclaimer relinquishing him of responsibility should the project go bad because the HOA has chosen to act on their own and disregard the conformance to the bid documents. These are issues that are not related to the building department until the actual project is submitted for roofing permits and then the building department may only be interested in the description of the materials, crickets for drainage and appropriate flashing as well as issuance of an ICBO or similar product specification. I'm not sure if this adds a perspective to what Roger has stated, but most building departments take a very loose view on roofing when done by a licensed contractor. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Roger Turk [mailto:73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 7:54 PM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: When is an Architect or Engineer Require Bill, It appears that the first place to look would be Texas' Architectural and Engineering registration laws regarding the definition of "architectural services," and "engineering services." The second place to look would be the jurisdiction's building code, regarding what is exempt from being performed by a registrant. (Don't look at what is exempt from a building permit, because all work, exempt from a permit or not, has to comply with the building code.) The installation of tapered joists indicates to me that the building had a ponding problem, and a ponding problem means a potential structural problem, which means that a Structural Engineer should have been involved. Now, what specifications was the successful(?) bidder supposed to comply with? If he/she sent a letter and said, "This is what I propose .... ," without reference to the "facility consultant's" specifications, and the association accepted it, the specifications by the "facility consultant" are out the window. They are not part of any agreement now. But, these fine details are in the area that a lawyer needs to address, not an engineer. The engineering questions would be: 1. Was the work such that an engineer needed to be involved in preparing the plans and specifications? 2. Was the work such that an architect needed to be involved in preparing the plans and specifications? 3. What is the state law regarding architectural and engineering services? 4. What does the jurisdiction's building code say about having the plans and specifications prepared by a registrant? 5. Was the contractor's proposed work compliant with the building code regardless of whether or not it was prepared by a registrant? HTH A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural) Tucson, Aridzona Bill Polhemus wrote: . > I know that I need to research this topic more thoroughly--and I intend to . > do so--but I'd like some informed opinions from this list if I might. . > I have an ongoing forensic job, where a contractor made an extremely . > botched attempt at installing new roofs on the buildings of a condominium . > complex. This was a major undertaking, in that the project was valued at . > about $650,000. . > In doing my investigation, I discovered that the owner's association, who . > contracted to have this work done, had received "consulting services" . > from a "facility consultant." This consultant provided a pretty decent . > set of bid documents--essentially a set of specifications--and at least . > in theory was responsible for receiving the contractor bids and advising . > on the awarding of the bid. . > Without going into too much detail, the winning bid appears to have come . > from a contractor who did not even attempt to address the bid document, . > but faxed in a three-page "this is what we're going to do" proposal which . > ignored the spec. For whatever reason, he was given the job. . > Ostensibly the "facility consultant" was also engaged to provide . > "construction management," which in reality turned out to be having some . > young man standing on the roof watching while the contractor did his . > thing. . > This "facility consultant representative," for lack of a more precise . > term, never filed any reports that I can see, nor attempted to hold the . > contractor to the specification that the contractor was, at least in . > theory, supposed to be using in supplying materials and providing . > installation of the new roof. . > Things came to a head when one of the condo residents, an outspoken critic . > of the project from the beginning, "blew the whistle" and informed the . > City of Houston Code Enforcement office that the roofing was being done . > without a permit. The city "red-tagged" the job, and shut them down. . > Bear in mind that part of this project required removal of the old . > built-up roof system down to the original plywood decking, laying down . > tapered lumber rafters and new decking, and a multi-ply roof membrane on . > top of that. So there was some "structural" work going on, and the City . > correctly pointed out that a building permit was needed (the contractor, . > with apparent agreement on the part of the "facility consultant," had . > maintained that no building permit was needed for "refoofing"--as if all . > that was being done was replacement of the membrane). . > In the end, the roofer had to get a structural engineer to provide some . > sealed "plans" for the "design" of the new roof. I won't even attempt to . > describe the ridiculous 8-1/2" x 11" document that constituted the . > "plans." . > These "plans" were in turn based on a sketch included by the "facility . > consultant" in their bid documents. That sketch showed the tapered rafters . > being connected to the existing roof, etc., in what can only be, in my . > opinion, an overt attempt to provide structural engineer services. . > While the contractor's "plans" WERE sealed by a P.E.--long after the job . > had reached the 40% completion mark--they essentially copied what the . > "facility consultant" had done. . > Now I find out that no one at the "facility consultant" is a licensed . > architect OR engineer. Yet they were putting out this bid specification, . > and "managing" the project after the bid was awarded, supposedly in terms . > of this spec. The "facility consultant" never made any attempt to make . > sure a building permit was obtained--and why? Because, at least my own . > theory goes, they knew they were not able to seal the bid document with an . > architect's or engineer's seal. . > What I would like to know is, based on what you have read here, is this . > not an illegal attempt to practice unlicensed engineering or architecture? . > Comments, please. ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- When is an Architect or Engineer Require
- From: Roger Turk
- When is an Architect or Engineer Require
- Prev by Subject: RE: When is an Architect or Engineer Require
- Next by Subject: When is an Architect or Engineer Required?
- Previous by thread: RE: When is an Architect or Engineer Require
- Next by thread: Re: When is an Architect or Engineer Required?