Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: When is an Architect or Engineer Required?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
you get what you pay for. Check the contract re: guarantee or
responsibility.


God Bless  

This e-mail and any attachment contains information which is private 
and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are 
not an addressee,you are not authorized to read, copy or use the e-mail
or any attachment.If you have received this e-mail in error, 
please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.
--- Chris Lillback
--- thedrdirt1(--nospam--at)earthlink.net



> [Original Message]
> From: jim jensen <doublejtp(--nospam--at)yahoo.com>
> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
> Date: 7/15/2003 11:05:54 PM
> Subject: Re: When is an Architect or Engineer Required?
>
> I would call it, at this point, a 40% practice of
> working without an architect, or an engineer involved.
> Come tomarrow, it will probaly be 45%. WHO is the
> contact person??   ie, the Person in charge of this
> Project??, if it is the home owners association, let
> them eat their own Cake,they can go after their
> Contractor. I'd be checking to see how many last names
> are the same/ follow the money. If, it is, illegal or
> not, seems to me that you have far greater problems to
> attend too.Unless, of course, this is to be your main
> thrust in a Court of Law,then the Lawyers get to eat
> the Cake. No, I wouldn't call it illegal, I'd call it
> a Job. Jim Jensen, just a residential builder.  
> --- Bill Polhemus <bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc> 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 
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ******
> > ******** 
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********