Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Plan Check Corrections - Engineers responsibility

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
I agree with you totally and the key is in your second paragraph where you state:
"The Architect's Practice Act allows an architect to be in responsible charge of a wide variety of structural projects (schools and hospitals are the only exemptions I am aware of), so I believe it would be within an architect's scope of work to hire an alternate structural engineer to design some element for him, then he would stamp that calculation and detail(s).  If that architect stamps/signs the calcs and detail, he is now accepting responsibility for that work -- a smart engineer will come up with some verbiage to clearly explain his scope of work, recognizing the fact that the architect can legally assume responsibility for the whole project.  I think the architect could even hire several structurals to design different parts -- as long as the architect is stamping all parts of the submittal package, he can assume responsibility for the whole shebang.  If the plan checkers are asking for something to be done, and it is agreed that this does in fact need to be done (sounds like it needs to be addressed), the architect needs to make sure it gets done regardless of which engineer he hires."  Dave Adams, S.E.
This allows the Architect to take any work from an outside source in addition to the limitation of the EOR for the structural. In other words, the EOR can be responsible for what he believes is his contractual obligations while the Architect is free to hire another engineer to address the railing issues as long as he takes responsibility by wet-sealing the work of his consultant.
To be a zealot one more time - this opens up a potential issue related to Outsourcing. The Architect is free to outsource the structural work to companies outside the United States in order to maximize his profits if he is willing to take responsibility for the work provided. Most Architects that I know feel confident in the work that they do and unless there is a difficult condition in a custom home, they are more likely to outsource the engineering work and hope that failure does not occur. In general, the California Architectural Board (CAB) allows this practice and unless there is a suit brought against the Architect for damages, he need not show competency in the work of his sub-contractors to wet seal their work.
We all know that this is a dangerous practice. This architect understands his liability and has chosen to wet-seal (if necessary) my work because he has known me for so long. However, there are companies (Manufactured wood trusses for example) who will hire an architect for a set fee to wet-seal the company's calculations and drawings with the blessing of the CAB. I am not sure what the allowance in other states is, possibly others can give their opinions.