Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: CFS gage on drawings[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: CFS gage on drawings
- From: Mark Gilligan <MarkKGilligan(--nospam--at)compuserve.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:32:56 -0500
I find this concept that the SEOR is inherently responsibile for some scope of work interesting and bafeling. We are responsible for performing those services we contracted to provide. Typically the Architect or Owner decides to make the building skin design build in order to save up front design fees and or to save money by allowing the contractor to do things his way. Along with this savings there is some additional risk which should accrue to the individual to decided to go design build. In this context if the SEOR puts stud gages and similar information on the drawings he can only lose. If the gage is too large then the Owner does not obtain the intended savings. If the gage is too small then either the Contractor either comes back for an extra or he may assume that the SEOR designed part of the system and that he is only responsible for the un-defined components which could result in an unsafe design. I have heard this argument. Once the Contractor designs the studs and the SEOR is provided with the Contractors design he is faced with the option of reviewing the design in its entirety or just reviewing the interface to those elements he designed. If the SEOR decides to review the Contractor's design then he shares some liability for the design even though his fee was reduced because the skin was removed from his scope of work. A limitation of liability agreement similar to what is obtained with a peer review would help control the liability but there is still the need to be paid for the time spent. If as a result of the review you require changes be made you run the risk of creating a claim situation, unless the changes are clearly necessary to insure compliance with the building code. In many instances the Owner will not be appreciative of these contractor claims. If you just check the connection to the primary structure and there is a problem then you can point to your contract. You may have to spend some time dealing with the problems but you may be able to bill the Owner or the Architect for this additional time. It comes down to the question are you better off by preventing the problem or by providing a legal shield. One of the problems with checking the Contractors design when this is not required by your contract is that you have gone beyond your scope of work and thus it may be easier for others to claim that your scope of work is broader than stated in your contract. The viable strategies include: --The SEOR designs all of the building skin and is paid for it. --The Contractor designs the building skin. The SEOR reviews the Contractors design and obtains a limitation of liability for this review. I am not aware of this being done. --The Contractor designs the building skin and the SEOR only reviews it for loads on the primary structure. --The SEOR states in his scope of work that he will review this submittal and then he does so. This implies that he will accept a lesser profit margin which may mean that this strategy is not very viable. If the SEOR limits his review to the loads imposed on the primary structure he should make this very clear when he returns the submittal to the Architect. The worse that you can do is to have others assume that you did something that you did not do. If they do not like your disclaimer is is cheaper to sort it out now than later after there is a problem. Make it clear in the contract doduments what you are designing and what you expect the Contractor to design. Do not count on the Contractor's engineer checking your design. If you need a design check, then arrange for it seperately. The important point is that, if the Owner or the Architect decide to accept some risk by having the Contractor design the building skin it is not the SEOR's responsibility to take on that risk. The SEOR can advise the Architect on strategies to minimize the risk but ultimately the SEOR should not be responsible if there are problems. Towards this end the SEOR needs to have a clear strategy to protect himself when things go wrong. If you are not comfortable with the way your client wants to work then change clients. Mark Gilligan ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * 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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Re: CFS gage on drawings
- From: M. David Finley, P.E.
- Re: CFS gage on drawings
- Prev by Subject: RE: CFS gage on drawings
- Next by Subject: Re: CFS gage on drawings
- Previous by thread: RE: CFS gage on drawings
- Next by thread: Re: CFS gage on drawings