Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Geotech Reports

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Charles makes some very good points.

Don't be a stranger,
-g

On 4/3/07, Charles R. Ashley Jr. < charles(--nospam--at)advanceeng.net> wrote:

To coin a familiar phrase in talk-radio: "Long time reader, first time poster", so here goes:

 

I have major concerns with "copying" the full report and including it on my plans.

 

The basic fact is it is not my work.  Therefore, why should I include it on my plans?  Wouldn't I therefore make myself liable for any mistakes made by the geotech?  Am I violating professional practice laws, by certifying (via my stamp on my plans) someone else's work over whom I have no review or authority aka "responsible charge" ?

 

Where does that stop?  Why shouldn't I include the arborist report since it says I cannot encroach on any existing trees on the site?  Why not the civil plans showing all the existing utilities and their interaction with my footings?  Seriously.  This is a slippery slope.

 

And of all things to put on your plans, geotech info?  The most heavily qualified, "this is our best guess", "good-luck in the field", "wow, we didn't get that in our borings" profession I deal with?  Not on my plans.  Besides, any one ever not had a geotech get out in the field, and then change his recommendations or is that just my experience alone?  Ok, so they change them, do I reprint my plans each time a revision is made?  In some municipalities, wouldn't that subject my plans to another plan review?  And again, because of someone else's work?

 

The fact remains one of the most significant reasons there are very few one-stop shops (architect, structural, EMP in one firm) is due to separation of liabilities.  Like it our not, it is true.  In those firms, if a mistake is made, there is no one else to blame.  So people specialized.  Each person does what he/she is good at, and relies on the fact that others on the team are good at what they do.  And if there is a problem, it diffuses the blame nicely.  (Just being honest.)

 

When I have plan checkers ask for that I respond with my statement above:  "It's not my work, and it is not ethical or legal for me to place it on my plans."  And if they insist, then I ask them to write a memo on bldg dept letter head directing me to be unethical and violate the law.  I have yet to get one of those letters.

 

"Thanks for taking my call."

 

Charles R. Ashley Jr., P.E.

Advance Engineering

 

 


From: Kevin Below [mailto:kbofoz(--nospam--at)gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 7:54 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Geotech Reports

 

I always include the full report, because the geotech will sometimes point out potential difficulties with the site and I want the bidders to have as much info as I have.  I don't want to forget even a comma.  I copy any of his recommendations that I want to follow to the drawings or specs, so as to be clear what I require vs the recommendations. 

On 4/2/07, Jim Lutz <Jim.Lutz(--nospam--at)bhcconsultants.com> wrote:

What I usually see is either a geotechnical report referenced as available for inspection by bidders, or the boring logs and lab test results included as an attachment to the specs.

Owners have an obligation to share their knowledge of existing conditions with bidders, such as subsurface investigations, hazardous material surveys, etc. The literature is full of construction claim judgments against Owners who failed to do so. Sharing the geotechnical engineer' s opinions and design recommendations may or may not be a good idea, depending on the intended use of the information . I think it is normally best just to share all hard data and let the bidder be responsible for its interpretation.

Jim Lutz, P.E., S.E .

720 3rd Avenue, Suite 1200

Seattle, WA 98104-1820

206 505 3400 Ext 126

206 505 3406 (Fax)

 




--
-gm