EE's placing SCC analysis onto EC

Status
Not open for further replies.

MyCleveland

Senior Member
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Practice of placing responsibility of SCC analysis (liability) onto a given project EC.

Seen this trend increasing over the past years.

Would appreciate opinions on the issue, and ask one question.

How can submitted plans be approved, and a permit issued on a design that has taken place ?
 

joeytaft

New User
I think the question that needs to be asked is, does the AHJ consider this a design issue or an installation issue. For me this is most definitely a design issue, and I am not sure how a responsible professional engineer can hand this off to the contractor. Perhaps where the project is equivalent to a single family home, the electrical contractor may provide the fault current study for selecting equipment ratings, but not for a significant project. Also if there is a mistake made by the electrical contractor it may not be covered by their insurance and the professional engineering licensing board may have issue with you practicing engineering. I would be curious as to the exact language that shifts the responsibility and liability to the electrical contractor.
 

ron

Senior Member
It is unfortunately the way the industry is moving. There are many Electricians that do design of commercial systems without an Engineer and the Owners think they can get it cheaper.

The industry pushing more of the design responsibility to the field, where they think it can be more cost efficient.

The Owner feels they are saving money by lowering the Engineering fees and making projects move faster. Less time for coordination, and sending projects out for bid and construction before design is complete.

Design/Build is part of this movement where the future will be that all Contractors and Engineers will work for the same parent company. Essentially everyone loses
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
See it all the time so you sub it to a firm that specializes in studies and mark it up for more in your pocket.
Same here along with things such as seismic designs, I treat it as another sub-contract in my bid number.

Roger
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Same here along with things such as seismic designs, I treat it as another sub-contract in my bid number.

Roger
So you sub those things out and owner ultimately ends up spending more in the long run then he likely would have with just a single design firm from the start, right?

Some people tend to step over dimes to pick up pennies.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
So you sub those things out and owner ultimately ends up spending more in the long run then he likely would have with just a single design firm from the start, right?
Not my concern. I don't know what the designer and customer agreement was, my concern is getting paid for what I provide. If you simply absorb the cost that's your business.

Roger
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Not my concern. I don't know what the designer and customer agreement was, my concern is getting paid for what I provide. If you simply absorb the cost that's your business.

Roger
I understand, just saying owner probably spent more then he would have if he stuck with one design firm to do it all. Some of it may be not knowing the necessary process, some of it is trying to cut corners doesn't always work.
 

steve66

Senior Member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
Engineer
Design/Build is part of this movement where the future will be that all Contractors and Engineers will work for the same parent company. Essentially everyone loses

I'm not sure everyone losses. Contractors get the job without bidding it, they slash the engineering to "permit drawings" and then go with the cheapest engineer they can find, and then just cut quality to meet the budget and make their profit. They definitely win, although the other contractors who may have been more competitive loose.

The owners think they win, but the savings on engineering probably doesn't cover the loss from having a competitive bid.
 

ron

Senior Member
I would think the more challenging issue is, what if the short circuit calc done during construction results in values higher than those included in the the bid for equipment?

We perform preliminary calcs and final calcs, along with protective device coord and arc flash calcs, but know many of our competitors do not and push it on the contractor. However, we do push designated design of seismic to the contractor, because that is much closer to installation means and methods and I don't want to be involved in dictating that stuff, as well as the contractor already design supports without me by sizing channel and threaded rods, etc., so it is closer to their skill set.
 

gadfly56

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
I would think the more challenging issue is, what if the short circuit calc done during construction results in values higher than those included in the the bid for equipment?

We perform preliminary calcs and final calcs, along with protective device coord and arc flash calcs, but know many of our competitors do not and push it on the contractor. However, we do push designated design of seismic to the contractor, because that is much closer to installation means and methods and I don't want to be involved in dictating that stuff, as well as the contractor already design supports without me by sizing channel and threaded rods, etc., so it is closer to their skill set.

If I were a plan examiner that might be one of the first questions I'd ask. I wouldn't release them without the SCC confirming the gear is adequate.
 

MyCleveland

Senior Member
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
If I were a plan examiner that might be one of the first questions I'd ask. I wouldn't release them without the SCC confirming the gear is adequate.
That is exactly the take away I was hoping for. Discussing this issue with State Board that oversees Plan Examiners, and seem to agree.

Just spoke with insurance agent....who insures EE's and EC's.
When the EC signs that contract accepting responsibility for an "Engineering Analysis", he will be held liable and if coverage does not cover this service....left swinging in the wind with NO coverage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
"If I were a plan examiner that might be one of the first questions I'd ask. I wouldn't release them without the SCC confirming the gear is adequate."

That is exactly the take away I was hoping for. Discussing this issue with State Board that oversees Plan Examiners, and seem to agree.

Just spoke with insurance agent....who insures EE's and EC's.
When the EC signs that contract accepting responsibility for an "Engineering Analysis", he will be held liable and if coverage does not cover this service....left swinging in the wind with NO coverage.
Where is the design line drawn though? I install a lot of things without an engineer designing it. Some maybe are questionable as to who should do the design, most of what I do however probably shouldn't need professional engineering involved.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
Here is my take on it: The specifications that I issue call for Arc Flash and Selective Coordination analyses to be the responsibility of the EC. However, in order to conduct those two analyses, you have to first gather all the information needed to perform a Short Circuit Study. Therefore, to avoid duplication of effort, the specs call for the EC to do it all.

But to be clear, I am not asking the EC to take on the professional liability, nor am I asking theEC to perform engineering work. Rather, the specs say that the EC is to subcontract this effort to their chosen equipment vendor. That vendor will either have a PE on staff, or will subcontract the analyses to an engineering company. The liability therefore resides where it belongs: to the PE who signs and seals the analyses.

Here’s why I think this is the right approach. First, let’stalk about projects delivered on the “design – bid – build” method.

As the Engineer of Record, I will not be able to know which EC will win the bid, or what equipment vendor that EC will select. If I were to try to perform an Arc Flash or Selective Coordination analysis, I would need to know the exact make and model of all the breakers in the distributions ystem. I can’t know that when I issue the drawings for bidding. So I have to assign this to the EC.

Some jurisdictions require that the design include all the related analyses. In those instances, I will select a set of components as the “design basis,” and my analyses will demonstrate that that set of components will meet the requirements (e.g., panel ratings are above calculated SCC values, breakers selectively coordinate, etc.). The design package will include a statement that if the successful EC chooses any different components, then the EC becomes responsible for redoing the analyses.

Now let’s discussthe “design – build” and “design – assist” delivery methods.

This can go either way. I can do the analyses, provided only that the EC gives me all the information I need with regard to distribution system components (make, model, breakers, cable distances, etc.). The EC could instead sub this out to the equipment vendor. I am very quick and efficient at the Short Circuit Calculations. But the Arc Flash and Selective Coordination studies can require several iterations of selecting breakers, running the analyses, seeing what worked and what didn’t, selecting different breakers, rinse, repeat. The equipment vendor will know their equipment far better than I ever could. It is more efficient to give that work to the vendor. And here again, if a person has set up a computer model to run those two analyses, then to also run the Short Circuit Calculation is nothing more than one more pushing of a button.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
As Charlie points out, the designer will not know what manufacturer will end up with the distribution equipment, generators, UPS, etc... packages and although they might have an idea of lengths of metallic raceways, non-metallic raceways, conductor types and lengths, the design documents will not be accurate, therefor it only makes sense it is included in the bid documents. When I send out packages to say SQ D, Eaton, Siemens, etc... I include this as part of their package to quote.

Roger
 

MyCleveland

Senior Member
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
charlie b

"But to be clear, I am not asking the EC to take on the professional liability,"

I am not an attorney, but according to the insurance company....signing a contract requiring engineering deliverables....makes him/her liable even if services are sub'ed out.

I agree completely on Arc-Flash and coordination....has to be done based on equipment being installed.

What is happening though,
engineers are doing no advance work...




 

MyCleveland

Senior Member
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
What is happening though,
engineers are doing no advance work...
Equipment is being ordered that must be changed out in some instances....EC has to eat this.
Plans are being approved without a comprehensive SCC analysis.
Final second engineer's work is NOT submitted for review.

States take on this is...they don't care WHICH engineer does the work, but it has to be submitted BEFORE any plan approval.
Currently this is not happening.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
If I was an errors and omissions insurance company, I would not insure any liability based on short circuit and or arc flash calculations. I say this because the utility supply is too dynamic to be able to get a number that is valid for all possible conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top