EE's placing SCC analysis onto EC

[charlie b]

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.

Perhaps you misunderstood what the insurance agent told you, or perhaps the agent misunderstood your question. Here is what you said at first:

When the EC signs that contract accepting responsibility for an "EngineeringAnalysis", he will be held liable and if coverage does not cover this service....

This is a key point: the EC is not accepting responsibility for the analysis. By law, the responsibility for an engineering analysis can only be assumed by a professional engineer who is licensed in the project’s state. Furthermore, it must be the engineer who either performed or supervised the analysis.

Engineering companies are frequently hired by architecture companies to perform the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and other discipline design work. The architect is not accepting responsibility for the designs that are performed, signed, and sealed by the engineers.

 

[gadfly56]

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.

The standard of performance for engineers does not require perfection. "Reasonable care" is all that's necessary. If you have LV distribution and accidental connection could to HV lines could only occur by both dropping onto a railroad track I don't know if you need to take that scenario into account.

 

[Jraef]

Perhaps you misunderstood what the insurance agent told you, or perhaps the agent misunderstood your question. Here is what you said at first:

This is a key point: the EC is not accepting responsibility for the analysis. By law, the responsibility for an engineering analysis can only be assumed by a professional engineer who is licensed in the project’s state. Furthermore, it must be the engineer who either performed or supervised the analysis.

Engineering companies are frequently hired by architecture companies to perform the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and other discipline design work. The architect is not accepting responsibility for the designs that are performed, signed, and sealed by the engineers.

Bingo.
The contract is for the EC to ensure it is done, not that they actually do it. And it's done this way because, as mentioned earlier, there are factors in the component selection, design and installation that will affect the SCC analysis, so although it can be ESTIMATED ahead of time, to actually CALCULATE it, you need the final final installed system. The alternative would be for the PE to do it all up front and specify an EXACT list of specific equipment, installation methods and materials, no substitutions, no changes, no adaptations. Nobody likes that either.

 

[publicgood]

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

Roger’s brief summary covers it. The engineer should be performing high level studies based on maximum available fault currents. We do this and note what is shown on the drawings is a minimum and that equipment shop drawings will not be approved until there is an approved study. Our due diligence is then in the submittal stages where we thoroughly review the study, which was done and stamped by a qualified engineer, as required by the specification.

 

[Ingenieur]

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...

​

just because an engineer asks an ec to do a scc study doesn't mean the engineer hasn't
I always do
how else will the equipment ratings be spec'ed?
I then compared the ec's equipment specific one with my generic run and made any adjustments I felt necessary via co
imo this results in a better end product at slight cost

 

[MyCleveland]

Great responses, but I would have liked to have heard from some EC's who have actually ran this past their insurance company and attorney.

Cannot respond to every comment, but can we ALL agree on this...Each contractor and the second engineer should run this past their insurance company and attorney.

I was parroting info from an insurance provider hoping to help protect EC's if they have not taken the time to explore this issue.

I went back a second time to insurer, did not explain incorrectly, and they stand by the original statements.

Again I am going to say something that implies legal expertise, which I have none. Always check with individual vendor and attorney.
The person holding a contract is the FIRST to get named when something goes SOUTH.
If the second engineer works for EC, he/she is named and then you are at the mercy of the judge to argue you have NO liability and separate you.
What if I am the second engineer and I slip in a HOLD-HARMLESS clause in the fine print or max liability is the value of my fee, is the EC then allowed to slip off the hook.

And we are back to....Each contractor and the second engineer should run this past their insurance company and attorney

 

[drktmplr12]

What if I am the second engineer and I slip in a HOLD-HARMLESS clause in the fine print or max liability is the value of my fee, is the EC then allowed to slip off the hook.

And we are back to....Each contractor and the second engineer should run this past their insurance company and attorney

You are suggesting that a specialty sub contractor requiring a PE license could shift liability to an electrical contractor by wording in the sub contract agreement? I don't understand how this could be the case. You are correct that in the case of a owner's dispute, the owner is going to file suit with the GC because that is who their agreement is with. As a result of the master contract, it will trickle down to the PE who signed and sealed the study who will have to open a claim on their insurance and defend themselves. This is why we have GC's, single source of responsibility. The GC is responsible for the PERFORMANCE of the contract. Not to accept all professional liability implied by work performed. That is why its best to hire licensed and insured contractors. It's in their business interest to perform.

I'm not sure that a PE could invoke hold harmless on something they sign and seal. To me, that defeats the purpose of signing and sealing, which is a matter of state law. This act makes the engineer liable. The electrical contractor simply purchased specialty services, the same way the GC purchases EC services. How could one reasonably expect the EC's insurance to cover his subcontractor? The sub contractor would need to supply proof of insurance as a condition of the sub contract the same way a EC has to prove insurance to a GC.

The second engineer is also subject to rules of their state board. If they want to risk their license/livelihood by signing and sealing things they know they shouldn't be, that is their business and it will eventually catch up with them. Hopefully no one is hurt in the process.

just my 2 cents.

 

[brian john]

Brian John
So you are now part of design team and the liability issues that come with this.
What does your insurance carrier say ?

I am more than covered, my opinion is if you can't cover yourself adequately with insurance and run away from work then you are missing out, I make very good income because so many electrician contractors walk away from jobs, they are afraid of, afraid to do, afraid to learn or afraid to invest in equipment to complete work.

 

[brian john]

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.

That is an assumption on you part my firm does quality work, EE's bow out of this work why wouldn't I do the work and make money at it? And I don't use the cheapest engineer I work with many engineering firms and spread the work out to friends.

 

[brian john]

I was parroting info from an insurance provider hoping to help protect EC's if they have not taken the time to explore this issue.

In this country if you walk by a job you can held liable for anything any legal team puts together and is willing to drag you into court for. I have spent more money on lawyers than I ever dreamed I would (business and private) Unfortunately it is all part of living or so it seems.

 

[Ingenieur]

Cannot respond to every comment, but can we ALL agree on this...Each contractor and the second engineer should run this past their insurance company and attorney
.....

What if I am the second engineer and I slip in a HOLD-HARMLESS clause in the fine print or max liability is the value of my fee, is the EC then allowed to slip off the hook.
......

And we are back to....Each contractor and the second engineer should run this past their insurance company and attorney

your insurer will also tell you to avoid any risk...not covered...just pay the premiums
you would be broke if you took everything to a lawyer
he will tell you the same thing
plus anything can happen in court
plus you would never do any work..it ALL involves risk lol
you must make a business decision

just because you put something in a contract does not mean it will hold up in court
it must be legal

hold harmless seldom carry weight
usually valid when you are engaging in a known risky endeavor like skydiving

excerpt
A hold harmless clause is not always an absolute protection against lawsuit or liability. Some states do not honor hold harmless agreements that are nebulous in language or overly broad in scope. Moreover, if one party presents a strong case that an entity coerced or beguiled him into signing a hold harmless clause against his will, the clause can be deemed null and void. In some states, the use of home harmless clauses is prohibited for certain construction jobs.

as far as stipulating a cap on damages, good luck
the concept would allow shoddy work without consequence or damages
a mechanic could do a crap job, you crash into a school bus, and he owes $200
lol

the bottom line:
do you want the work
hire a good consultant
everything is over engineered
very low risk

 

[brian john]

your insurer will also tell you to avoid any risk...not covered...just pay the premiums
you would be broke if you took everything to a lawyer
he will tell you the same thing
plus anything can happen in court
plus you would never do any work..it ALL involves risk lol
you must make a business decision

j

BINGO Winner

 

[Ingenieur]

call my buddy, mil officer west point, PE, attorney
specializes in construction/engineering matters
http://www.lawyerdb.org/Lawyer/Brian-Ashbaugh/
bring a stack of $$$$

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The standard of performance for engineers does not require perfection. "Reasonable care" is all that's necessary. If you have LV distribution and accidental connection could to HV lines could only occur by both dropping onto a railroad track I don't know if you need to take that scenario into account.

It is my opinion that just the normal dynamic operation of the utility has enough range to make the incident energy calculations invalid.

 

[gadfly56]

It is my opinion that just the normal dynamic operation of the utility has enough range to make the incident energy calculations invalid.

Incident energy can't be infinite. What is the upper bound?

 

[publicgood]

Incident energy can't be infinite. What is the upper bound?

There are too many variables to answer this confined question. The driving factor here is arcing current, which is sourced by available fault current. This result produces incident energy based on opening time - distance also considered.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Incident energy can't be infinite. What is the upper bound?

It is not infinite because the incident energy calculation stops at 2 seconds. My point is that you can have a huge range of incident energies based on the changing dynamics of the utility supply system.