Engineer reviews submittals--Is he on the hook?
- Thread starter donw
- Start date
- Status
boater bill
Senior Member
- Location
- Cape Coral, Fl.
Martin,
How did you get my submittal stamp?
It is a difficult tightrope on submittals. I treat them as a way to ensure the fixtures look, operate and are of quality that the architect or owner is expecting. Sometimes things get missed, such as the voltage.
I did have the pleasure of rejecting site lighting submittals on a project for over a year until the installing contractor understood what the owner wanted and was willing to provide them. If I hadn't have done this the owner would have been happy to sue my company and probably contractor for non-compliance.
If the plans called for 208 volt fixtures then that's what the owner gets since that was the bid document.
Good luck Don.
How did you get my submittal stamp?
It is a difficult tightrope on submittals. I treat them as a way to ensure the fixtures look, operate and are of quality that the architect or owner is expecting. Sometimes things get missed, such as the voltage.
I did have the pleasure of rejecting site lighting submittals on a project for over a year until the installing contractor understood what the owner wanted and was willing to provide them. If I hadn't have done this the owner would have been happy to sue my company and probably contractor for non-compliance.
If the plans called for 208 volt fixtures then that's what the owner gets since that was the bid document.
Good luck Don.
I've got an article from April 2002 in ohioconstructionlaw.com that states, "To be relieved from having to comply with the requirements of the plans and specifications, the Contractor must specifically inform the Architect in writing of any such deviation from the plans and specifications at the time of the submittal."
The Contractor is responsible for reviewing their own submittals. The Construction Manager reviews the submittals and then the Engineer reviews the submittals. The only time that I've heard of the Engineer having to pay for errors on a submittal is when the cost was divided 3 ways.
As donw said, an engineer's work product is the sealed set of plans and specs. This is where their liability is. This is what their professional insurance will cover.
The Contractor is responsible for reviewing their own submittals. The Construction Manager reviews the submittals and then the Engineer reviews the submittals. The only time that I've heard of the Engineer having to pay for errors on a submittal is when the cost was divided 3 ways.
As donw said, an engineer's work product is the sealed set of plans and specs. This is where their liability is. This is what their professional insurance will cover.
mkgrady
Senior Member
- Location
- Massachusetts
What really matters is what the contract says about the submittal process. Every job is different. Reciting what is normally found in an AIA document is not relevant unless that contract provision is in the instant contract. I've done jobs where if the engineer approved a contractors incorrect submittil the engineer is at fault and contracts where the exact opposite is the case. If the contract is silent I'd say the supplier is the least at fault because he specifically asked that voltages be verified. He is the weasel that made the mistake but was smart enough to cover himself. That leaves the contractor and engineer both being partly at fault for not catching the suppliers mistake.
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
chris kennedy said:
OMG that was funny!!!!
:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
romexking
Senior Member
- Location
- Marriottsville, Maryland
What was the voltage on the original fixture schedule? If is say 120, then that what the EC should have ordered. In a perfect world, yes it should have been caught, but in the same breath you could say that it should have be on the drawings correctly.
donw,
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but if 120 volt was on the plans, it was someone else's fault, not the EC. I'm not saying this is a great contractor, (because is should have been noticed), but stop trying to push the results of incorrect, incomplete, or ambiguous plans onto the backs of the EC. (I am referring to your thread about the utility conduit installation). As ECs, we are paid to install not engineer. I don't think it should be our responsibility to scour every drawing and specification with the intent of discovering errors or conflicts. It's hard enough making money on a project with a good set of plans let alone poorly engineered plans.
donw,
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation, but if 120 volt was on the plans, it was someone else's fault, not the EC. I'm not saying this is a great contractor, (because is should have been noticed), but stop trying to push the results of incorrect, incomplete, or ambiguous plans onto the backs of the EC. (I am referring to your thread about the utility conduit installation). As ECs, we are paid to install not engineer. I don't think it should be our responsibility to scour every drawing and specification with the intent of discovering errors or conflicts. It's hard enough making money on a project with a good set of plans let alone poorly engineered plans.
romexking
Senior Member
- Location
- Marriottsville, Maryland
OK, after rereading the thread, it sounds like the drawings showed a 208v fixture. If this is the case, even if the submittals were approved, I think the EC ison the hook.
How could the EC charge extral for replacing all of the lights? Was there not a fixed price contract in place? If there was, it sounds like the owner got some "free" fixtures. (sure... he did actually pay for them in the contract price). If the fixture cost was not included in the contract, then I think the EC should eat that cost too!
How could the EC charge extral for replacing all of the lights? Was there not a fixed price contract in place? If there was, it sounds like the owner got some "free" fixtures. (sure... he did actually pay for them in the contract price). If the fixture cost was not included in the contract, then I think the EC should eat that cost too!
hmspe
Senior Member
- Location
- Temple, TX
- Occupation
- PE
boater bill said:
I think it's like panel schedule blanks. Back when we went to CAD there were apparently three people who drew up a block for panels. We've been passing them around ever since.
The text I use came from a previous firm. No idea where they borrowed it from.
Martin
In response to the original post,
Here’s my 2 cents, it’s a double edged sword!!!
Everyone say's the EC is on the hook and should pay, as always the subcontractors are at fault! This always makes me angry.
Why is it the contractor’s problem? What is the engineers review for, if not to pick up submittal errors? The engineer is paid to review and approve.
What if someone told the contractor that’s what they wanted/needed, and that’s what he submitted on?
Let’s go further what if the drawings showed 208v type but the spec called for 120v, and the contractor submitted on the 120v lights and where approved, however the engineer comes back and says the intent was for the 208v. Sorry mister contractor you pay again...
Sorry if I sound bitter but I am, the owners, GC, engineers always find a way to push the blame to the subs, there never wrong, and they have a blanket clause somewhere (whether it be in the contract, drawings specifications. I had on engineer try to hang me using a clause from division 3 in the spec!! come On!!) to make the contractor eat it.
I have a hundred of examples of this kind of stuff going on! But this would be 3 pages long.
I don’t agree with this being only the contractors responsibility at all, if any thing it should be shared.
Joe
Member of {Moderator's Note: I removed the link to the web site. We don't allow advertising on this Forum.}
Here’s my 2 cents, it’s a double edged sword!!!
Everyone say's the EC is on the hook and should pay, as always the subcontractors are at fault! This always makes me angry.
Why is it the contractor’s problem? What is the engineers review for, if not to pick up submittal errors? The engineer is paid to review and approve.
What if someone told the contractor that’s what they wanted/needed, and that’s what he submitted on?
Let’s go further what if the drawings showed 208v type but the spec called for 120v, and the contractor submitted on the 120v lights and where approved, however the engineer comes back and says the intent was for the 208v. Sorry mister contractor you pay again...
Sorry if I sound bitter but I am, the owners, GC, engineers always find a way to push the blame to the subs, there never wrong, and they have a blanket clause somewhere (whether it be in the contract, drawings specifications. I had on engineer try to hang me using a clause from division 3 in the spec!! come On!!) to make the contractor eat it.
I have a hundred of examples of this kind of stuff going on! But this would be 3 pages long.
I don’t agree with this being only the contractors responsibility at all, if any thing it should be shared.
Joe
Member of {Moderator's Note: I removed the link to the web site. We don't allow advertising on this Forum.}
Last edited by a moderator:
- Location
- Massachusetts
Joe I agree with you to some extent, I think it has to be decide on a case by case basis.
We had a job where the EE specified a specific part number for a specific fixture. We submitted on that part number and the submittal came back approved.
The EE specified model number was incorrect, unusable and nonreturnable, it was a $6000 to $7000 mistake that the GC tried to pass on to us. We fought it and the EE had to pay.
We had a job where the EE specified a specific part number for a specific fixture. We submitted on that part number and the submittal came back approved.
The EE specified model number was incorrect, unusable and nonreturnable, it was a $6000 to $7000 mistake that the GC tried to pass on to us. We fought it and the EE had to pay.
yes I have been put in these situations before, when you do a lot of volume it happens. you are right it is a case by case thing, but more then not, they try to hang the sub on it right or wrong.
all i am saying is that there is always verbage in the contract or spec. protecting the GC/owner/engineer. they almost never admit they where wrong and they owe you extras. dont get me wrong we win a lot of these argumnets, but why do we have to have an argument in the first place!
Joe
Member of {Moderator's Note: I removed the link to the web site. We don't allow advertising on this Forum.}
all i am saying is that there is always verbage in the contract or spec. protecting the GC/owner/engineer. they almost never admit they where wrong and they owe you extras. dont get me wrong we win a lot of these argumnets, but why do we have to have an argument in the first place!
Joe
Member of {Moderator's Note: I removed the link to the web site. We don't allow advertising on this Forum.}
Last edited by a moderator:
hmspe
Senior Member
- Location
- Temple, TX
- Occupation
- PE
Polarcat said:
That would be an incorrect statement for at least 80% of the jobs I design. For the other 20% or so review of submittals is part of my contract, but I can't recall any projects (out of 1700+) where I had a contractual requirement to approve submittals.
Martin
- Location
- Massachusetts
hmspe said:
100% of the jobs we do that have an engineer have the engineer reviewing, approving and stamping the submittals.
hmspe
Senior Member
- Location
- Temple, TX
- Occupation
- PE
iwire said:
As has been pointed out in several recent threads, different jurisdictions have different requirements and different standard procedures.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "approved" and what do you mean by "stamped". Does the engineer use his seal, or is it just a review stamp? If it's the latter, what does the stamp say? Does it use the word "approved" or the word "reviewed"? You'll never see the word "approved" on submittals that pass through my office.
Martin
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
I have never seen a submittal come back with a stamp that did not say "approved" (or rejected).
Don
Don
Greg Swartz
Senior Member
- Location
- Colorado Springs, Colorado
A question in response to all this.
A question in response to all this.
Ok, I'm an EC. Hypothetical situation here, but all to common.
I order a fixture package. It's the ones on the plans, in the fixture schedule. It actually comes in correctly (ok, that doesn't happen very much), and on time (that either).
I ordered the ones on the fixture schedule, those ones come in... following me?
The owner says... those are not the right ones... These are the ones I wanted... right here on page so & so (a footnote on an architectural page)... you made the mistake eat it...
Whose fault is it? Mine, theirs, engineer who drew up the plans, or architect who did the arch drawings...
These are the things I see all the time. What do you all say?
A question in response to all this.
Ok, I'm an EC. Hypothetical situation here, but all to common.
I order a fixture package. It's the ones on the plans, in the fixture schedule. It actually comes in correctly (ok, that doesn't happen very much), and on time (that either).
I ordered the ones on the fixture schedule, those ones come in... following me?
The owner says... those are not the right ones... These are the ones I wanted... right here on page so & so (a footnote on an architectural page)... you made the mistake eat it...
Whose fault is it? Mine, theirs, engineer who drew up the plans, or architect who did the arch drawings...
These are the things I see all the time. What do you all say?
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
I think you have at least two people who made a mistake and they ought to share in the cost of fixing it. This is something that the GC should work out with the parties involved and the owner should not be involved at all.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
May I presume that the "stamp" to which you refer is not the one that is more properly called the "PE Seal"? The engineer may have a stamp similar to the ones described earlier in this thread (i.e., "Reviewed and Approved by. . . "), in addition to the one that says, "This work was done by me or under my supervision."iwire said:
- Status