Engineer VS. AHJ

[Ingenieur]

A couple things I get impressions of. You are likely in the class of EE's I would enjoy working with. Just the fact that you seem to understand my use of the term game as a descriptor not a devious plan to rule the world one change order at a time. I have never had to go to arbitration, I have always walked away satisfied and that include one time recovering almost 10% extra of the original contract in reverse liquidated damages because the bad design created a one year longer project. One adage I have is, "If you don't like my first run at a change order, you definitely won't like my second one." I NEVER put everything I could justify covering in my collective changes. It is always a two way street when we work together. I always leave something on the table. I don't believe in back charges to other contractors if it is avoidable and I don't believe in being greedy on changes. And lastly, I am very good at the paperwork. Even if I don't provide backing for a change, I have created it prior. I rarely need to manipulate the numbers to match the change. On the above referenced job, I had over 115 RFI's. The school once chastised me for that. By then the GC and the Electrical Engineer were on my side. The GC challenged the school, "Review the RFI's then please, come back and tell us which ones he shouldn't have written." The next week the guy came back and apologized. From then on the Architect was in the hot seat. I am sorry, but in this case, and I don't say this lightly, the Architect was truly negligent.

it's like monopoly with real $$$ :lol:
I want no hard feelings, it's hard enough to be happy without conflict over BS
if I can't help you, at least I should not try to hurt you, unless you are planning on doing the screwing lol

you and I would likely have a mutually beneficial relationship
you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours
I don't want to eat your lunch, and I'm willing to share up to a point, just don't be a hog

I always made clear if we work together we maximize profit for both of us, and more importantly value and quality for the owner, which is what we both want
and if forced to choose sides, it's the owner all day long

 

[Ingenieur]

I don't like when people refer to this stuff as a game. What ! are we all playing adult pretend and "you can't have my marbles"
The PE or EE should provide for final bid 100% plans and specs. None of this 75 % because the owner did not want to pay. That is bull. I say this because in a real world the EC reviews the plans and specs and then submits for RFI's. I have bid or looked at many a plans over the past 30 years , submitted RFI and played the so called game. However all too much the RFI's go unanswered. Why ? Because the EE or PE like things to be ambiguous. They love to perform a walk through and nail the contractor for things missed or not so correct in order to combat the change orders.

I recently had a EE point to the clause " contractor shall provide a code complaint and electrical system as intended for the use. " The EE clearly made a mistake and tried to hang his hat on that. We EC should not have to have a lawyer on staff to handle these items. We should not have to go to arbitration. This is why things cost so much and why so many contractors fall to the wayside.

That's my rant and I am sticking too it.

in the scheme of things, it is a 'game', and all parties should enjoy playing, it should not be contentious or nerve wracking

I have been doing this for 30+ years, I have never produced 100% drawings, but consider, >90% is still an A
I always answer RFI's, always, and always distribute the response to ALL bidders, it's only fair

not all EE's are created equal, same for contractors
and there is no need to paint PE's as devious, come on man, we are people too
that clause is nonsense, as I said before, we yanked it from our specs because it was a waste of paper

 

[Unbridled]

Prebid RFI's I wouldn't charge. Again EVERY project is a new game. Every game has different moves and responses. If the job is a truly low bid, competitive bid, then I am likely not going to write an RFI. If it is something that will save money, I may reduce my bid and expect to recover the reduction by not giving back profit and overhead which I don't give back anyway. If it is an item that increases cost, I may make sure my clarifications place the onus right back on the Engineer and expect to fight the good fight for a change order. We are not being paid to design the project and the Sperring ruling (I think that is the right one) in the Supreme Court doesn't allow the designer to get paid for designing a project and then creating contract language that places correcting the design on the installer.

I once argued a ton of change orders on a California school project. They tried to use language that said, the contractor is responsible to ensure the design meets code and didn't conflict with other plans, basically that receptacles were at the right height for furniture etc. I asked the owner's rep., "Why did you pay for an Architect? With that statement you could send out a blank set of with only that statement on it and say give me a price." I won every penny. BTW, in this case, I had the EE on my side because I pointed where the backgrounds he used from the Architect weren't the same as the ones issued on the A plans. Sot the Architect obviously was negligent.

Strathead, You make some great comments in your post. Most of which motivated me to start this thread.
Were all trying to make a buck or two, as usually we are installing someone else's design. It is always protocol for me to include the contract language " Errors and Omissions by the designer / architect of this project identified by the EC or AHJ, to be addressed by RFI or C/O in-which cost, O/H and Profit are to be recovered", in the contract.
I don't have a problem with contract language specifying the contractor is to be responsible to ensure the design meets code and didn't conflict with other plans, as long as the owner is willing to pay, and yes that includes Project Management and even schedule extensions.
Your right, after 40 years in this market, it does end up being a game of interpretation, which changes every project. I really try to stay with my favorite GC's, where as, I know how the game is going to get played, right up front, Pre- Bid.
Me myself, don't nickel and dime GC's. However, I keep them in mind and build them into other major C/O's.
It difficult enough to make a profit nowadays than spending time and money litigating the interpretation of drawings and contracts. 80% of the Owners and EE's think the same way and most generally try to work together with you.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[flatlander]

in the scheme of things, it is a 'game', and all parties should enjoy playing, it should not be contentious or nerve wracking

I have been doing this for 30+ years, I have never produced 100% drawings, but consider, >90% is still an A
I always answer RFI's, always, and always distribute the response to ALL bidders, it's only fair

not all EE's are created equal, same for contractors
and there is no need to paint PE's as devious, come on man, we are people too
that clause is nonsense, as I said before, we yanked it from our specs because it was a waste of paper

Ill chime in wib just one question.
Do your plans have that famous boiler plate language making it ultimately the electrical contractors responsibility?


If so I have similar issues with engineers as do others here.

 

[Ingenieur]

Ill chime in wib just one question.
Do your plans have that famous boiler plate language making it ultimately the electrical contractors responsibility?


If so I have similar issues with engineers as do others here.

no
it has been adjudicated as unenforceable
if it were the case all wire and conduit could be undersized
get a low bid
then make the ec fix it and eat it
is that fair?
is there a court that would uphold a contract like that?
contracts must be fair/equitable to both parties

I don't know many ec that would buy into that crap
most would rfi pre-bid, and we issue an addendum
if missed we would work it out, no one works for free
but I'm not letting him capitalize on a mistake to screw the owner (or me) by submitting a crazy @$$ co lol

if I have a change (not error) and the ec gives me a crazy number I will bring another ec in to do it
happens seldom, I usually get a revised price

 

[gadfly56]

no
it has been adjudicated as unenforceable
if it were the case all wire and conduit could be undersized
get a low bid
then make the ec fix it and eat it
is that fair?
is there a court that would uphold a contract like that?
contracts must be fair/equitable to both parties

I don't know many ec that would buy into that crap
most would rfi pre-bid, and we issue an addendum
if missed we would work it out, no one works for free
but I'm not letting him capitalize on a mistake to screw the owner (or me) by submitting a crazy @$$ co lol

if I have a change (not error) and the ec gives me a crazy number I will bring another ec in to do it
happens seldom, I usually get a revised price

Can you point me towards that? I know some engineers might view it as a "get out of jail free" card, and when I was on the contracting side of things it irked me no end. I've never heard of a jurisdiction actually weighing in on this.

 

[Ingenieur]

Can you point me towards that? I know some engineers might view it as a "get out of jail free" card, and when I was on the contracting side of things it irked me no end. I've never heard of a jurisdiction actually weighing in on this.

someone in this thread posted the case
our lawyer had us pull it
We used the nspe doc package

here is the AIA version

AIA DocumentA201, Section 3.2.2 states in part:
The Contractor is not required to ascertain that the Contract Documents are in accordancewith applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, building codes, and rules and regulations, but anynonconformity discovered by or made known to the Contractor shall be reported promptly tothe Architect


they may require code compliance
but they must pay for it

 

[Smart $]

I stand by my statement that without specific legislation requiring compliance with the approved plans and specs, the inspector has no legal authority to inspect for compliance with the approved plans and specs. The only legal authority is to inspect the the adopted code. It is not common where the adoption of the codes has included a specific requirement that you must comply with the approved plans and specs. That remains a civil matter between the owner and the installing contractor.

If that is the case, what purpose does plan approval serve?

The entire matter is civil right up to involving local law enforcement.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If that is the case, what purpose does plan approval serve?

The entire matter is civil right up to involving local law enforcement.

Plan approval is to show that the design is compliant with the requirements of the adopted code.

Yes, it is all a civil matter, but compliance with plans and specs is not between the inspector and the contractor, it is between the owner and the contractor.

 

[Ingenieur]

Plan approval is to show that the design is compliant with the requirements of the adopted code.

Yes, it is all a civil matter, but compliance with plans and specs is not between the inspector and the contractor, it is between the owner and the contractor.

many permits require a sealed set of plans/specs
they will be reviewed for code compliance
But also the construction must conform to them to meet permit conditions
the inspector/code officer will ensure compliance

there are many codes
elec
plumbing
concrete
structural
etc

the code inspector will make sure the job is built to plan
what does he know about pre-tensioned concrete design?
he relies on the engineer, hence plans
in fact by law niether the inspector or contractor can make changes to a design that is required to be done by a pe
beside, who in their right mind would assume responsibilty for making them!?

 

[flatlander]

no
it has been adjudicated as unenforceable
if it were the case all wire and conduit could be undersized
get a low bid
then make the ec fix it and eat it
is that fair?
is there a court that would uphold a contract like that?
contracts must be fair/equitable to both parties

I don't know many ec that would buy into that crap
most would rfi pre-bid, and we issue an addendum
if missed we would work it out, no one works for free
but I'm not letting him capitalize on a mistake to screw the owner (or me) by submitting a crazy @$$ co lol

if I have a change (not error) and the ec gives me a crazy number I will bring another ec in to do it
happens seldom, I usually get a revised price

Thank you for your reply.
I must say you are one in a million.
I work in the real world mostly in SoCal where the engineers refuse to provide RFI at pre-bid and address change orders promptly or at all.


I had a EE provide the energy and load calls on a chain store remodel. The space had only a 100 amp panel. When you actually calced the track and all the rest you came in well over 100.
However the engineer plans arrived and it was only 80 or so. I studied over the plans and noticed the EE left out 3 air handlers, the water heater and lineal footage of the track. I brought it to attention and he popooed me. I finally got him to revise the prints. Those came back still less than 100. I looked and he left out a A/C unit.
Again I contacted the EE and he said it's OK just do it as I drew it or I'll tell the owner to get someone else.

Well I told him that if you were not willing to factually draw the plans it is probable it was not legit. In that case no I won't do it and told the EE that I will notify corporate. In the end I hired my own EE and the plans were revised. Current limiters were installed to get the 350 feet of track down to a reasonable load.


I have several others.

 

[Ingenieur]

Thank you for your reply.
I must say you are one in a million.
I work in the real world mostly in SoCal where the engineers refuse to provide RFI at pre-bid and address change orders promptly or at all.


I had a EE provide the energy and load calls on a chain store remodel. The space had only a 100 amp panel. When you actually calced the track and all the rest you came in well over 100.
However the engineer plans arrived and it was only 80 or so. I studied over the plans and noticed the EE left out 3 air handlers, the water heater and lineal footage of the track. I brought it to attention and he popooed me. I finally got him to revise the prints. Those came back still less than 100. I looked and he left out a A/C unit.
Again I contacted the EE and he said it's OK just do it as I drew it or I'll tell the owner to get someone else.

Well I told him that if you were not willing to factually draw the plans it is probable it was not legit. In that case no I won't do it and told the EE that I will notify corporate. In the end I hired my own EE and the plans were revised. Current limiters were installed to get the 350 feet of track down to a reasonable load.


I have several others.

you have knuckleheads in all professions
simple rule: treat others fairly and they will likely reciprocate

I WELCOME others catching my mistakes before execution
and thank them

 

[Smart $]

...
I WELCOME others catching my mistakes before execution
and thank them

We shall assume they did not if there are no more posts by you.

 

[George Stolz]

I have debated this question off and on for ten years, still can't answer it.

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=59171
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=81505

 

[Strathead]

I don't like when people refer to this stuff as a game. What ! are we all playing adult pretend and "you can't have my marbles"
The PE or EE should provide for final bid 100% plans and specs. None of this 75 % because the owner did not want to pay. That is bull. I say this because in a real world the EC reviews the plans and specs and then submits for RFI's. I have bid or looked at many a plans over the past 30 years , submitted RFI and played the so called game. However all too much the RFI's go unanswered. Why ? Because the EE or PE like things to be ambiguous. They love to perform a walk through and nail the contractor for things missed or not so correct in order to combat the change orders.

I recently had a EE point to the clause " contractor shall provide a code complaint and electrical system as intended for the use. " The EE clearly made a mistake and tried to hang his hat on that. We EC should not have to have a lawyer on staff to handle these items. We should not have to go to arbitration. This is why things cost so much and why so many contractors fall to the wayside.

That's my rant and I am sticking too it.

You need to lighten up. It is a game. A game of strategy. You seem to imply that game is nothing more than a friendly thing between two kids. They used to play games in the Coliseum in Rome. I find it ironic that you quote my post where I actually point out that the EE you refer to is wrong and next time, just look at him and tell him that the Supreme Court ruled in the Spearin Ruling (I am sorry I misspelled this earlier.) Look it up. It is a landmark case and basically states that contractor can't be held liable for the mistakes made by the Architect and the Engineer. They can put all the words they want down. Either way, it is still a game. That doesn't imply that it is always fun.

 

[Strathead]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Spearin

Here it is clean. Every person who is an Estimator, Project Manager or business owner should be familiar with this.

 

[Strathead]

in the scheme of things, it is a 'game', and all parties should enjoy playing, it should not be contentious or nerve wracking

I have been doing this for 30+ years, I have never produced 100% drawings, but consider, >90% is still an A
I always answer RFI's, always, and always distribute the response to ALL bidders, it's only fair

not all EE's are created equal, same for contractors
and there is no need to paint PE's as devious, come on man, we are people too
that clause is nonsense, as I said before, we yanked it from our specs because it was a waste of paper

And whether he chooses to use the word game or not, if he isn't analyzing every action (move) and developing a counter action based on all known factors then he isn't doing his job right. In my opinion that interaction is literally a strategy game. And I like what you say about "enjoying", but I must disagree a little about contentious or nerve wracking. It is real money and nerves serve to heighten senses so on occasion is should be nerve wracking just not life wrecking, and in some cases contention is a smart strategy, or flip that, getting your an adversary to go nuclear discredits them. As posted by others, many out there on your "side" of the game board are not as reasonable as you, and many on my "side" of the game board are not as honest or interested in giving the client the best value and the product that best suits their needs as I am.

 

[flatlander]

You need to lighten up. It is a game. A game of strategy. You seem to imply that game is nothing more than a friendly thing between two kids. They used to play games in the Coliseum in Rome. I find it ironic that you quote my post where I actually point out that the EE you refer to is wrong and next time, just look at him and tell him that the Supreme Court ruled in the Spearin Ruling (I am sorry I misspelled this earlier.) Look it up. It is a landmark case and basically states that contractor can't be held liable for the mistakes made by the Architect and the Engineer. They can put all the words they want down. Either way, it is still a game. That doesn't imply that it is always fun.

It makes no difference how many court cases there may be. The problem is this should not be a game.
In CA all the customer needs to do is threaten to file a claim with the contractors license board and that is all the leverage needed. The board has no jurisdiction over owners or engineers so the automatically go after the contractor. I've ever seen it happen all too often.

I'll give you an example. Recently CSLB sponsored legislation to be able to sanction a contractor doing public works for working what CSLB thinks is outside a contractors license classification. The situation goes like this, the public works agency advertises a project and lists the license type that can bid. The agency lists either a general B or a A engineering. The B wins the bid. Something goes foul. The CSLB goes after the B for working outside his classification even though the agency set the requirements as it has the authority. You can't have a reasonable game when the cards are stacked against one. The EE always come out smelling like a rose while the contractor is in the dog house.

 

[ggunn]

you have knuckleheads in all professions
simple rule: treat others fairly and they will likely reciprocate

I WELCOME others catching my mistakes before execution
and thank them

That's why we have peer review in my design group.

 

[Sierrasparky]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Spearin

Here it is clean. Every person who is an Estimator, Project Manager or business owner should be familiar with this.

.

That case was decided in 1918. just short of a hundred years ago.
In the last 100 years no contractor has used this. It may be case law it may be a supreme court ruling , however it is not used as you folks seem to claim.