Engineering know-it-alls

[Sierrasparky]

Well you can do whatever you want, but if you are working with nonapporved plans then that means you are also working with out a permit. Penalty is double the permit fee up to $1000. If I were going to do that I would make sure that I had an extra $1000 in my bid.

I consider it a lack of respect for someone to be working without a permit or plans, and then when they do call me out for a next day inspection, you can bet that they get their money's worth.

Cowboy, I never meant to imply that I do work without a permit. I pull permits when required by our local AHJ. ( which by the way is virtually almost anything. What I hate is having to ignore the blatently wrong stuff on the prints and specs. I hate to have to argue over a change. I know the owners and the EE are just trying to pull one over on everyone!

 

[satcom]

Plans? I'd guess less than 5% of the work I do has plans from a third party. Permits are still pulled where required. AHJ doesn't even care to see plans normally. NEC and any local amendments tell him what standards he is going to use for inspection.

It is the reverse with our work 95% of the projects we do require a plan review and we will start the estimating process before the review is approved, but will Wait for final approval before we give the contract price, a lot of owners and GC's have one thing in mind, (time is money) and waiting for the primit process and approvals is a road block for then, so some try to run the road block, and leave you the EC's in the wreck that follows.

 

[MarkyMarkNC]

You should be putting verbiage in your scope or proposal specifically allowing for change orders on code discrepancies in the prints.

Engineers aren't the only ones who can put CYA statements in their specs.

 

[satcom]

You should be putting verbiage in your scope or proposal specifically allowing for change orders on code discrepancies in the prints.

Engineers aren't the only ones who can put CYA statements in their specs.

You got that right, if they are contracting with us they sign our contract with our terms and limits, not theirs, so many guys are hungry to get the work they will drink the Kool Aid and sign the GC's or Owners contract.
Any agreement is a process, one side presents their concerns and requirements, and then after you review their conditions you can propose your offering with your terms and conditions.

 

[ptonsparky]

The last set of prints I saw was for a small house addition. Mostly just a floor plan and that was no good even before the footings were poured. Minor detail that almost all of my work is service work.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

I contacted the engineers regarding the above items and was told everything was approved and the design was correct. I contacted them a 2nd time with the same response.

I installed the above items anyways as it will not be easy to provide them later.

I don't even really care about additional $ for the extras, what irks me was the condescending attitude from a 30 year old engineer.

My intention is to sit around for the inspector and tell him the engineers tried to slip some things past the building department but since I figured he would catch them anyways (which he wouldn't) I would point them out. :angel:

What I find most disturbing about this discussion, is who is the one acting like the know-it-all?

Contacting the engineering firm the first time to point out an apparent oversight is a good thing to do. However, when the answer in return is that the building department had approved the plans and the design was correct as-is, indicates that it was not an oversight. Doing it a second time further confirms that it was not an oversight.

Instead, the OP, in his know-it-all ways, has chosen to override the approved and engineered plans, and re-engineer his own plans without knowing if there are extenuating circumstances or a specific variance in place for a reason. None of us are part of that engineering project, and so none of us have the scope of knowledge for this project to be able to say that changing those plans didn't introduce some problem that was previously addressed by the original design.

The original design may be flawed.....but it may also be correct and for a specific reason.

What the OP has done is wrong. It oversteps his scope, knowledge, and responsibility. It has also opened him up to increased liability. If that design existed for a reason, and his circumvention of the design results in property damage or personal injury, he will be the one responsible for it.

Even if the OP's assertions were/are correct, his response of re-engineering the design on his own was wrong. His plan of waiting around so he can "tattletale" to the inspector is not only childish, but further exemplifies the typical mindset of someone that is a know-it-all, not necessarily the engineer, as the OP claimed.

If the OP wants to cover his backside, he should write a formal letter to the engineering firm describing how he changed the design on-site, and find out if his changes are approved or detrimental. Not telling anyone that he changed the design leaves all liability on his shoulders.

 

[Sierrasparky]

What I find most disturbing about this discussion, is who is the one acting like the know-it-all?

Contacting the engineering firm the first time to point out an apparent oversight is a good thing to do. However, when the answer in return is that the building department had approved the plans and the design was correct as-is, indicates that it was not an oversight. Doing it a second time further confirms that it was not an oversight.

.

Are you kidding!

You you give too much credit to a plan checker. EE in my area constantly omit items necessary and per code just in an attempt to save money and or please the client.

Here in the state of California the Building department takes no responsibilty for a oversight on a plan. If turns out wrong it's wrong and you must comply. ( unless you've got loads of clout and money with the dept. ) In any way it could come back on the Ec if it is not code compliant.
The claim of "well the plans were approved does not work!

In a instance a few years ago I had a client who was selling his remodeld home. The buyer had a home inspection and found some items like no working grounds on some recpts. I was called in to check it out and I was not involved in the remodel. Well this was a DIY project and the whole place was re-wired and majorly screwed up. There was a permit for some work but I never personally saw it. The inspector asked me to sign off on the electrical done by others I refused. I could care less that it was signed off. Well I wrote a report and the entire project was re-done.

The owner screamed "but it passed it passed". So what not my problem...

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Are you kidding!

You you give too much credit to a plan checker. EE in my area constantly omit items necessary and per code just in an attempt to save money and or please the client.

No I am not kidding. The OP is not qualified to override the engineering plan, but that is what he did. He was correct when he assumed there could have been an oversight in the plan, but once he got confirmation (on 2 occasions) that it was not an oversight, then it became a case of him overriding an engineering design.

As the electrical contractor, he may not be privy to the details behind the plan that both the engineer and inspector have been aware of, and what drove the design in the first place. For example, this could be a life-critical system, and putting a disconnect within reach of the public could pose a greater risk to the public than not having one poses to future maintenance. That's hypothetical, but nevertheless, is the potential type of information that neither the OP nor the rest of us have at our disposal.

There are reasons why engineering plans cannot be changed willy-nilly, not even by the engineer himself. When this happens, people can die. What may look like a trivial modification at a glance, can in fact be enough to kill 114 people and injure 216 others, simply because someone decides that a split threaded rod doesn't have any more loading than a single threaded rod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse).

If the plans had been marked with the standard "as per local code", then the OP would have been correct in his approach. However, because he contacted the engineering firm and was told on two separate occasions that the plans were not in error, then he was not only wrong in his approach, but grossly negligent in his duties for deliberately altering the plans beyond his authorization to do so.

 

[Sierrasparky]

No I am not kidding. The OP is not qualified to override the engineering plan, but that is what he did. He was correct when he assumed there could have been an oversight in the plan, but once he got confirmation (on 2 occasions) that it was not an oversight, then it became a case of him overriding an engineering design.

As the electrical contractor, he may not be privy to the details behind the plan that both the engineer and inspector have been aware of, and what drove the design in the first place. For example, this could be a life-critical system, and putting a disconnect within reach of the public could pose a greater risk to the public than not having one poses to future maintenance. That's hypothetical, but nevertheless, is the potential type of information that neither the OP nor the rest of us have at our disposal.

There are reasons why engineering plans cannot be changed willy-nilly, not even by the engineer himself. When this happens, people can die. What may look like a trivial modification at a glance, can in fact be enough to kill 114 people and injure 216 others, simply because someone decides that a split threaded rod doesn't have any more loading than a single threaded rod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse).

If the plans had been marked with the standard "as per local code", then the OP would have been correct in his approach. However, because he contacted the engineering firm and was told on two separate occasions that the plans were not in error, then he was not only wrong in his approach, but grossly negligent in his duties for deliberately altering the plans beyond his authorization to do so.

Typical comment from a EE that plays these silly games.It is a very arrogant attitude. The op spoke of no disco. There are no legal behind the scene dealings with the building dept the circumvent the code or the spirit there of. By making a statement that the EC does not have the right to add a legally required device is perposterous especially if there was no explanation to the contrary.
I'll tell you another EE story. Somewhere on these forums years ago I griped about. Here in Ca there is a energy code. Well there was a existing store that did a remodel. Ca code says replacments must comply. Then there was the load calcs. The calcs were way off and understated so the load would fit on a 100 amp panel. Then there was the 160 feet of track lighting that exceeded the allowable limit when properly calcd. I went back to the EE three times and each time he reconfigured the plans and omitted actual loads from the calc. The first confrontation he omitted the 3 and 4th Ac units. the second time he changed the exisitng to remain 2x4 troffers from 4 lamps mag ballast to 3 lamp electronic and under stated the AC units. When contacted again to ask if the 2x4 troffers and Ac units were being replaced I was told No. Then there was the panel change out because of some burned areas of the buss. The plans now reflected" Existing 200 amp MB" . There were no 200 amp mains in the strip mall MDP. I submitted a bid for the extra work and I was told that the existing feeder was for 200 amp. meanwile this store is 3k miles from an EE that never visited the site. I finally got permision to use my own EE to correct the plans and get a compliant install.

Another instance. A hotel had a underground parking garage. There was a 100 HP EF. There was No means of disconnect in the room where the fan was located and to be serviced. The plans stated " disconnect in xxx electrical room. There was no provision in the ER or near the fan for a lock out. nothing was in sight. I was told by the EE it was done to save money. Someone could loose a arm replacing a belt with this set-up. Please don't tell me about back door deals.

That being said how come EE stamped plans don't say " EC must comply with these plans and specs. Code discrepancies must be addressed by the EE in detail before perfomance. EE remains the responsible party as long as the installation is followed correctly by the EC.

You EE know what you are doing and we EC know it!:thumbsup:

 

[satcom]

No I am not kidding. The OP is not qualified to override the engineering plan, but that is what he did. He was correct when he assumed there could have been an oversight in the plan, but once he got confirmation (on 2 occasions) that it was not an oversight, then it became a case of him overriding an engineering design.

As the electrical contractor, he may not be privy to the details behind the plan that both the engineer and inspector have been aware of, and what drove the design in the first place. For example, this could be a life-critical system, and putting a disconnect within reach of the public could pose a greater risk to the public than not having one poses to future maintenance. That's hypothetical, but nevertheless, is the potential type of information that neither the OP nor the rest of us have at our disposal.

There are reasons why engineering plans cannot be changed willy-nilly, not even by the engineer himself. When this happens, people can die. What may look like a trivial modification at a glance, can in fact be enough to kill 114 people and injure 216 others, simply because someone decides that a split threaded rod doesn't have any more loading than a single threaded rod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse).

If the plans had been marked with the standard "as per local code", then the OP would have been correct in his approach. However, because he contacted the engineering firm and was told on two separate occasions that the plans were not in error, then he was not only wrong in his approach, but grossly negligent in his duties for deliberately altering the plans beyond his authorization to do so.

We often run into engineered equipment that can not have a safety disconnect for good reasons, a reactor process, if stopped could build to an explosive state.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

Typical comment from a EE that plays these silly games.It is a very arrogant attitude.

You have that backward. It is not about whether the plans were correct or not, but about not having the proper authority to unilaterally alter those plans.

As I said earlier, the OP's conclusions may have been correct, but his methods and approach are what was wrong. Given the assumption that he was correct, he should have taken his concerns up the proper chain of command, instead of unilaterally making the decision on his own.

 

[jumper]

 

[SAC]

A number of interesting stories. As an "engineer" (I'm no PE) who's biggest concern is to get the "product" right, I can understand what I see as both "sides" here. I have certainly seen this in my career. However, I have mostly been in the position where we both work for the same company, and when it isn't about money (the company pays regardless who is "at fault"), but maybe just egos, it seems like it goes a lot smoother. I'm human - I make mistakes. Sometimes I even make mistakes and think that I did the right thing. But we design our processes for reviews so that one or even two people making mistakes is still found by the process (though processes aren't perfect, either). The further down the pipe mistakes get found, the more it costs the company to fix. I'd much rather fix it on paper (or especially in my head) than rip-up and re-do an implementation. I don't think as an engineer I am unique in the desire to get things "right" as early as possible.

I think that what may be at work here is the conflict between companies seeking to maximize profits (and minimize liability), instead of the conflict between engineers and implementers (and I use those labels somewhat lightly as I know that, at least in my case, much is left up to the "implementers" to "engineer"). While there is still ego at work on both sides (we both have our expertise, and have pride in what we know), I guess I just don't seem to see quite the the level of conflict that is related in this thread when we are all on the "same team". But maybe when the "team" is split across company lines, then assigning blame for mistakes may become more (financially) important to the companies involved than getting the process "right".

 

[Sierrasparky]

You have that backward. It is not about whether the plans were correct or not, but about not having the proper authority to unilaterally alter those plans.

As I said earlier, the OP's conclusions may have been correct, but his methods and approach are what was wrong. Given the assumption that he was correct, he should have taken his concerns up the proper chain of command, instead of unilaterally making the decision on his own.

No I have exactly correct. The plans state that it must be done in a code compliant manner.h i If the EE wants to take responsibility in writing for such issue then I have no problems.
One of the many issues about EE and EC is that many of the EE talk down to a EC because they usually don't have the education or credentials. The EE give no credit to the EC. In the case of the OP the EE could have simply stated the reason why the EC was not correct. Given a blanket statement is meaninles and arrogant, no one learns, it's pointless and chidish.

In my opinion I think you are quilty of the same based soley on your comments. In the cases I referenced I pointed out that was a cost saving and pride issue and nothing more,just plain arrogance.
I have worked with EE that listen to the EC and realize that they are in the field and may know better, and these EE welcome this clarifications.


Satcom ; I don't think your scenario applies here. neither the OP or I are speaking of a special or unique circumstance.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

No I have exactly correct. The plans state that it must be done in a code compliant manner.

Nowhere in the OP's posting is this mentioned. If the plans had said this, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the plans had stated this, then the OP would have added the missing information to his bid and to the project. There would be no need to run back to the engineering firm to prove them wrong...aside from some sort of personal satisfaction, which is not very business-like.

One of the many issues about EE and EC is that many of the EE talk down to a EC because they usually don't have the education or credentials. The EE give no credit to the EC.

You keep focusing on this from the standpoint of some sort of competition of who's right and who's wrong--who gets "credit"; instead of addressing the comments I made about following proper protocol. I suspect this is also the same reason why the OP is in the situation he is in.

If the plans were in error, there is proper protocol and chain of command to address it. Unilaterally changing the design is not the proper protocol. The OP was more concerned about proving who was right and wrong--getting his credit--than he was about ensuring proper procedures were followed.

When the OP noticed what he believed to be an error, his first course of action should have been (and was) to go to the engineering firm for clarification. If he wasn't satisfied with that answer, then he should have brought up his concerns with his client (who ever is paying him). State that he believes there is an omission from the plans that would result in an NEC violation (preferably with citations). If the customer reiterates the same answer, then he should write a summary letter of the discussion to the customer (in a non-accusatory tone!!) saying something like:

To summarize our discussion, I will install the system according to the engineering plans dated xx/xx/2011. As drawn, these plans do not call for a disconnect at (such-and-such) location. If it is later determined that this disconnect is required for code-compliant completion, then additional time and materials will be required beyond the scope of our original agreement.

It's not about some sort of competition over who is right and who is wrong, but about getting the job completed. If the inspector fails the job, then the EC returns to his client and informs him that the inspector requires the disconnect, and as per his letter dated xx/xx/2011, it will be an additional $$$ to correct the problem. If it is determined to be a problem sometime in the distant future, he has a copy of the plans and letter, clearing him of any obligation or liability for corrections. All of this should be done in a business-like manner, not the competitive manner that has been so far displayed in this discussion.

Satcom ; I don't think your scenario applies here. neither the OP or I are speaking of a special or unique circumstance.

Therein lies the problem, because neither you nor the OP may be aware whether special circumstances exist or not. You don't necessarily have the same scope of details that the engineering firm had when developing the plans. You also don't know what communications may have transpired between the engineering firm and the appropriate building department. You don't know why the plans don't have the standard clause "follow applicable code", only that this is not listed. Without this clause, you must build according to the plans. Document what you feel are discrepancies, follow up on those discrepancies in the appropriate manner, but you cannot change the plans unilaterally.

As I have been saying from the beginning, this is not about who's right or wrong, but about following proper business protocols. These protocols are in place for a reason.

 

[Sierrasparky]

The OP's scenario aside. I have personally done exactly as you have suggested. The EE refused to clarify and properly address the situation other than say " the plans are correct. "

Rick for you to assume that the plans do not say " follow applical code" is perposterous I have yet to see a set of plans that do not have this.

Second special circumstances do not allow to break the rules of the code. And if there are these special circumstances being broken then you as the EE need to place a note on the plans for all to see so everyone is very clear on the subject.

Third I don't think that omitting a safety item and going against code is going to keep the EC out of litigation if something bad happens.

Rick so when you are confronted with these types of issues you adress them in detail and explain your position?

You also talk about unilaterally changing plans. Then why do Ec frequently have the reponsibility of providing unstamped as builts because the EE refuses to work together with the EC? For example I did a returaunt. The EE was very GREEEN all the kitchen equipment loads were wrong. He refused to correct. I had to make changes and redo everything. Luckily I ran emt and flex.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

You keep trying to pull me off topic and into your competition over who is right and wrong. My discussion is not about these games and I'm not going to get pulled into them. If you want to discuss what I brought up, then fine, but I have no interest in engaging in your competitions.

 

[Sierrasparky]

You keep trying to pull me off topic and into your competition over who is right and wrong. My discussion is not about these games and I'm not going to get pulled into them. If you want to discuss what I brought up, then fine, but I have no interest in engaging in your competitions.

That's funny. If this is not the topic what is?

 

[Sierrasparky]

Ec must comply with the code by Law

Ec must comply with the code by Law

Nowhere in the OP's posting is this mentioned. If the plans had said this, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the plans had stated this, then the OP would have added the missing information to his bid and to the project. There would be no need to run back to the engineering firm to prove them wrong...aside from some sort of personal satisfaction, which is not very business-like.

.

You are off base and incorrect!
It is a given that the EC must complete the job per code regardless of any plans and specifications. Any licensed electrical contractor in my state of CA must follow the plans, specifications and ultimately superceeding all the rest the state codes. If the contractor does not he can and will face disciplanary action against his license.

Oh and by the way there are not such laws for Architects and engineers in this state. This is why I belive the scupulous Arch and EE act the way they do.

 

[Fulthrotl]

Had one guy argue, when I made him move all of his receptacles up and all of his switches down, that it wasn't on the plans. I pointed to the note that said "all receptacles and switchs shall be installed per ADA requirements." EC's job to know what those requirements are.

i avoid that problem... i put them all at the same height.... if you can reach a
plug, you can also reach a switch.... :happyyes: