Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
(OP)
http ://www6.le xisnexis.c om/publish er/EndUser ?Action=Us erDisplayF ullDocumen t&orgI d=1718& ;topicId=1 00007466&a mp;docId=l :303230049
Just a news clip to review - a design firm was fired by the Atlanta airport. You can argue the "who's right and who's wrong" - but I was struck by the following statement made by the airport rep:
DeCosta said he would rebid the project and hoped the new design team could use the existing plans. But "if it turns out they can't salvage them, they will be scrapped and the new team will start from scratch," he said.
I would think that the design plans were the intellectual property of the designer, not the airport. How can they re-use the plans - Wouldn't this be a conflict of ethics?
Just a news clip to review - a design firm was fired by the Atlanta airport. You can argue the "who's right and who's wrong" - but I was struck by the following statement made by the airport rep:
DeCosta said he would rebid the project and hoped the new design team could use the existing plans. But "if it turns out they can't salvage them, they will be scrapped and the new team will start from scratch," he said.
I would think that the design plans were the intellectual property of the designer, not the airport. How can they re-use the plans - Wouldn't this be a conflict of ethics?





RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Cheers,
CanuckMiner
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
It would be unethical for the airport to use ANY content generated by the original design firm on areas that are outside the original scope of work.
It is wishful thinking on their part that a new design team can "pick-up from where the other left off". Time has to be spent validating the design by the former team and appropriate fee be negotiated.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
The other avenue of thought is that in many cases, the design documents are not the "purchased product" of the designer. The design is usually the intellectual property of the designer. The owner has not purchased the documents, or for that matter, the design. What the owner has purchased is the SERVICE of the A/E - to provide the expertise to allow a project to be built. The documents are simply an instrument of that service.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
If another design firm uses information from those drawings, they do it at their own risk. At the very least they would have to verify the design done by someone else.
My current employer has a client who many time circulates drawings and information from competitors to us and asks us to utilize them as much as possible. I think that its sleezy but its not my call.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
The client, pending all bills are paid, is the owner of drawings produced. Usually the originals are stored with the designer in the designer's office.
My question is, is the owner or subsequent design team of a different firm entitled to the cad files?
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Ethics Case
Note that this deals only with the ethics part of the case, and not the legal part. In this particular case, the orginal designer was concerned over Public Safety in the use of his/her drawings by another engineer. It seems to be silent about the ownership of the drawings.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
I work for an engineering firm. In our proposals, we very clearly itemize the deliverables which will be issued: a report, drawings, specifications, etc.
Consider a case where an Owner has an existing device or structure which my company designed. The Owner wishes to enhance the device, or add something to the structure (maybe add a monorail/hoist in a particular location). The Owner could contact my company to engineer this work, but is perfectly within his rights to go to another company for the design. In so doing, the Owner would have to provide the plans and specifications of the device or structure (prepared by my company) to the "new" engineering company.
If the Owner does not have ownership of the design documents, then I guess we, and our clients, have been doing it wrong for a long time.
I agree with others here that the issue in your original post isn't so much one of ethics, as it is of liability. The new engineers will have to assure themselves that the work done to date was correct.
In the jurisdictions in which I am licensed, I am ethically obligated to inform other engineers if I am reviewing their work provided they are still involved with the project. It tends to get a little hazier if they are no longer involved, but the recommended practice is to inform them even after they are no longer on the project.
Cheers,
CanuckMiner
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Rather, the Owner was providing as-built drawings of what already existed, and asked another designer to add to that design or alter it in some fashion.
What I'm getting at is this: if I as an engineer am approached by an Owner, and given a partial design by another engineer who was fired, I must, under most all engineering laws in the US, obligated to start from scratch and engineer every part of the new project "under my direct supervision".
And should there be a unique detail that was developed by the intellectual abilities of the former engineer, am I "stealing" their intellectual property by using that detail?
I agree that if the original engineer was paid in full for the services rendered, then there is some point to the idea tha the Ownwer can't use anything of the original designs....the City of Atlanta certainly couldn't manufacture a completely different (in all respects) design...but would certainly want to use the scope, concepts, and layout of the plans to date....that makes sense.
It just seems that years ago, the engineer provided a service, and the drawings were simply instruments of that service and not the actual "deliverable" to the Owner. Rather, the deliverable was the expertise that was applied to the project. The drawings and details were simply a tool.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Good point about the liability issue. When the original design team was fired, it is a breach of contract by the airport. The liability has been effectively lifted from the original design team.
The new design team, whether they decide to use any portion of the original design or not, will now be contractually obligated to assume responsibility of the finished product.
For JAE, I believe that the client purchased the right to "use" the contents in the design documents on a particular structure in a particular site as outlined in their contract with the design team. The new design team, assuming full responsibility, may take the contents produced by the original designers and modify as they see fit.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
I am reminded by my employers that the only "product" that we, as an engineering firm, sell is time (hours). In lighter moments, we jokingly compare our service to that of a prostitute.
Your original post questioned the ownership of the design plans. My example was meant to illustrate that the Owners I deal with, and other engineering firms in my field, would consider the design plans as the property of the Owner. IF it is agreed that the Owner has the rights to the complete design, can we extrapolate that to his right to an incomplete design for which he has paid? I would say yes, but then again, I'm not very well educated in contract law.
Regarding your scenario whereby you are presented with a unique detail developed by the ingenuity of another, I believe that the Owner's right to share it with you would depend on the wording in the contract with the original engineer (i.e. there may be a clause discussing unique details and respecting the rights thereof). As to whether you would be "stealing" the unique detail, well, that would depend on who "owned" it and the willingness of that individual to share it with you.
Cheers,
CanuckMiner
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Whether or not another party owns the cad files of a project is dependent upon the contract between the parties involved.
JAE,
Your ethics example seems to agree with my opinion that the drawings are the property of the airport and that the engineer is in compliance with the law in turning over hard copies to the airport. The original engineer has no way of knowing beforehand what the airport will actually do with his/her drawings, irrespective of what is stated verbally. Why would a client pay you for a service and then want nothing (drawings) in return after your business is concluded?
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
IF the owner paid I would agree, but Leo Daly claims that the airport still owes him $10,000,000. Leo also wants $50,000,000 in damages for his bruised reputation.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
I'm guessing that $34 million buys a lot of design.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
In this example Daly provided a service....probably lots of services including planning, reviews, research, design options, design plans, etc. - which the Owner paid for with a view towards completion of the project. If the drawings themselves constitute the entirety of the A/E's "product" then Atlanta should be asking for their $34 million back since they got 'nothin for it.
But the reality is they contracted with Daly to perform professional services, and the instrument of some of those services included drawings.
I agree that if the contract states that the drawings are the property of the Owner, then they are the property of the Owner. But I was just questioning the legality and ethics of an Owner firing an A/E and then just handing the new A/E the plans to "finish" them.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
If there are no proprietary details and the owner has clear title, then there is no issue.
Since it is up to engineer to assert his datarights; failure to do so is his loss.
TTFN
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Do you know what the contract delineated as the deliverables? Do you know the terms of the contract? Do we know how the contract handled parties in default situations? Without answers to these question, we can only guess, but what we do know is that in the USA, case law and precedent is fairly clear that in lieu of specific contractual allowances, "works done for hire" belong to and are owned by the employer. As the owner of that work, the owner is entitled to dispose of that work in whatever matter is deemed appropriate.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
www.tankindustry.com
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Its been a long time since we heard from you. Your opinions are usually interesting and I look forward to hearing more of them.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
The product of a design is not just the resulting document, but the procedural files. If you hire someone to provide what the sum of 2 and 2 is, it would be an incomplete deliverable to just provide a document with "4" written on it. The number 4, standing alone, is the complete and correct answer, but further analysis, auditing or use of that product is impossible without the procedural input (ie, "2+2") Twenty years ago, a piece of paper with both items "2+2" and "4" would have been reasonably expected. What should "reasonably" be expected as an end product has changed with the advent of the PC.
Twenty years ago, a Due Diligence search consisting of phone calls, a search at the courthouse, etc. would have been reasonably complete. Now, a Due Diligence Study including a websearch (AND the documentation of said websearch, including addresses used, not just a summary of findings) is the norm. To provide one without a websearch (AND the documentation of said websearch) would be negligent in my opinion; it would be incomplete, with respect to what is reasonable for a client to expect.
Likewise, twenty years ago, a bound copy of a Stormwater Management Report (again, with input data as well as output results) was reasonable to expect. Today, the computer input should be expected, because it is no longer standard to expect a curve on graph paper as a hydrograph.
As with the examples above, if I am hired to do a site design, I am expected (and usually contractually directed) to provide CADD files...not just the layers which show the end result, but working files. This allows the client further analysis, audit or use of the product; which they paid for. They paid for a design, and a site/civil design in 2005 is a CADD file, not a blueprint.
Remember: The Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is comprised of the characters for “danger” and “opportunity.”
-Steve
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
Generally, the drawings would be owned by the airport and depending on the jurisdiction, the copyright would be owned by the original designer, or if it was transferred, the airport.
The new designer, with permission from the copyright owner, could likely use the plans; there may be other professional restrictions/notifications. At very least, professional courtesy dictates that the original designer be advised of any reuse.
My $.03 (CAN). Dik
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
It's mandatory in our company for EVERY engineer to understand Sarbanes-Oxley, Truth-in-Negotiations, insider-trading, employment of foreign consultants, , etc.
As engineers, many things that we do or know have legal consequences, while almost nothing that lawyers do have engineering consequences.
TTFN
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
JAE is absolutely correct. Drawings, specifications, notes, sketches are all instruments of service. The owner is buying hours of service, not so many bags of ziti!
Legally, even when the contract is silent on ownership of drawings, courts have a tendancy to use the AIA standard as a benchmark for building construction. Can't say what they do in cases of airplane or oil rig construction.
You do not purchase a building design like a can of peas. What if the owner chooses to place that building on an inappropriate site, say one within a significanly higher earthquake zone? What if the owner chooses to move the building to a swamp, or right on top of a Karst feature?
"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"
RE: Designer Fired - Re-use of plans.
A lot of firms have a clause that the plans are instruments for work and belong to the design firm.
Owners on the other hand have standard clauses that say that copyright of the plans belongs to the owner and not the designer.
In the absence of a contract the copyright belongs to the creator of the work.
If you have a contract that requires that copyrights go to the owner, make sure that your sub consultants sign on to this clause specifically so that when things go wrong, (when not if) you are in a position to deliver the copyright to the owner that you are contractually required to do and that you don’t have to turn around and pay extra for them from the sub consultant.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com