Projects done by state agencies and finished by consultants
Projects done by state agencies and finished by consultants
(OP)
A government agency partially completes the design of a project. Partially means many of the design decisions are made, some of the computations of quantities are completed, and you could characterize the project as 60% complete.
The governmnet agency then decides to contract with a consultant to complete the work on the project. The governmnet agency does not want the consultant engineer to go back and check any of the completed work, but just move forward with completing the construction documents.
The government agency then expects the engineer to sign and seal the competed work. The public agency is not required, and generally does not, sign and seal construction documents for these projects.
Considering only engineering ethics considerations (NSPE) (not considering state registration laws and rules), what should the position of the consultant be with regard to signing and sealing the final project that includes work and decisions made proir to his/her taking over supervision of the project?
The governmnet agency then decides to contract with a consultant to complete the work on the project. The governmnet agency does not want the consultant engineer to go back and check any of the completed work, but just move forward with completing the construction documents.
The government agency then expects the engineer to sign and seal the competed work. The public agency is not required, and generally does not, sign and seal construction documents for these projects.
Considering only engineering ethics considerations (NSPE) (not considering state registration laws and rules), what should the position of the consultant be with regard to signing and sealing the final project that includes work and decisions made proir to his/her taking over supervision of the project?





RE: Projects done by state agencies and finished by consultants
IMHO:
NSPE or no, you'd be certifiably insane to put your name on a project without checking a _lot_ of the supplied input, maybe all of it.
[ I'm not licensed and don't seal drawings, but pretty much every time I've accepted a stranger's word that something was done correctly, or to the degree of completion asserted, or at all, I've regretted it. ]
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
RE: Projects done by state agencies and finished by consultants
I routinely review drawings in the course of my work and at times have been distressingly amazed at how some arrive to me with others signatures already on them but in some cases with errors that are readily apparent.
Regards,
RE: Projects done by state agencies and finished by consultants
This is in direct violation of every USA state's engineering laws. In this case, the engineer should immediately state in writing that their obligation to protect the public safety trumps any request by the gov't agency to omit this verification and insist that they be compensated in order to do the required back-checking.
In addition, as a consulting engineer, you should also be aware that you are always under pressure to control your company's risk. This means that whether they pay you or not, you should back-check the 60% design to cover yourselves against any future litigation should something be wrong in the design.
You would be judged against a "standard of care" whereby your behavior on this project would be compared to what another "reasonable" engineer would do in your circumstance...and I would think most reasonable engineers would back-check.
RE: Projects done by state agencies and finished by consultants
RE: Projects done by state agencies and finished by consultants
I AM licensed, and the most important aspect of that is understanding that you can not always account for everything and you can not always check everything. But you have to get to the point that what you are designing/checking is reasonable and you are comfortable with what you have done. My test I use when I am about to stamp something is "would I be willing to let my children stand under/use/be around this everyday from now on?”. If the answer is no, then I have some more calcs/tests/etc. to do.
When I am faced with the situation originally posed, I will state that “based on the information provided by XYZ……, then…….”. It’s not perfect and I still have to do a reality check to make sure everything is safe, but it sometimes is the best I can do.
ZCP
www.phoenix-engineer.com
RE: Projects done by state agencies and finished by consultants
a> you did all the work or supervised all the work when you didn't
b> the performance of the design is as predicted when you have no insight into the calculations or the assumptions/groundrules of the original design calculations.
The "based on the information provided by XYZ" defense does not hold up, since you are liable if a program like NASTRAN gives you the wrong answer for a design that later fails. By claiming "based on the information provided by XYZ" you can be liable for failure to do due diligence.
Even in the case where you could somehow get the 60% design signed off by the original designer, there is still a technical risk due to the fact that you have no insight into the assumptions and groundrules used by the original designer.
While your design addition may be sound and optimum, in of itself, and may appear to dovetail into the existing design; without thorough understanding of any potential negative interactions, you run the risk of design failure. Two optimal components, when coupled together can, and often does, result in a suboptimal system performance.
TTFN
RE: Projects done by state agencies and finished by consultants