Residential Solar Drawing Mill Looking for Prof. CE/SE & EE to Stamp their Drawings for $150.00/ 1

[structuralsteelhead]

Yes that's right,...step right up folks! You too can bask in the glory of being one of many engineers pumping out 20 or more projects a month for $150.00 a pop. Just place rubber stamp here! (price includes PE to print/stamp/mailing services)

Got this solicitation last night from what appears to be solar drawing production mill company looking for a couple more California PE's to add to their rubber stamping posse. My reply included terms like professional ethics, engineer in responsible charge, professional liability, due respect/reasonable compensation, and continued comments,....why no full time engineering staff for that kind of volume, business model works great for you-not the engineering community, and bargain basement engineering services shopping. My reply was not well received!

Please don't be that guy, who says yes to companies like this. Have a super day!!

 

[HamburgerHelper]

That could be reasonable. This might be cookie cutter work that is the same from project to project. It might literally be an hour of review for $150. Not all projects like this or pole barns really needs engineering. It is just signing off that the design is safe, not really paying for engineering.

 

[structuralsteelhead]

Maybe,...but personally, I would typically prefer to work directly with the known installer. I have no idea who the real client/installer is on these projects. While my rate may be close to that amount per hour. My stamp is worth more to me. Would prefer to work on 3 to 4 less projects for the same monthly income, with known installers, whose construction methods and ethics I'm somewhat familiar with, who have positively identified structure prior to spitting house framing plans that assume pre-engineered wood roof trusses on every project.

Will not buy into becoming be an engineer in responsible charge for $150.00 on any project,.....ever. You have to have a minimum fee for your stamp and hold to it in my opinion.

 

[canwesteng]

If the project doesn't need engineering, it doesn't need an engineers stamp

 

[MotorCity]

Even pole barns need engineering....are they always engineered? Of course not. Providing your seal on the drawing is more than just signing off that the design is safe. It means that your are in responsible charge for the design and have accepted the responsibility and liability for such. It means that you either performed the design or supervised the design. I personally have never sealed anything where I was able to design or review it in an hour to the point that I felt comfortable taking ownership for it. I am not familiar with the solicitation mentioned, but if it doesn't pass the sniff test I would forward it to the California board.

 

[GregLocock]

Rent seeking by engineers is not an attractive trait either. The solar panels on my roof were installed, using a known kit developed for the purpose, by qualified tradesmen. They didn't have a drawing, and I didn't expect them to have one.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Ron]

SSH....AGREE COMPLETELY. This crap is a blight on our profession. One more example in a long line of professional erosion.

Greg...agree with you as well...follows the same line.

 

[cvg]

If the project doesn't need engineering, it doesn't need an engineers stamp

AHJ's require stamped drawings in order to obtain permits. For most PV systems, this is a waste of money. And the drawings I have seen were barely worth the paper they were printed on. But apparently building departments think otherwise.

 

[moltenmetal]

From an outsider's perspective (I'm not a structural engineer), this likely has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with liability shifting. A municipality which approves construction drawings without a stamp unwittingly accepts some proportional liability for future failures.

At some future date, the loads associated with solar panels on residential roofs will be added to the building code design cases for such roofs, and except for weird installations, it will become another "design by table in the code" exercise, not requiring an engineer's involvement. Right now, it's my understanding that our local building department wants an engineer's stamp on any residential framing drawing which includes steel, whether that be beams or columns. That certainly was the case when I built my addition. I presume the same is necessary for mass-produced pre-engineered structural systems such as wood roof trusses too. No surprise they'd want someone to take responsibility for ensuring that the panels don't add loads to the roof structure that aren't accounted for otherwise in the local building code, and that the racking system is properly designed to transfer those loads safely to the roofing support members.

 

[cvg]

A municipality which approves construction drawings without a stamp unwittingly accepts some proportional liability for future failures.

in general, municipalities have Sovereign Immunity, which precludes private parties from bringing suit against the government. so liability is shifted from the contractor to an engineer. And if the engineer does not actually design the roof or the solar panel connections to the roof, than they are taking on significant liability for stamping a cookie cutter design. sounds like a stupid thing to do.

 

[moltenmetal]

Sovereign immunity sounds like a nice concept, but it apparently isn't absolute.

https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/04/28/whos_liable_for_house_defects.html

Their case against the city for negligent inspection will be based on the law established in a 2000 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Ingles v. Tutkaluk.

James Ingles and his wife Valerie Webb owned a 1910 Annex house on MacPherson Ave. They hired a contractor to lower the basement by 18 inches for $46,000.

The City of Toronto issued a building permit for underpinning the existing foundations. It required that the work had to be inspected and the underpinning had to be at least as wide as the existing foundations.

Two inspectors visited the site during the construction of the foundations, but were unable to measure the depth and width of the footings properly.

Within weeks of completion of the job, the basement began to flood. It turned out that the underpinning was only six inches wide instead of the required 24 inches, and they weren't dug deep enough.

Ingles sued the city and the contractor, winning at trial and losing at the Court of Appeal.

In March 2000 the Supreme Court of Canada handed down the final word in Ingles v. Tutkaluk. A seven-judge panel ordered the city and contractor to pay Ingles $49,368 plus 10 years' interest at 12.9 per cent and costs of the trial and appeals. In all, the city got hit for a bill of $185,000.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly stated that a municipality owes a duty of care to all who might be injured by negligently carrying out its statutory duties. To avoid liability, a city must exercise the standard of care that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent inspector in the same circumstances.

The inspector who I worked with on the construction of my large remodel and addition to my house, filled in a few blanks in the story above which I cannot independently verify, but I have no reason to doubt what he said. Apparently, what is not mentioned above is that the homeowner allowed work to proceed without a permit in order to get the work done quicker. An inspector driving by saw the soil bins beside the house and ordered an inspection, but it was too late- the basement floor had already been poured so inspection of the underpinning wasn't possible. The homeowner apparently pleaded with the inspector to not demand demolition of the slab to permit the inspection, and the inspector relented- but when the sh*t hit the fan, the what did the homeowner do? They sued the City for NOT ordering the demolition and inspection...and, in the end, they prevailed. It's a sick system in my opinion, but it does go a long way to explaining why certain things are done the way they are done.

The municipality owes a duty of care, and discharges that duty of care with respect to design by mandating the involvement of another party who can be held liable in the case when the design doesn't work out.

Any time the design involves any calculation whatsoever, rather than merely referring to tables in the local building code, someone else needs to be on the hook or it's not going to be built. And any time a building is big enough that design by table isn't going to be feasible, the regulations already mandate the participation of an architect and presumably also a structural engineer.

 

[Terratek]

What if the add said:

"Review relatively simple structural plans for sound engineering and revise/seal as appropriate. Estimated review time about 1 hour per plan. Fee per plan review $150.00"

Would this be an offence to structural engineers? Just as devil's advocate, perhaps this is what the lay person means, but says it like a douche because they have not been educated on proper communication etiquette among engineers. Not usually the case...but maybe.

 

[JedClampett]

I can think of a lot of things that can go wrong with this, if for no other reason than the sheer volume of the designs. Are you going to supervise that a #18 screw isn't substituted for a #12? It seems like taking on the liability of poor workmanship, unknown conditions, different and differing installers, litigious owners, etc. would make your E & O insurer cringe. Of course, that assumes you have E & O insurance.
But I 100% guarantee they'll find someone to seal these career traps for the $150. And if not, they'll raise it to $162.50.

 

[cvg]

Moltenmetal - apparently Canadian laws regarding permits and inspections are not the same as US

 

[dik]

and they vary from Jurisdiction in Canada...

Dik

 

[HamburgerHelper]

Trademen know that their goal is to turn their time into money. Engineers are too idealistic and with ideas of importance over tradesmen to know that their job ,too is to turn time into money. Nothing wrong or damaging to the profession for this sort of thing if the compensation makes sense.

 

[cvg]

so, the average residential solar installation costs about $10k. A strong wind blows it off the roof. It lands on the neighbors house. Both homeowners sue the solar installation company and the engineer. They win the lawsuit, you and the contractor split the damages. After attorneys fees, damages and lost time, your total liability is say about $25K. And your insurance company drops you to boot. Is that worth $150 and an hour of your time?

 

[BrianPetersen]

There is a probability of failure in every human activity. The question is whether it's worth the risk.

I say NOPE, but I betcha they'll find some unemployed engineer who will do it.

 

[structuralsteelhead]

One of my points exactly, cvg. 20 jobs a month, that's 240 jobs a year. Almost guaranteed you're being brought into a law suit for one of them. At least in the US,....that's how we roll.

And then, you, the PE, will be held more responsible than the designer/drafter that got paid 5 or more times more to draw and sell the plans than you did to take legal responsibility for them. Why, because of course the drawing mill does not carry PLI, but you do, so for sure you're on the hook for more than you would have imagined for $150.00 and your increase in annual revenue for working within such an agreement would most likely go right back out the door in deductibles, increased PLI premiums, and additional potential attorney fees not covered in your PLI. Better stamp about 480 jobs the next year to help balance things out!

But truly not talking about more compensation to somehow misguidedly justify insurance fees/losses, but more compensation to cover more time and effort to show "due diligence by the PE/SE" that the information shown on the project documents is to the best of his/her ability to be true and accurate. A plaintiffs lawyer would most likely have a field day with knowledge of a one hour or less effort performed by the PE. I feel the terms "negligence" or, "less than an expected "standard of care"" would leave his mouth or the mouth of his high paid expert PE witness even more quickly.

 

[dik]

Ron: I've always thought that engineering was the 'oldest profession'.

Dik