What about revising original prepared by another consultant?

[dik]

This is a 'sister' question in the footsteps of the previous one.

We often work on projects prepared by another consultant and are provided with digital copies of their original works. Many clients require digital copies of the work and take 'ownership' of these documents. Many clients want to retain an up to date digital copy of elements of their facilities.

We then provide modifications to these drawings.

We provide the client with *.pdf scans of the original sealed drawings (actual scan with a single layer).

We have been advising the other consultant of our intent to modify these documents and the manner in which they will be modified. We leave their titleblock/logo on the drawing and affix our own.

The original seal(s) on the paper copy is/are replaced with a note that the original drawings were signed and sealed by ??? on the date ??? for each seal.

The new engineering seal and other seals have a note that the seal(s) apply only to changes denoted by Revision ???.

If the client permits, the original work is 'screened' to 60%. Some clients do not have drawing layers that permit this.

When we transfer 'ownership' back to the client, we include a note on the drawing that each revision was sealed and dated by ???.

Any comments?

Dik

 

[Ron]

dik...in our jurisdiction it has to be a bit cleaner to separate the engineering responsibilities. We essentially have to "take over" the work of the other engineer, doing enough validation to assure ourselves of its accuracy, then accept the work as our own, removing all traces of the previous engineer's involvement.

For clear modifications, we do essentially what you have done.

 

[dik]

Thanks, Ron...

That's the way I would have thought... but people here are of the opinion that we are only responsible for the revisions...

Dik

 

[msquared48]

I agree with Ron. That's the way I have done it in the past on a couple of occasions. Removing their logo and assuming the full liability for the project is only logical to me, depending on the wishes of the previous engineer and your scope of services.

Communication with the previous engineer is both essential and a matter of professional courtesy. I would expect no less if the tables were turned.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[rowingengineer]

In my area it depends on the size of modifications. Above 20% structural change and you have to review the complete structure.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"A safe structure will be the one whose weakest link is never overloaded by the greatest force to which the structure is subjected” Petroski 1992

 

[IRstuff]

According to your process, then, you can make revision that nullifies the assumptions used by the originator, and they're still responsible for their calculations? Does that even make sense?

At the minimum, you ought to demonstrate by analysis that your revisions do not affect the underpinnings of the originator's analysis. This may be non-trivial.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[MiketheEngineer]

I usually include a "separate" report citing the other engineer's work and explaining my additions/subtractions??

In some jurisdictions - to remove a logo and seal is frowned upon.