Affidavit to certify project 10

At first glance, 1 and 2 look fairly innocuous, as the certification is for your own work. 3 should never be signed, as the certification is for the contractor's work. The companies I have worked for would never allow that type certification, although some jurisdictions will try to get as much as possible.

The only modification I had to #1 or #2 was I took out the Fire and Life Safety Code references. #3 was the big issue to get the rewording accepted by the building official.

Do you normally have to sign affidavits after the construction is complete?

I my jurisdiction we sign an affidavit stating that we have made periodic site visits and to the best of our knowledge the construction is in conformance to the plans and specifications.

No, sometimes on Federal work we have to sign a letter stating we performed certain quality control activities and that the design meets Code. I am less familiar with local building officials and what they are requiring now days. I know the IBC requires a written statement to the building official regarding site visits and construction deficiencies at the end of the project for high wind and seismic designs. I ended up with #3 being similar, ie. "to the best of my knowledge..." and took out the word "certify".

haynewp....I believe the following applies directly to you. Take this to your management and ask why they want you to violate your state law!

Rule 180-6-.09. Certification
(1)The term "Certification" as used in Rule 180-6-.09(2) and (3) and
relating to professional engineering or land surveying services, as
defined in O.C.G.A. 43-15-2(6) and (11), shall mean a signed statement
based upon facts and knowledge known to the registrant and is not a
guarantee or warranty, either expressed or implied.

(2)When an engineer or land surveyor is presented with a certificate to be
signed or sealed, he or she should carefully evaluate that certification
to determine if the certification:
(a)relates to matters which are within the technical competence of
the engineer or land surveyor;
(b)involves matters which are within the scope of services actually
provided by the engineer or land surveyor or;
(c)relates to matters which were prepared under the supervision,
direction and control of the engineer or land surveyor.

(3)Engineers or land surveyors who sign or seal certification not meeting
criteria in subsection (2) are subject to discipline pursuant to O.C.G.A.
43-15-19(a)(5).

The Building Official is doing this for CYA purposes so that they can't be blamed for their potentially crappy plan review. As hokie66 noted, it is mostly a restatement of what your signature/seal already does so it is redundant; however, redundancy for our liability purposes is NOT GOOD! Does the Building Official not understand that he has sovereign immunity? (although he's probably doing it for job protection, not to protect the building department!)

Bad practice. See if you can get the locals together and get a meeting with him to stop this crap. You're licensed for a reason. The reason is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, not the building official.

haynewp - I've seen this sort of thing pop up occasionally (back in the 1980's the City of San Antonio, TX tried something similar and the local engineers pushed back pretty hard).

The city officials think they are somehow improving the quality of the building product by doing this - which they aren't. They also think that by requiring these "certifications" they are somehow ensuring that the engineers will be more responsible, more careful, or be more liable should anything go wrong with the building, which isn't the case.

It also is a reflection of the disease endemic within any government organization that compels these people to decree and demand things without any true factual justification.

A couple of things I'd think about with this:[blue]
1. These statements go beyond your state's engineering practice act I'm sure.
2. The statements appear to me to be asking you to certify things in which you probably don't have full knowledge of anyway.
3. The statements might possibly void your liability insurance...check with your insurance agent - they are insuring you based on engineers standard of care, not a certification that "all" things are perfect. If you then go beyond the standard of care and certify that your work is perfect the insurer could potentially walk away from defending you.
4. The statements add nothing to the quality of the building beyond what your signature and seal on the original plans do.[/blue]

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

Ron,

Thanks for finding that. It helps when I can point to the law when these kinds of things come up. I agree about him trying to cover his own job.

JAE,

I brought up the insurance as well. Bringing up my company getting in trouble in such situations actually helps me as management is less concerned about my license but I do get their attention when I mention the company getting sued.

We all ended up in agreement at the end with the changes that the letter needed, I just get disgusted when these sorts of things come up and I usually end up having to be confrontational due to some others ignorance.

Regarding meeting with him about this affidavit; this is a high profile project, very high profile because of the client. If I am seen as causing a stink with the building department directly I will be at odds with the company president, without a doubt.

You should NEVER sign anything admitting liability to aspects of a project you have no control over. Let your boss sign it if it is that important. If he does though, be aware that you are working for a manipulated idiot.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

Mike,

I did not and would not do that. My direct boss used to be a practicing structural engineer and he gets it. The problem is the project managers (more like client manager paper pushers and are of disciplines other than structural). I won't even mention some of the other things they have brought to me expecting me to go along with it.

Per my item 3 above - we do tell clients and others about our concern over the potential loss of insurance coverage.
We tell them that we are also trying to help them maintain access to our insurance and don't want to jeopardize that access for them.

In fact, many times we pass these requests to our agent and ask him to visit with those demanding them. It certainly helps convince others.



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

Tempting to reply with

'I hereby certify that any plans, specifications and drawings with my seal and signature affixed to them are complete and conform to the applicable codes and standards, to the best of my knowledge.'

JAE...we do the same. Insurance is a big hammer.

TenPenny....don't re-certify what your signature and seal already do. Supplementary "certification" of any kind is inappropriate.

From a quick search I found some other locations that are asking for similar certifications:

Are these jurisdictions that are vulnerable to lawsuits?

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

If supplemental certification is inappropriate, then the solution is to shred the document and simply refuse.

haynewp,

Wow, some of those are pretty bad. I fight local jurisdictions on these all the time. The only time I ever really relent if for a state form that has language that matches what I have on my forms. I really dislike paper pushers, unfortunately, I run into them quite often.

My other favorite is when I am asked to sign a final affidavit when that wasn't part of the contract. That one always gets interesting. Lost a few clients over refusal to say that I have been present onsite when I wasn't and that was not part of my scope of work.

There are 2 major items that affidavit is requiring:
1. The PE is certifying that the design of the project is up to code/standards
2. The PE is performing the Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for the project.

One PE may or may not be doing both items that is required by the affidavit. The QA/QC is an important aspect for any type of work because the regulator cannot be onsite 24/7 and needs some mechanism to verify the work was performed properly. As a regulator who deals with RCRA facilities (hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities - e.g., landfills) an engineer needs to stamp the drawings & calculations for the design, prepare a QA/QC plan and certify the QC plan including all of the testing results. The purpose is to verify that the project was designed and constructed properly, and if there were any failures/violations found during constructed, they were properly addressed.

If your contract is not to perform both functions of the affidavit, then this needs to be resolved before the form is signed/sealed.

I took a look at the Pinellas County document since that is in Florida, though I don't do much in Pinellas County (as a point of reference, it is the county on the west side of Tampa Bay and its principal cities are St. Petersburg and Clearwater). The form is a bit confusing in that it seems to mix up "Private Provider" services, "Special Inspection", Contract Administration and Quality Assurance services. At the least, confusing and; perhaps onerous and illegal under Florida law. The statutory reference given is one that states that engineers must have education (primarily continuing education) in the Florida Building Code. So what? It's mandatory under our laws and rules so we all have it. It has nothing to do with the form!

I will consult our state board and let you know what I find out if they respond.