Delegated Designs

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 846 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2018 - 07:21 pm:    When a portion of the design is delegated to the Contractor and the contractor is required to retain an Architect or Engineer to design the work the design will typically be required to be submitted to the building department for review and approval. This delegated design will then be a part of the construction or permit documents and hence part of the Contract Documents. It is suggested that the responsibility of the Architect and the Architect’s consultants with respect to the delegated design will be comparable to that if the Owner were to independently hire a separate consultant to design a portion of the building. David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 83 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2018 - 07:27 pm:    Mark, I disagree. The architect of record is the one responsible for defining what will be transferred to the contractor as delegated design and is also responsible for establishing the criteria for the contractor to complete the design. This is quite different from the owner hiring and independent design professional to be responsible for designing a portion of the project. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1153 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2018 - 10:52 am:    Actually you're both right depending on where the work is being performed. In California, OSHPD projects work pretty much the way Mark described. Not true anywhere else that I'm aware of. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 847 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2018 - 12:46 pm:    Is it being suggested that the delegated design does not become part of the construction documents defined in the IBC? What code provision allows these designs not to be a part of the construction documents? This is not California specific. Give me reasons. Does the building department issue a separate building permit for the elements designed by the Contractor? Not my understanding even for non-OSHPD projects. I can find situations where the same structural element is designed by the contractor on some projects but on other projects it is designed by the Architects structural consultant. How does this differ from the situation where on some projects the owner hires the structural engineer directly and then has him work with the Architect. In both cases the working relationship between the architect and the engineer are the same. I will agree that when the engineer is retained by the Owner the architect does not have vicarious liability for the engineer's work but otherwise the Architects obligations are the same. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1737 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2018 - 05:34 pm:    While it makes sense that delegated designs should be reviewed by the building official, I have never actually seen that done. The contractor, I think, ought to be submitting this like she would for the principal design documents. Seems like a gap in code enforcement. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 848 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, March 04, 2018 - 09:57 pm:    John It is done in jurisdictions that attempt to comply with the IBC. Just as important for our discussion this is what is required by the IBC. Refer to 2015 IBC Section 107.3.4.1 titled "Deferred submittals". Note the requirement that the construction documents list the deferred submittals for review by the building official. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 1154 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, March 05, 2018 - 12:17 pm:    I agree with John. Most of the time the A/E issues the permit set with performance requirements specified and more-or-less schematic drawings. This is typically sufficient to get a permit and to allow the Contractor and subs to generate a delegated design after award of contract and Notice to Proceed. I have worked on projects with "Design Assist" where the "Delegated Design" was done while CD's were being prepared. In those instances some content, less schematic than in the above example, is incorporated into the CD's for permit review but the Contractor doesn't submit sealed drawings at that point because too many changes have occurred since Design Assist began. I have not seen sealed shop drawings submitted with the CD's for permit review anywhere but in California that I can recall. If I recall correctly, the shop drawings still went in with the Contractor's PE seal, not the A/E's. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 849 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, March 05, 2018 - 12:49 pm:    Ken I recognize that in much of the country the adopted building code is not enforced consistently but that is not really the question. Supposedly we are still required to comply with the adopted code even if the building official does not enforce it. Can we at least recognize what the building code requires? Nobody is saying that the Architect or his/her consultants should seal the specialty engineer's design. I believe that it is unfair to suggest that this is a California only thing. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 850 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, March 05, 2018 - 03:28 pm:    Let us consider another similar condition where as a result of the decisions made by the specialty engineer the code would require a special inspection not previously listed in the Statement of Special Inspections. It would follow that the Statement of Special Inspections would need to be revised. IBC Section 1704.3 requires that the SSI be prepared by the Registered Design Professional in Responsible Charge(RDPRC). Thus the RDPRC needs to coordinate this revision to the SSI with the specialty engineer. Note that the definition of the RDPRC in Section 202 it is made clear that the RDPRC is responsible for coordination of documents prepared by others including phased submittal documents. Note also Section 107.3.3 Dealing with phased submittals. This is contrary to the practice of the Contractor proceeding without review by the building department. Section 1704.2 precludes the Contractor from providing any special inspections so the Owner will be responsible for the Special Inspections required as a result of the specialty engineer's work. Section 1704.5 requires the Owner to submit several documents that may be produced by a specialty engineer. The point of all of this is that the Owner and by extension the Owner's consultants cannot totally wash their hands on the elements of the building where detailed design is delegated. I am not sure how far this goes but there needs to be more consideration of the issues. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2018 - 11:21 am:    I don't think anyone is trying to wash their hands of the elements that are being delegated to the contractor to design. The Architect would still indicate what special inspections are required for that design in the SSI ... the requirements wouldn't change if it is the architect's consulting engineer, or the contractor's engineer who designs it, right? Also, just because a design element is delegated to the contractor doesn't mean it is automatically a deferred submittal to the AHJ. That's a permitting and code enforcement issue and largely determined by the AHJ. Any items that would need to be submitted to the AHJ should probably be incorporated into your sections as required submittals for those portions of the project for which you are delegating the design to the contractor. Otherwise, it might prove difficult getting the required documentation from them after the fact. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 376 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2018 - 01:20 pm:    Mark's original question was about requiring contractor to retain a licensed professional to meet code. Are there similar concerns about delegating design for items that do not require code approval or a licensed professional? Case in point is design of a lightning protection system. There are only a few jurisdictions that require LPS by code, and the design is generally performed by individuals that are unlicensed but certified by the Lightning Protection Institute. Thank you for your thoughts. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 851 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2018 - 01:34 pm:    Michael My original question was about the status of the delegated designs with respect to the contract documents and the architect's or engineer's role. The question about what needs to be designed by a licensed professional is not a building code issue, rather is something addressed by the state licensing laws. Licensing of architects and engineers is a separate legal system from the adoption of building codes. Building codes should not try to regulate the practice of architecture or engineering, rather building codes should focus on the properties of the building.