Practicing architecture without a lic...

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

Author Message David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1731 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 12:30 pm:    I am currently writing specifications for a project where the envelope consultant is writing the sections for the storefront and windows. 1) I believe the architect, and architects in general, are giving away the store by letting envelope consultants do more of the work that architects should do. 2) I believe the envelope consultant should really just stick to writing the roofing and waterproofing sections and give advice/direction on other sections that affect the building envelope. 3) At what point does what the envelope consultant is doing become practicing architecture without a license? David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1765 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 02:34 pm:    My experience has been very positive with envelope consultants. Even though I had done many deep dives into the topic, and know it pretty well, those consultants added significantly to getting it right. The ones I worked with were structural engineers, so no problem with licensure. I'm not sure that an unlicensed envelope consultant writing a spec is really any different than a spec consultant writing any other spec section, where the architect is controlling, reviewing and "stamping" the design. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP, AIA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 186 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 02:53 pm:    David. I know of several in-house specifiers that are not licensed architects. I suspect there are some independent specification consultants that are not licensed architects. Roofing consultants, who typically are not licensed architects, write roofing specifications all the time, as well as generate roofing details that are often incorporate into a set of construction documents, both for new construction and for reroofing projects. How are these any different than an envelope consultant writing specification for storefronts and windows? If you feel an enveloping consultant writing specifications violates your State’s licensing laws, you should report your concerns to the appropriate department within you State. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 1060 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 03:27 pm:    The architect who has consultants developing technical requirements for "architectural" elements (this includes roofing, waterproofing, door hardware, foodservice, elevators, specifications, etc.) receives these instruments of service and places his/her seal on them. The architect should always be aware of their liability for these items even when their involvement is somewhat limited, and it is incumbent on them to understand the substance of such work. Even when instruments of service are sealed by other design professionals (structural, MEP, civil, landscaping, etc.), this does not absolve the architect of liability when those consultants are subconsultants to the architect. This becomes a bit murkier when the services for those disciplines are directly retained by the owner. J. Peter Jordan, FCSI, AIA, CCS, LEED AP, SCIP anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 18, 2018 - 01:14 pm:    How do you know that the consultant is not a licensed design professional? My firm works with many envelope consultants. many of them are licensed design professionals. Which gets to the issue of their risk in writing specifications for projects as "advisors" and not sealing work. Not sure any language in the envelope consultant/architect agreement will help them in litigation, were something to fail and be traced back to the specifications that were prepared by the envelope consultant. Interesting... Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 613 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2018 - 05:20 pm:    In the meantime, David, let the "envelope consultant" write the specs. While you're at it, let the door and hardware consultants write all of the door specs, too, which they seem to want to do. Exclude all those sections from your scope of service, keep your fees the same, and take a weekend day off. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1735 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 01:21 pm:    I looked up the laws concerning architects in Washington state. It's amazing what you can learn by reading. ;-) ""Practice of architecture" means the rendering of services in connection with the art and science of building design for construction of any structure or grouping of structures and the use of space within and surrounding the structures or the design for construction of alterations or additions to the structures, including but not specifically limited to predesign services, schematic design, design development, preparation of construction contract documents, and administration of the construction contract." The language above concerning practicing architecture casts a pretty wide net especially the "preparation of construction contract documents" portion. It is my opinion if a consultant is advising the architect then this is not practicing architecture. However, if a consultant is hired directly by an owner and not hired by the architect (engineer or other licensed professional), and the consultant prepares construction documents, the consultant may be considered to be practicing architecture. This would be legal if the consultant has an architectural or engineering license and stamps their work. The purpose of a license is to protect the life and safety of the general public. Therefore hiring an unlicensed interior designer, for example, would not be illegal since new paint and drapes would not be a life safety issue. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 148 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 01:46 pm:    Okay, legal beagles... Can this be applied to owner(CM) provided Division 01 documents? I have recent instances where the Division 01 is replaced by a school district version without my knowledge after agency approvals. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 614 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 04:11 pm:    Good question Richard. I advise our architect clients that selected Division 01 sections constitute the practice of architecture and must be included under their seal. We are MasterSpec based, and the sections I always issue for an architect are: Quality Requirements; Product Requirements; Execution. Depending on the content of the architect's services agreement, they should also control Submittals, Payment Procedures, and Closeout Procedures as a minimum. But you cannot issue MasterSpec technical sections without the three sections named above; the rest of the specifications rely upon definitions included in them. We've only had a couple instances of Owner Division 01 documents popping up in the last five years, and they were messy and ate a lot of our time. We have produced Division 00 and Division 01 masters for several school districts; their staff kept tight control over construction, worked with a known cadre of AEs and CMs, and coordinated their agreements, so this worked out to their benefit. Now, CM produced Division 01? They seldom have the insight or interest in doing a good job of it. They can handle payments and scheduling, and maybe temporary facilities, but should really stay out of the rest. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 867 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 25, 2018 - 05:07 pm:    Technical provisions would have to be prepared by an architect or engineer. Contractual provisions could be prepared by a lawyer if prepared by another party but there is nothing to prevent two parties to a contract to write the contract that they then sign without the aid of a lawyer. The problem is when some provision falls into both categories. If we recognize that specifications and drawings are contract documents I contend that architects and engineers thus have a limited authority to write contracts.