Delegated-Design Submittals

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

Author Message Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - 06:05 pm:    Are delegated-design submittals action or informational submittals? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 828 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - 06:18 pm:    they are their own category -- sort of part of each. you need to review them (not just file them) to verify that the criteria used for the design is the correct criteria; the dimensions should be reviewed for conformance; but you do need to be judicious that you are reviewing for design conformance and verification only. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 976 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - 06:27 pm:    My opinion is that they should be informational in the sense they are not stamped "approved," but only received, reviewed and filed. (Rejected and returned if they don't comply.) However, some structural engineers (where many delegated design submittals intersect with construction documents) feel that they should be action submittals, reviewed and "approved." I don't think that there is one right answer--it is a matter of risk management for the firm, expectations of the regional practice, and the opinions of one's insurer and attorney. Pretty much any submittal can be one or the other depending on practice, though many would argue (me included) that there should be as few submittals as practical, and as few of them action as practical. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 96 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 02:12 am:    I do not check the calculations. I may look at the calculations to verify key input parameters. I will return the calculations with a statement to the effect that I have not reviewed them and that we consider them informational submittals. The architect can keep a copy of the informational submital. I believe that AIA A201 has a provision that allows the Architect and his consultants to rely on such submittals from the Contractor. I am interested in the loads that are placed on the systems I designed. I need to verify that the structure that I designed can support the loads from the design built system. In some cases this may mean asking them to re-design their system to place the loads on members that can support them. In other situations I may add or reinforce a member to support these loads. When checking the attachment of the design build submittal to our system it is not always possible to have a clean demarcation but I strive to make the overlap as small as possible. I am aware that some structural engineers believe that they have to check the calculations but I do not share this belief. If I review the calculations and the details and there is a problem then I may expect to share the liability. If I do not check this work I can claim that it was not part of our scope of work. In most cases our fees have been reduced because a sub system is made design build, so why should we check the system and increase our liability for the system. If the system is made design build because it is a specialty system that we do not have the expertise to define then we have no business checking the calculations. Interestingly if we were hired to perform an independent peer review of another engineers design we would typically have contractual language in our agreement limiting our liability and holding us harmless. This language is not common when we are asked to review a design build submittal where we are the engineer of record. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 829 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 01:45 pm:    we also verify the inputs for the calculations, but do not check the calculations. as an example, we had some wall stiffness criteria that stated "L/180 and not more than 1/2" deflection". in some cases because of the height of the wall, the L/180 would produce more than 1/2" deflection, which is why there was a limiting deflection number. when we reviewed the submittal, it was apparent that the wall was designed only to the L/180, and didn't take the other number into account. And as you do Mark, we look for the conjunction of the delegated design work with the other work to verify that the coordination requirements have been properly accounted for. we consider these submittals to be "sort of" action submittals -- but only to a limited extent. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 01:16 pm:    I could not agree with you more, Mr. Gilligan. I find it strange that MasterSpec sections, under delegated design portions of some specs, require calculations to be submitted. WHY? I revise this to simply require a certificate from the delegated design engineer that performance criteria stated has been met in the design. Another oddity I recently became aware of is that the AIA takes issue with the term "delegated design" although MasterSpec uses this term throughout their specs (and evidently coined the term). Why does AIA dislike this term? And why does MasterSpec use it if AIA doesn't like it? I see no problem with this term, something that is far more accurate that all the Archidorks I work with calling it "Design Build" or "Bidder Design". Richard Baxter, AIA, CSI Senior Member Username: rbaxter Post Number: 80 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 04:15 pm:    I can only guess, but perhaps, AIA is concerned that the practice of handing off design work to the contractor has the potential to get out of hand and could eventually escalate into a reduction in the architect’s value. Owners may start wondering why they are paying the architect so much if he or she is just going to delegate the design work to others. Owners may not always realize how much of the design work is not being done by their architects. AIA likes to maximize the architect’s role and value by keeping as much design responsibility as possibly within the architect’s control. Arcom, on the other hand, simply tries to include all the most common options that are currently practiced by architects. To eliminate a common practice from their Masterspec would make them appear to be out of touch with reality in the industry. Like many of you, we consider calculations to be information submittals and we do not assume responsibility for the accuracy of that information. We view them the same way we view site visits. We are not supervising or overseeing. We are only observing. Architects should always recognize that the owner has hired them to look out for the owner’s best interests. In that light, it seems reasonable that architects and their engineers would at least peruse all submitted information and provide cursory observation of the calculations that could be of the greatest hurt to the owner if they were wrong. It isn’t the architect’s fault if the stairway collapses due to the contractor’s bad calculations. But that provides little comfort for the guy that was standing on the stairway when it collapsed, the owner who was subsequently sued, the contractor who built the stairway, or the architect who was publically credited with the design. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 143 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 05:11 pm:    In California, "delegated design" work for I-occupancy hospitals reviewed and permitted by OSHPD must be over-stamped by the Architect of record and submited as a "deferred approval" item to OSHPD. There is an absolute need for complete drawings and supporting calculations and the Architect must meet the standard of care that applies to any project document that they seal. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 830 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 05:53 pm:    in the AIA documents, there is a statement at 3.12.2 in AIA 201 that states: "The Contractor shall not be required to provide professional services that constitute the practice of architecture or engineering unless such services are specifically required by the Contract Documents for a portion of the Work" -- I don't remember the actual genesis of the term "delegated design" but I do remember long conversations about it at Arcom (Masterspec) meetings. Since the AIA doesn't call it anything -- and its really not "design build" since that has a meaning. Note that in the definition of "delegated design" provided in Masterspec, the Architect is responsible for the design criteria, whereas in "design build" or "bidder design" they are supposed to derive the criteria themselves. There are some jurisdictions (as mentioned above) or some types of work where the concept of "delegated design" is simply not allowed on a construction project. I believe Houston is one of these areas, but will defer to the Texans on this board for confirmation. as for the calculations to be submitted -- there are varying reasons for this. We (ie, my office) likes to see the criteria and the calcs. for exterior work, our structural engineer definitely likes to see the calcs. You can always delete that requirement. In general though, the comment that Masterspec simply recognizes how things are done and reflects those options is absolutely correct -- the review committee is made up of subscribers with varying practices, practice types, and locations, and we want the spec sections to reflect construction practices that we have had issues with on current or past jobs. (nb: I was on the committee for 7 years and now continue to attend). Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 97 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 03:05 am:    I will touch on a number of topics in response to comments: 1) The term delegated design appears to have been promoted by the steel fabricators and suppliers who often perform design built work for portions of the building. 2) Regarding the suggestion that the delegated design engineer be asked to certify his design: you do not want to do this. Ask for a certificate from the contractor but not from the design professional. Certificates are likely to be seen as warranties or guaranties which would result in the errors and omission insurance being void. Thus you could not be able to collect anything of value from the engineer unless he was rich. So even if the designer will sign the certificate it gets you nothing. 3) The ides that we should "...provide cursory observation of the calculations that could be of the greatest hurt to the owner if they were wrong." takes us down a slippery slope. Following this logic if there was a problem then we should have checked it. So if there was a problem we obviously did not fulfill the duty that we undertook thus we are liable in part for the problem. The advice that I have received from attorneys is that we should not undertake additional obligations that are not covered in our scope of services. If you accept the logic that we need to go beyond our scope to prevent problems then you are buying into the idea that even if we accepted a limited scope of services contract that we still need to provide full services. 4) While the design professional on hospitals in California must sign deferred submittals he does not need to put his professional stamp on the deferred submittal. Steven talk to your Structural Engineers. 5) The idea that there can be a project where the drawings are totally complete and there is no delegation of design is a fantasy. Sometimes a plan checker demands this and we give him something that he accepts as complete with no delegated design, but in my experience this is not reality. This statement is equally true of projects checked by DSA and OSHPD in California. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 144 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 12:17 pm:    Mark wrote: 4) While the design professional on hospitals in California must sign deferred submittals he does not need to put his professional stamp on the deferred submittal. Steven talk to your Structural Engineers. Mark, I didn't say Engineer, I said Architect. T.J. Simons, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tsimons Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 12:46 pm:    The language in the current California Building Code (Title 24, Part 1) pertaining to A/E signatures and stamps has been changed. The Architect of Record is required only to sign deferred approval/delegated design/design-build drawings, not stamp them. The Code allows the AOR to add an "explanatory note" to such drawings indicating that the drawings in question were not prepared under his/her direct supervision. Some plan reviewers don't understand the distinction, and are demanding a stamp, but they have no authority to do so-the Code says sign, not stamp. I currently have a project in review which includes curtain wall, elevators, pneumatic tube system, fire protection, and fire alarm drawings in the CD package, all prepared by design-build subs working for the Contractor. All of these drawings are signed and notated as described above. Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 94 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2008 - 03:13 pm:    Following a time of famous building or building-component failures in the early 80s, the Florida Board of Professional Engineers developed, and over the years refined, numerous rules for the delegating of engineering design. Most of these rules offer the project's engineer of record to delegate the refining of engineering design to another professional engineer (usually hired by the contractor), with provision for a degree of final checking by the EOR, who retains responsibility for the final, refined design. Florida architects have felt free to delegate the fine design of items such as railings, framed skylights, and walkway canopies to registered engineers hired by the contractor, specifying the same procedures used by Florida engineers. AIA picked up on the custom of delegating the expert design of engineered components in the 1990s – in what is now A201 3.12.10. Chapters 61G15-31 through -34 of the Florida Board of Professional Engineers Laws and Rules provide basic standards for engineering thoroughness in a wide range of fields – usually with the alternative of having the detailed design delegated to a contractor's (or his subcontractor’s) engineer. In the alternative procedure, the delegated engineer’s fine design, often with its calculations, is then checked by the EOR against the EOR’s general design (including the standards, assumptions, loads, etc. specified by the EOR in the contract documents). Florida’s 61G15-31 through -34 rules cover: Design of foundations CIP post-tensioned concrete Precast and prestressed concrete components Structural steel systems Open web steel joists Prefabricated wood trusses Pre-engineered structures Material and human transfer systems Motion systems (elevators, moving walkways, amusement rides, etc.) Water, mist, gas agent, foam, and dry chemical fire suppression systems Fire alarm signaling and control systems Plumbing systems HVAC systems Instrumentation and control systems Power systems Lighting systems Lightning protection systems Grounding systems Communications systems Heat and energy transfer systems Process and fluid flow systems Tom Heineman RA, FCSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: tom_heineman Post Number: 95 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, October 10, 2008 - 01:09 pm:    About the origins of the term "delegated design": I do not have a copy of the rules as they first defined the term in the 1980s. However the current rules define "engineer of record" and "prime professional" as well as "delegated engineer". Excerpts from the rules: "The delegated engineering document shall comply with the written engineering requirements received from the EOR. They shall include ... criteria used as a basis for its preparation. ... the DE shall contact the EOR for resolution of conflicts." "The DE shall forward the document to the EOR for review ... [with] seal and signature of the DE and include: Drawings introducing engineering input such as ...; Calculations ..." "... the EOR ... shall review the documents of the DE to confirm that the DE documents conform to the intent of the EOR and meet the written criteria."