# Soils Reports



## Keystone (Sep 16, 2022)

*For those requiring and receiving soils reports, what’s your procedure?

At what point are they required in the bldg process, will you continue to schedule and perform inspections without a soils report to keep bldg moving forward. Who reviews the soils report, the inspector in the field or the plan reviewer, if it’s a plan reviewer are they full time staff plan reviewer and ipthe report goes in the plan review pile and reviewed in the order it’s received? *


----------



## Mark K (Sep 16, 2022)

The appropriate term and the term used in the IBC is the geotechnical report.  Soils report is an old term 

Geotechnical reports identify geotechnical issues that need to be considered, such as slope stability and expansive soils, and establish the technical criteria used by an engineer to design the foundation.  The geotechnical report also defines the soil classification which may be needed by other code provisions.

Where does the IRC refer to the soils/geotechnical report?   The IBC addresses the geotechnical report (Chapter 18).

On what basis do you require a geotechnical report?  In California there are several state statutes addressing the need for soils/geotechnical reports.  What does your state say.  On what basis would the building department "review" a geotechnical report other than verifying that the report addressed an item that is not otherwise addressed.

I doubt that the building department staff would have the technical knowledge necessary to "review" the geotechnical repot as to its technical validity.

The inspectors use the geotechnical report, but they are typically not qualified to review the content of the report.

If a geotechnical report is required, it should be submitted with the application for the permit since you cannot review the foundation design without it.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 16, 2022)

Keystone said:


> *For those requiring and receiving soils reports, what’s your procedure?
> 
> At what point are they required in the bldg process, will you continue to schedule and perform inspections without a soils report to keep bldg moving forward. Who reviews the soils report, the inspector in the field or the plan reviewer, if it’s a plan reviewer are they full time staff plan reviewer and ipthe report goes in the plan review pile and reviewed in the order it’s received? *


The geotechnical report for the site and location of the foundation is received during the plan review stage.  An engineer cannot properly design a foundation without this report.  Additional reports should be submitted as unexpected conditions are uncovered during the construction process and RFIs are sent to the engineer in charge.  The geotechnical reports are primarily submitted to the building department not just because they are required but for record-keeping and to ensure that the engineer is basing their design on factual information and they are not just rubber stamping it as some engineers do for quick cash.  With the geotechnical report as part of the permanent records, the engineer would have a difficult time justifying their design if it conflicts with the report.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 16, 2022)

We require it for the plan review before issuing the permit. Sometimes the BCO (also my boss) tells me to issue the permit without it and review it later.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 16, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> We require it for the plan review before issuing the permit. Sometimes the BCO (also my boss) tells me to issue the permit without it and review it later.


Your boss is lazy


----------



## Sifu (Sep 16, 2022)

Required as a submittal document.  Review consists of verifying the structural engineer has provided a design based on the report.


----------



## Inspector Gadget (Sep 16, 2022)

Same in Canada under NBC. Geotechnical report provided for all Part 3 structures (technically) as part of the submittal process.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 16, 2022)

in Most communities, geotechnical reports are submitted at first plan check.
In City of Los Angeles, they “plan check" the geotech report itself, prior to allowing you to submit the building for plan check.  It adds 30-60 days to the overall plan check process:

https://www.ladbs.org/docs/default-...vision-ib-p-bc2014-113.pdf?sfvrsn=979aeb53_20


----------



## Jeff S (Sep 16, 2022)

In our department a geotech report is supposed to be submitted at the site plan stage for larger projects. For smaller residential reviews I check the USDA soil survey https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda....l_Survey_application_psl51svmfltygcxo12zs4wgv for the address. The USDA soils map identifies problem soils areas on the property. Depending on the type of soil found a geotech report may or may not be required. The geotech report will have recommendations the contractor must follow and may include inspections by a geotech engineer for footings and foundations. It will also dictate footing design bearing pressure and drainage requirements. The USDA Soil survey requires a bit of a learning curve to navigate but it has a wealth of information about the composition and drainage characteristics of a given property.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 16, 2022)

I am still not hearing what is the legal basis for requiring a geotechnical report nor am I hearing what criteria will be used when "reviewing" geotechnical reports.

I have this quaint belief that building departments can only require that which they have the legal authority to require.


----------



## ICE (Sep 16, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I have this quaint belief that building departments can only require that which they have the legal authority to require.


Your delusions are not shared by the population at large.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 16, 2022)

My answer is different than most: it depends...

This is in the residential codes section, so my assumption is we are talking about low density housing as a worst case.

Soils here are usually fine to build on, so normally there is no geotechnical review of the soils. When questionable soils are encountered, a geotechnical engineer is contracted. Normally this occurs before we even see the site. I just show up and see an improved pad and they tell me the report is being emailed to the office. We don't have many situations where we have advance notice of poor soils, so we don't receive the notice at plan review. 

To directly answer your question: we will do a pre-backfill inspection, but will not perform a framing inspection until the report is received.

If we are talking about larger scale construction, our code would require a sub-surface investigation for all buildings. This drives the design process and some soil improvements may be necessary. Normally we would not receive a specific report in this case, but a general letter from the geotechnical engineer indicating they completed their duties.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 16, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I am still not hearing what is the legal basis for requiring a geotechnical report nor am I hearing what criteria will be used when "reviewing" geotechnical reports.
> 
> I have this quaint belief that building departments can only require that which they have the legal authority to require.


Justification for Canada would be 4.2.2.1. we confirm all requirements contained in 4.2.2.3. and 4.2.2.4. have been met (as applicable). 

For Part 9 buildings, 9.4.4.1. would functionally refer code users to to the section above. 

The building code in Canada specifies when RDPs must be engaged.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 16, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I am still not hearing what is the legal basis for requiring a geotechnical report nor am I hearing what criteria will be used when "reviewing" geotechnical reports.
> 
> I have this quaint belief that building departments can only require that which they have the legal authority to require.


I can only speak to California.
I provided the link in post #8 for City of Los Angeles, and I believe that link shows where they have adopted into their Municipal code.
In California, for other than one- and two-family dwellings:



For one-and two family dwellings, in places other than Los Angeles, the language of the residential code allows for subjective determination on the part of the building official:





After, that California Residential code R401 gets much more specific about geotechnical reports:

*R401.4 Soil Tests*

Where quantifiable data created by accepted soil science methodologies indicate expansive soils, compressible soils, shifting soils or other questionable soil characteristics are likely to be present, the building official shall determine whether to require a soil test to determine the soil's characteristics at a particular location. This test shall be done by an approved agency using an approved method.

*R401.4.1 Geotechnical Evaluation*

In lieu of a complete geotechnical evaluation, the load-bearing values in Table R401.4.1 shall be assumed.

TABLE R401.4.1

PRESUMPTIVE LOAD-BEARING VALUES OF FOUNDATION MATERIALSa

CLASS OF MATERIALLOAD-BEARING PRESSURE
(pounds per square foot)Crystalline bedrock12,000Sedimentary and foliated rock4,000Sandy gravel and/or gravel (GW and GP)3,000Sand, silty sand, clayey sand, silty gravel and clayey gravel (SW, SP, SM, SC, GM and GC)2,000Clay, sandy, silty clay, clayey silt, silt and sandy siltclay (CL, ML, MH and CH)1,500b

For SI: 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kPa.

Where soil tests are required by Section R401.4, the allowable bearing capacities of the soil shall be part of the recommendations.
Where the building official determines that in-place soils with an allowable bearing capacity of less than 1,500 psf are likely to be present at the site, the allowable bearing capacity shall be determined by a soils investigation.



*R401.4.1.1 General and Where Required for Applications Listed in Section 1.8.2.1.1 Regulated by the Department of Housing and Community Development*

Foundations and soils investigations shall be conducted in conformance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 through 17957 as summarized below.

*R401.4.1.1.1 Preliminary Soil Report*


Each city, county, or city and county shall enact an ordinance which requires a preliminary soil report, prepared by a civil engineer who is registered by the state. The report shall be based upon adequate test borings or excavations, of every subdivision, where a tentative and final map is required pursuant to Section 66426 of the Government Code.

The preliminary soil report may be waived if the building department of the city, county or city and county, or other enforcement agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Section R401.4.1.1, shall determine that, due to the knowledge such department has as to the soil qualities of the soil of the subdivision or lot, no preliminary analysis is necessary.


*R401.4.1.1.2 Soil Investigation by Lot, Necessity, Preparation and Recommendations*


If the preliminary soil report indicates the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects, such ordinance shall require a soil investigation of each lot in the subdivision.

The soil investigation shall be prepared by a civil engineer who is registered in this state. It shall recommend corrective action which is likely to prevent structural damage to each dwelling proposed to be constructed on the expansive soil.


*R401.4.1.1.3 Approval, Building Permit Conditions, Appeal*

The building department of each city, county or city and county, or other enforcement agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this code, shall approve the soil investigation if it determines that the recommended action is likely to prevent structural damage to each dwelling to be constructed. As a condition to the building permit, the ordinance shall require that the approved recommended action be incorporated in the construction of each dwelling. Appeal from such determination shall be to the local appeals board.

*R401.4.1.1.4 Liability*

A city, county, or city and county or other enforcement agency charged with the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Section R401.4.1.1, is not liable for any injury which arises out of any act or omission of the city, county or city and county, or other enforcement agency, or a public employee or any other person under Section R401.4.1.1.1, R401.4.1.1.2 or R401.4.1.1.3.

*R401.4.1.1.5 Alternate Procedures*

The governing body of any city, county, or city and county may enact an ordinance prescribing an alternate procedure which is equal to or more restrictive than the procedures specified in Sections R401.4.1.1.1, R401.4.1.1.2 and R401.1.1.3.

*R401.4.2 Compressible or Shifting Soil*

Instead of a complete geotechnical evaluation, where top or subsoils are compressible or shifting, they shall be removed to a depth and width sufficient to ensure stable moisture content in each active zone and shall not be used as fill or stabilized within each active zone by chemical, dewatering or presaturation.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 16, 2022)

ICE said:


> Your delusions are not shared by the population at large.


I take this to mean that the ICC is delusional.  

The ICC publication "Legal Aspects of Code Administration"  recognizes the need of the building department to operate in accordance with the laws.  This book contains the statement "if the applicant meets all the requirements of the building code and other pertinent laws and ordinances, then the building official has no justification to refuse to issue the permit."

Thus if there is no applicable law the building official cannot require something.


----------



## steveray (Sep 16, 2022)

The law is clear in post #14


----------



## Mark K (Sep 16, 2022)

Section 107 is in the California Building Code which is based on the IBC but the question had to do with the residential building code.  While local jurisdictions may "adopt" the building code it is mostly symbolic in California since the CBC applies whether or not the jurisdiction takes any action.

It should be recognized that the California provisions are unique to California and are based on state statutes.

The question remains on what basis can the building department "review" the geotechnical report/investigation.  Does the building department have on staff or on contract a geotechnical engineer?  The point is that once a geotechnical report has been prepared the building department has little option but to accept the report as valid.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 16, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The point is that once a geotechnical report has been prepared the building department has little option but to accept the report as valid.


Are you a geotechnical engineer?  Do you have a geotechnical engineer explain the report to you before you do your structural design? Do you do your structural design and have the geotechnical engineer review your drawings?  How qualified are you to design based on a geotechnical report if you are not a geotechnical engineer?  Does your state have different licenses for P.E.'s?  How do you qualify as a geotechnical engineer or a structural engineer?  Is this by claim based on your experience?  Do engineers get board certified like physician's do?


----------



## Yikes (Sep 16, 2022)

R-401.1 exists in the International Residential Code, not just California's version of it:



In the same way that I don't believe there is any requirement for a building official to be a licensed architect or engineer in order to review plans prepared by a DPOR, I don't think the building official is required by law to have special training to review geotechnical reports.
The extent of the building department review is up to them.  If may be a perfunctory check-off on a list; it may be a quick review of allowable bearing values; or, as some jurisdictions around here do, the BO may require the foundation plan to be the submittal review stamp and signature of the engineer who prepared the geotechnical report.


----------



## redeyedfly (Sep 16, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Are you a geotechnical engineer?  Do you have a geotechnical engineer explain the report to you before you do your structural design? Do you do your structural design and have the geotechnical engineer review your drawings?  How qualified are you to design based on a geotechnical report if you are not a geotechnical engineer?  Does your state have different licenses for P.E.'s?  How do you qualify as a geotechnical engineer or a structural engineer?  Is this by claim based on your experience?  Do engineers get board certified like physician's do?


Not answering for Mark but yes, geotechs review the structural design.  The geotech report provides in fairly plain language what the allowable bearing pressure is for structural to use in their footing design and equivalent fluid pressure for foundation wall design.  Most states would have all structural and geotechnical under the civil license.  It is up to the engineer to determine if they are competent in particular areas.  The west coast is a little different with structural and seismic though.  Structural requires an SE, instead of a PE in CA, OR, WA.


----------



## ICE (Sep 16, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Thus if there is no applicable law the building official cannot require something.


There's a few thousand building officials in California.  When you get to the last one you'll have to start over.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 16, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Are you a geotechnical engineer?  Do you have a geotechnical engineer explain the report to you before you do your structural design? Do you do your structural design and have the geotechnical engineer review your drawings?  How qualified are you to design based on a geotechnical report if you are not a geotechnical engineer?  Does your state have different licenses for P.E.'s?  How do you qualify as a geotechnical engineer or a structural engineer?  Is this by claim based on your experience?  Do engineers get board certified like physician's do?


I am a registered Structural Engineer.  I do not review the technical adequacy of the geotechnical report.  If I have a question regarding the geotechnical report, I will contact the geotechnical engineer.  It is common practice to recommend the geotechnical engineer review my design to verify that I have interpreted his recommendations properly.

Geotechnical engineers prepare their reports with the assumption that the recommendations will be used by Civil Engineers who are not experts in geotechnical engineering.  

Engineers in California are licensed not board certified.  In California a Civil Engineer is licensed to practice geotechnical engineering for most buildings that are not hospitals or public schools.  In California all Structural Engineers are also licensed Civil Engineers.   In California a licensed Geotechnical Engineer is required on public school and hospital projects. 

I have had a basic course in geotechnical engineering but appreciate my limitations and except for very minor project will use a geotechnical report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer.  I have over 40 years experience with both small and large projects.  I believe my practices are similar to most Structural Engineers in California

But the question is not what practices the engineer designing a building should follow but rather what can the building department require.  I have also asked what ability does the typical building department have to review the technical adequacy of a geotechnical report.  What criteria would the building department use if they attempted to review the technical adequacy of a geotechnical report?


----------



## ICE (Sep 16, 2022)

Mark K said:


> It is common practice to recommend the geotechnical engineer review my design to verify that I have interpreted his recommendations properly.


If the geotechnical engineer can review the structural engineer’s design…why would anyone need the structural engineer?  If you’re into value engineering…build in some value.


----------



## ICE (Sep 16, 2022)

Mark K said:


> What criteria would the building department use if they attempted to review the technical adequacy of a geotechnical report?


Most soils reports are not making mountains out of mole hills.  The only soils reports that had me wondering were rife with poor grammar.


----------



## redeyedfly (Sep 16, 2022)

ICE said:


> If the geotechnical engineer can review the structural engineer’s design…why would anyone need the structural engineer?  If you’re into value engineering…build in some value.


Think of the bottom of the foundation as a handshake, geotech on one side and structural on the other.  Both know enough of the other around that interface to exchange the necessary information.  The geotech performs borings and produces a preliminary report (usually the first consultant on a project).  The structural engineer produces a schematic design of the building with conservative reactions using the preliminary report.  The geotech reviews the structural schematic and makes more specific recommendations.  This process continues to the final design.  
The geotech doesn't review the column design, they review the types of foundations and reactions provided by the structural engineer.


----------



## ICE (Sep 16, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> Think of the bottom of the foundation as a handshake


Make that a fist bump and I’m with you.  

I’ll rankle the Registered Structural Engineer without you.


----------



## redeyedfly (Sep 16, 2022)

ICE said:


> Make that a fist bump and I’m with you.
> 
> I’ll rankle the Registered Structural Engineer without you.


Damnit, fist bump is much better.  *tip of the hat*


----------



## Yikes (Sep 17, 2022)

Mark K said:


> But the question is not what practices the engineer designing a building should follow but rather *[A]* what can the building department require.  I have also asked *[B} *what ability does the typical building department have to review the technical adequacy of a geotechnical report.  *[C]* What criteria would the building department use if they attempted to review the technical adequacy of a geotechnical report?



Mark, 

[A] I thought I answered this question in post #14.  Please let me know what we're missing.

 Depends on the expertise within the building department.  City of Los Angeles Dept. of Building and Safety has an entire "Grading Division" full of people with expertise.  They also go out and visit the site to verify the accuracy of statement in the report and to look for potential issues - - for example, will an overex+recompact result in needing shoring plans?

[C] for the typical building department, I think they just do a 5 minute cross-check between the structural plans, structural calcs, and geotech report for design values, such as allowable bearing values vs. footing depth,  coefficient of friction for lateral design, etc.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 17, 2022)

If the answer is that the building department can only require what is in the adopted regulations I agree.   Since with regards the geotechnical report the regulations are minimal  there is very limited ability to "review the conclusions of the geotechnical report.

I suggest the City of LA  is an exception.  My sense is that the vast majority of building departments have no ability to perform a technical review of the geotechnical report.

Checking that the engineer interpreted the geotechnical report correctly is appropriate but that is not a technical review of the adequacy of the conclusions.  In my reading of the IBC I do not see detailed criteria defining how the geotechnical engineer reaches his conclusions


----------



## ICE (Sep 18, 2022)

Mark K said:


> My sense is that the vast majority of building departments have no ability to perform a technical review of the geotechnical report.


It is true of all engineering disciplines.  Many building departments will send forth anything that is wet stamped by an engineer.  That places enormous pressure on the inspector that is tasked with approving the construction.

I had the luxury of twenty-five years working in a jurisdiction that had a dozen engineers in every field.  Now and then we would herd them into an office building and get real work out of them.  From what I've seen lately, it's no wonder contractors preferred to work elsewhere.

When it comes to geotechnical reports,,,well there's just not a lot to them.  The "Recomendations" paragraph is where you will find me.  The soils technician that verifies the excavation and compaction is to be trusted to know what's what.

I have on occasion caused the geo-engineer to address individual concerns.  For example, I found a strata that indicated a substantial amount of fill placed on part of the site which was not mentioned in the soils report.  The hubcap gave it away....just kidding about the hubcap but there were signs.

I would much rather deal with the work product of a geo-engineer than an electrical engineer.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 18, 2022)

Plan checkers and inspectors have different skill sets. that hopefully compensate each other.  There are many aspects of a buildings design that an inspector is blind to, but I fear that many inspectors do not appreciate their limitations.

It is easy to cherry pick instances and infer incompetence.  We could find instances of incompetent or rogue inspectors, but I forget inspectors are all knowing.

I hear the disdain for engineers.  Why the hate?

Geotechnical engineer face unique challenges.   They take a limited number of borings and are supposed to find what occurs between the borings.  Because of this it is common practice for the Geotechnical Engineer to visit the site and inspect the excavations for the footings. to verify that what they see is consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical report.  In some cases, minor variations in the substrata may not be a concern given the foundation system.  It is this process that gives us confidence in the final results.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 18, 2022)

Mark - - In general, I don't think a building department needs to "plan check" the geotechnical report itself, such that they are second-guessing the adequacy of the geotechnical engineer's laboratory results or conclusions.  I think they are just looking to see the recommendations were addressed in the plans and calcs.
Other than city of LA, are you encountering a specific situation where the plan checker is second-guessing the geotechnical report?

The report is also used in Low Impact Development (LID) design for stormwater infiltration.

Another thing they check for in LA (and a few other communities) is if the boring logs indicate the presence of methane or hazardous materials.

***



Cause of the 1985 Ross Store Explosion and Other Gas Ventings, Fairfax District, Los Angeles​by Douglas H. Hamilton and Richard L. Meehan​





Late in the afternoon of March 24, 1985, methane gas that had been accumulating ignited in an auxiliary room of the Ross Dress-For-Less Department Store located on Third Street, in the Wilshire-Fairfax District of Los Angeles. The resulting explosion blew out the windows and partially collapsed the roof of the structure, reduced the store interior to a heap of twisted metal and resulted in injuries requiring hospital treatment of twenty-three people. Police closed off four blocks around an eerie scene of spouting gas flames that continued through the night.

In the following days, a drill rig brought to the site was used to test for possible gas accumulations in the alluvial soil beneath the store. A "pocket" of pressurized gas was encountered at a depth of 42 feet beneath the parking lot between the store building and Third Street. Gas was also encountered in several other borings at the site in smaller quantities and at lower pressures. Pressure gauges, control valves, and, on the hole where the high pressure pocket was encountered, a valved flare pipe, were installed. Following a brief period during which gas was flared and bled off into the air, the anomalous gas condition at the Ross Store site gradually declined to the normal gas concentrations characteristic of the local area. In 1989 another venting incident occurred, this time at several sites on the north side of Third Street. This second venting fortunately was detected in time, and did not ignite. In this case, water and silt were ejected from outdoor vents along with the gas, in addition to accumulation of dangerous levels of gas in several buildings. A blow-out crater several feet deep, from which dirt and small stones were ejected several feet into the air was formed during this episode which lasted about 24 hours.

The setting of the accident -- an old-world Levantine market place a few miles from Hollywood; the famed tarry graveyard of the sabre-toothed tigers; pillars of fire dancing in the darkened streets -- these biblical images attracted attention of the press, the bar, and local politicians. And yet, three months later when a hastily convened panel of experts announced that the event was caused by digestive rumblings of an ancient and invisible swamp the whole thing had been mostly forgotten, the explanation accepted as yet another production of Los Angeles' quirky environment. Outside of a lawsuit that was settled quietly in 1990, the possibility that the accident was caused by the knowing agency of Los Angeles' lesser known industry or that the official report of the experts, rather than being a serious statement of the scientific community, was a heavily edited script with a happily blameless ending, was not made known to the public, as we shall proceed to do here.



Excerpt from: _Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California_, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication No. 4, 1992.


----------



## ICE (Sep 18, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Mark K said:
> 
> 
> > There are many aspects of a buildings design that an inspector is blind to.



Certianly there are aspects….but is it “many”.  In your mind, if the inspector finds the correct address he’s reached the end of his abilities.

I hear the disdain for inspectors.  Why the hate?




Mark K said:


> I fear that many inspectors do not appreciate their limitations.



I doubt that you know many inspectors.  Your fears are based on unfounded prejudice.



Mark K said:


> I forget inspectors are all knowing.



I will happily remind you.



Mark K said:


> I hear the disdain for engineers. Why the hate?



You hear what you want to hear.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 18, 2022)

jar546 said:


> The geotechnical report for the site and location of the foundation is received during the plan review stage.  An engineer cannot properly design a foundation without this report.  Additional reports should be submitted as unexpected conditions are uncovered during the construction process and RFIs are sent to the engineer in charge.  The geotechnical reports are primarily submitted to the building department not just because they are required but for record-keeping and to ensure that the engineer is basing their design on factual information and they are not just rubber stamping it as some engineers do for quick cash.  With the geotechnical report as part of the permanent records, the engineer would have a difficult time justifying their design if it conflicts with the report.


Good Explanation 
In addition, it is nice to see where they hit water


----------



## Genduct (Sep 19, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Plan checkers and inspectors have different skill sets. that hopefully compensate each other.  There are many aspects of a buildings design that an inspector is blind to, but I fear that many inspectors do not appreciate their limitations.
> 
> It is easy to cherry pick instances and infer incompetence.  We could find instances of incompetent or rogue inspectors, but I forget inspectors are all knowing.
> 
> ...


Mark, after reading the exchange of views, I can only wonder if your reaction is the result of a particularly Over Zealous Plan Reviewer or if you would object to any questions from any Plan Reviewers in general. 

As a Plan reviewer, I always understood that I AM NOT THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL
That being said, many or most of us have paid our dues in the Field and are Not Uniformed

If an experienced Site Work Contractor was digging at one of your Sites and encountered some inconsistency in the soil or whatever,  Would You react to their phone call the same way you are reacting to Plan Reviewers in general?  As uniformed people who are not as well trained Or Smart as You?

I read these exchanges and can only wonder what is the real story here

My personal experience is when I saw something that puzzles me, my call to the design Engineer is usually welcome.  Even if the problem is confusion vs and Potential Error, my take is, they appreciate a "Fresh pair of Eyes"
My general advice to those submitting Plans is to remind them, The information the Contractor needs to Bid it and Build it is what I need to Review it.   Confusion doesn't help anyone

So why the adversarial approach?  Why SO defensive?   Could it be that we are being of help and not just slowing you down?   Perhaps a re-think is in order.

Best,  Mike B


----------



## Keystone (Sep 19, 2022)

Rick18071 said:


> We require it for the plan review before issuing the permit. Sometimes the BCO (also my boss) tells me to issue the permit without it and review it later.



Understood.

This is what we are trying to clear up on our end. The madness of drop what your doing to review reports so the bldr may proceed with the next stage of inspection.


----------



## Keystone (Sep 19, 2022)

Improper terminology agreed, geotechnical evaluation. I’m glad that was stated.bad habits lead to bad practices.  

Requiring a geotechnical report, why would I not have the ability? If it’s not in the IRC the IBC may be referenced. The residential reports we receive are not technical, they identify soils conditions, type and PSF capacity for the intended design.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 19, 2022)

Any report of differing site conditions is always taken seriously.  This is also why the Geotechnical engineer wants to visit the site after excavations have been completed.    I am interested in producing a design that will have no problems for my client and I am interested in producing a design that complies with the building code.  In my world view the building department is only interested in code compliance.  I do not ignore any comments but how I address issues not in the code is between myself and my client.

I respond to every plan check comment, even the ones that should not have been asked.  Once I understand the code provision that the plan checker is concerned about, we can resolve the problem.

Questions as to what information the Contractor needs to bid the job are the concern of myself and my client and not something that concerns the building department.  Having said that I do not outright ignore any comment.  

The question is what I do after I understand the issue.

I had one plan checker who responded to a polite question as to the code provision that I was violating responded by saying that there was no code provision, but we would not get a building permit unless I made the change.   This was extortion. This individual should have been fired but I made the decision that it was cheaper for me and my client to humor him.  While this was extreme more commonly there have been other plan checker comments that were not code based.  Here again the strategy is often to humor the plan checker but I fear that this strategy only encourages bad behavior.

Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations.  I believe a lot of the problems stem from a lack of supervision by the building department allowing some inspectors to be a power unto themselves.  

We are talking about problems that while not occurring on every project occur more often than they should and problems that building departments do not appear to recognize as problems..


----------



## Mark K (Sep 19, 2022)

Keystone said:


> Improper terminology agreed, geotechnical evaluation. I’m glad that was stated.bad habits lead to bad practices.
> 
> Requiring a geotechnical report, why would I not have the ability? If it’s not in the IRC the IBC may be referenced. The residential reports we receive are not technical, they identify soils conditions, type and PSF capacity for the intended design.


The PSF capacities for the intended design ae technical.


----------



## ICE (Sep 19, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations. I believe a lot of the problems stem from a lack of supervision by the building department allowing some inspectors to be a power unto themselves.


If you didn’t just roll over when you encounter resistance perhaps you could be part of the solution.  Even a reprobate inspectors such as myself respond to meaningful interaction.  If not for working with engineers, how would I know when I’m dealing with a bad one.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 19, 2022)

Why we have deep pilings and grade beams for all structures on our barrier island.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 19, 2022)

Mark, you participated in the “Ultra Vires” thread last year, and it looks like this is covering similar ground.
To update that old discussion: my client‘s attorney sent a letter to the housing department requiring them to show their legal authority for plan-checking for ADA and UFAS, especially since that department was not providing any funds to the project.
The housing department backed down and determined they would not plan-check anything.  They left compliance verification where it belonged - - at the building department, which only checks for the adopted codes.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 19, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Any report of differing site conditions is always taken seriously. This is also why the Geotechnical engineer wants to visit the site after excavations have been completed.


On larger projects, daily site visits and soil testing is the norm as footer forms are being prepared.  It is an ongoing process and not just a one time deal as the soil conditions can vary greatly with just a few feet.  All of these reports are to be submitted to the Building Department and kept as a permanent record.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 19, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Any report of differing site conditions is always taken seriously.  This is also why the Geotechnical engineer wants to visit the site after excavations have been completed.    I am interested in producing a design that will have no problems for my client and I am interested in producing a design that complies with the building code.  In my world view the building department is only interested in code compliance.  I do not ignore any comments but how I address issues not in the code is between myself and my client.
> 
> I respond to every plan check comment, even the ones that should not have been asked.  Once I understand the code provision that the plan checker is concerned about, we can resolve the problem.
> 
> ...


""Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations." 

And here I thought that Engineers only spoke with GOD and then only if GOD had an appointment


----------



## Yikes (Sep 19, 2022)

Genduct said:


> ""Inspectors play a valuable role; the problem is when they do not understand their limitations."
> 
> And here I thought that Engineers only spoke with GOD and then only if GOD had an appointment


And by "God", you mean the Architect, right?

Famous true story, as told in Look magazine, about the time Frank Lloyd Wright was called to testify in court.  
He was first sworn in, then asked his name and occupation.  
He stated: "My name is Frank Lloyd Wright, and I am the _world's greatest living architect_."
Afterwards, his wife Olgivanna chided him for such immodesty, to which he replied, "yes, but you forget - - I was under oath".


----------



## Genduct (Sep 19, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Any report of differing site conditions is always taken seriously.  This is also why the Geotechnical engineer wants to visit the site after excavations have been completed.    I am interested in producing a design that will have no problems for my client and I am interested in producing a design that complies with the building code.  In my world view the building department is only interested in code compliance.  I do not ignore any comments but how I address issues not in the code is between myself and my client.
> 
> I respond to every plan check comment, even the ones that should not have been asked.  Once I understand the code provision that the plan checker is concerned about, we can resolve the problem.
> 
> ...



You said   "Questions as to what information the Contractor needs to bid the job are the concern of myself and my client and not something that concerns the building department. 

How about a situation I have encountered on a number of occasions, for a MAKE SAFE Permit where our Dept has identified a serious structural problem, and the Engineer has not spelled out the Means and Methods to shore or support some part of the structure to affect the repair. 
 You do understand that the Contractor has Completed Operations Liability and their coverage DOES NOT INCLUDE DESIGN ERRORS AND OMISSIONS which is in your wheelhouse.  My experience has been the reverse of what you are suggesting is the problem

I have got a similar problem as we speak and would be happy to share the situation with you off line, if you could bring yourself to speak with a mere Plan REVIEWER / Former Commercial Carpenter as an Equal

Best,  Mike B


----------



## Genduct (Sep 19, 2022)

Yikes said:


> And by "God", you mean the Architect, right?
> 
> Famous true story, as told in Look magazine, about the time Frank Lloyd Wright was called to testify in court.
> He was first sworn in, then asked his name and occupation.
> ...


----------



## Genduct (Sep 19, 2022)

In the Last Century, Architect meant Master Stone Builder.
Frank Lloyd Wright was one of those guys whose designs followed the formula : Form, Function AND STRUCTURE!  

I think you'll agree that Today's Architects are Interior Designers for the most part .  
It is unfortunate that is the case.  
But, We all have met and appreciate those few Architects who either "worked with the tools" or paid attention to construction Methods 
Those were a pleasure to work with!


----------



## redeyedfly (Sep 19, 2022)

Genduct said:


> How about a situation I have encountered on a number of occasions, for a MAKE SAFE Permit where our Dept has identified a serious structural problem, and the Engineer has not spelled out the Means and Methods to shore or support some part of the structure to affect the repair.


If you know the term "means and methods" then you should understand that shoring is not in the scope of the building SEOR, there is a separate shoring engineer for that work.  Talk to the GC who pulled the permit, they owe you a deferred submittal for the shoring.


----------



## redeyedfly (Sep 19, 2022)

Genduct said:


> Frank Lloyd Wright was one of those guys whose designs followed the formula : Form, Function AND STRUCTURE!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  no.

FLW absolutely did NOT listen to his engineers.  His buildings are littered with problems.  If anything, HE was a glorified interior designer and today's architects are MUCH better and drawing constructible buildings.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 19, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> If you know the term "means and methods" then you should understand that shoring is not in the scope of the building SEOR, there is a separate shoring engineer for that work.  Talk to the GC who pulled the permit, they owe you a deferred submittal for the shoring.


AHHH you make my point,  the responsible adult is hard to determine. And I should be aware of the Contract obligations of the Parties.  or "Generally concerned at least.  May need a DNA  test for parentage.
Did the Structural Engineer leave a Note that suggests or requires that a Shoring engineer is also needed?

My point is the Contractors who come for our Make Safe Permits don't understand the limitations of their own Liability insurance.
And hence the remark "By Others"  you know that famous Contractor who does everything missed By the Other , By Others don't even know they are in deeper than they know.  
It may be beyond my responsibility to mention they should check with their Carrier,  but I often Do.  I see this as part of my job to protect the Public.

The point was, where an earlier post suggested, it was none of my business.  
Alerting people is not intruding into areas beyond my responsibility,  IMHO  
Personally, I don't like being Part or Party to STUPID  When it splashes up, we all get to stink


----------



## Genduct (Sep 19, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  no.
> 
> FLW absolutely did NOT listen to his engineers.  His buildings are littered with problems.  If anything, HE was a glorified interior designer and today's architects are MUCH better and drawing constructible buildings.


I was led to understand that some of his design details predated material or sealants or details yet to be invented

As to your other point, many of the Architects we review don't seem to understand what holds what up,  Or keep it from falling down.
Had a situation that supports that,  let me know if you would like to hear details.  too long to post


----------



## Yikes (Sep 19, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  no.
> 
> FLW absolutely did NOT listen to his engineers.  His buildings are littered with problems.  If anything, HE was a glorified interior designer and today's architects are MUCH better and drawing constructible buildings.


FLW studied at UW-Madison under a special program with a civil engineering professor.  He dropped out, shy of his degree. But he learned just enough from that to make him want to design really long cantilevers that caused later structural problems.

The joke at my college was that architects (I'm one) go to school to learn a little about a lot of things, 'til we finally know nothing about everything.
Engineers go to school to learn a lot about a few things, until they finally know everything about nothing.
City and Regional Planners?  they know nothing about anything.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 19, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> If you know the term "means and methods" then you should understand that shoring is not in the scope of the building SEOR, there is a separate shoring engineer for that work.  Talk to the GC who pulled the permit, they owe you a deferred submittal for the shoring.


I agree 100%.  But the workflow is often like this:
1.  SEOR specifies building design at 28-day strength, but is not responsible for means, sequences, procedures.
2.  Geotech report states when slot cutting is OK, or says shoring design may be needed.
3.  Contractor is responsible for jobsite safety during construction, including means, sequences and procedures.  Contractor is thus responsible for shoring, unless their contract says "shoring by others".
4.  Contractor either decides to bring aboard their own shoring engineer, or asks the building SEOR to provide a shoring design proposal, or requests that the Owner provide engineered shoring plans.  This will occur more often when the shoring is to be abandoned in place, such a soldier piles.

There are exceptions to methods of procurement of course - -I am just describing the generalities.  But even if the building SEOR ends up being the shoring engineer, the contractor is still responsible for jobsite safety.

As a plan checker, you can in certain situations require shoring engineering, and the geotech report can help indicate when shoring will be needed; but the shoring engineer does not have to be the building SEOR.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 19, 2022)

Yikes said:


> FLW studied at UW-Madison under a special program with a civil engineering professor.  He dropped out, shy of his degree. But he learned just enough from that to make him want to design really long cantilevers that caused later structural problems.
> 
> The joke at my college was that architects (I'm one) go to school to learn a little about a lot of things, 'til we finally know nothing about everything.
> Engineers go to school to learn a lot about a few things, until they finally know everything about nothing.
> City and Regional Planners?  they know nothing about anything.


The only thing we have to go on in PA is Falling Water.  Sounds like an Indian Chief.
I'll bow to your clear and extensive knowledge of himself.

As far as Architects and structures is concerned, seems like I had his protégé when I  "transitioned" to Plan Reviewer from Contractor / owner about 7 years ago

Imagine an ext'g 1 story 14ft OD, detached, corner garage that they parked 3 floors and a roof on.  OK so far?

Now imagine a 3ft cantilever, 14 ft wide for the 2nd floor that then had the BEARING WALL AT THE END OF THE CANTILEVER SUPPORT THE 3RD, 4TH AND ROOF  
IMAGINE THE UPLIFT ON THOSE 2ND FLOOR JOIST,  OR THE FIRST FLOOR HEADER THAT WAS CARRYING THE CANTILEVER.

WOW.  I COULDN;T WRAP MY CARPENTER BRAIN AROUND THAT DESIGN.
This Design Professional  clearly didn't understand what holds what up and what keeps it from falling down.
Can You say Vector Diagram

I applied to the City at 69 because I was bored with retirement.  So in the first few weeks of "Training", I see this.
I ask, does this kind of thing happen often?  Spent next 4 years til Covid then parted company with City.

I enjoyed every day I was there.  What a Hoot!


----------



## Genduct (Sep 19, 2022)

Yikes said:


> I agree 100%.  But the workflow is often like this:
> 1.  SEOR specifies building design at 28-day strength, but is not responsible for means, sequences, procedures.
> 2.  Geotech report states when slot cutting is OK, or says shoring design may be needed.
> 3.  Contractor is responsible for jobsite safety during construction, including means, sequences and procedures.  Contractor is thus responsible for shoring, unless their contract says "shoring by others".
> ...


I agree for the NEED to have additional info
The Contract Docs need to make clear who is responsible because SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT It IN THEIR BIS SO THAT THEY GET PAID TO DO IT


----------



## Yikes (Sep 20, 2022)

Not an impossible cantilever, but does have to be checked carefully.

I once had a dorm project in the high Sierras.  Structural engineer was from Los Angeles.  He’d done many projects for me in the past, and I trusted his work.
I got a call from the framing superintendent telling me he thought the window headers were undersized.  He mentioned it to this engineer, who replied indignantly "Are you a licensed engineer? No? Then shut up."

But there’s more than one way of learning what wood can do, and the intuition that comes with years of framing in the field ought to have at least raised red flags for the engineer.  So I called up the engineer’s boss and we went over the calcs together.  Turns out he had sized the headers correctly for bending moment, but had forgotten that under really heavy snow loads the governing factor was shear, not bending.  He’d stopped checking for that years ago in snowless Los Angeles.  The boss fired the engineer, and there was a change order to upsize the headers.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 20, 2022)

redeyedfly said:


> If you know the term "means and methods" then you should understand that shoring is not in the scope of the building SEOR, there is a separate shoring engineer for that work.  Talk to the GC who pulled the permit, they owe you a deferred submittal for the shoring.


In my experience unless the temporary shoring modifies the construction documents the temporary shoring is not a deferred submittal.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 20, 2022)

Genduct said:


> I agree for the NEED to have additional info
> The Contract Docs need to make clear who is responsible because SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT It IN THEIR BIS SO THAT THEY GET PAID TO DO IT


It is of great concern to the architect, engineer, and the owner that the scope of the work is clear.  

As for the question of who is responsible to do the work the answer is clear.  The General contractor is responsible for producing the completed project.  It is the General Contractor's job to make sure that each subcontractor knows what they are responsible for.

It is not the responsible for the architect, engineer, project owner, or the building department to define the scope of each sub-contractor.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 20, 2022)

Yikes said:


> Not an impossible cantilever, but does have to be checked carefully.
> 
> I once had a dorm project in the high Sierras.  Structural engineer was from Los Angeles.  He’d done many projects for me in the past, and I trusted his work.
> I got a call from the framing superintendent telling me he thought the window headers were undersized.  He mentioned it to this engineer, who replied indignantly "Are you a licensed engineer? No? Then shut up."
> ...


I will add my own story to yours.

I was plan checking a simple new construction ranch home with a basement below.  There were no point loads.  It was for Habitat for Humanity.  The main girder in the basement for this basic ranch with a gable roof was undersized based on the spacing of the vertical support posts.  It was specified as a built-up beam with nominal lumber.  The width of the home was between prescriptive columns in the IRC so we had to interpolate.  It was obvious that the built-up beam was undersized.  There are two basic options; you can change the size of the beam (or type) or put the support posts and footers closer together.  To give the architect the benefit of the doubt, I ran the calculation with BeamCheck and StruCalc, and sure enough, the beam size failed the deflection limits.  I could have just stopped at the IRC and rejected the design but I went a step further just to see if it worked.  When I contacted the architect to discuss it, he was adamant that there was no problem. I told him that it does not meet the code prescriptively and that I even ran the calcs in the software to verify and it still failed.  He held his position that it was OK.  At that point, I asked for his calculations for our records and told him that I was going to have a structural P.E. review them.  He opted to change his design to a larger beam that met the code prescriptively. 

Fast-forward 3 months to another Habitat house in another jurisdiction and guess who the architect was?  Yes, it was the same guy with the exact same non-compliant design.  I called him again to tell him about the main design and he continued to argue it was correctly sized.  It had to be changed yet again after I once again asked for his calculations as proof the design of the built-up beam was compliant.  Is this ignorance or arrogance on the part of the architect?


----------



## Genduct (Sep 20, 2022)

Yikes said:


> Not an impossible cantilever, but does have to be checked carefully.
> 
> I once had a dorm project in the high Sierras.  Structural engineer was from Los Angeles.  He’d done many projects for me in the past, and I trusted his work.
> I got a call from the framing superintendent telling me he thought the window headers were undersized.  He mentioned it to this engineer, who replied indignantly "Are you a licensed engineer? No? Then shut up."
> ...





Yikes said:


> This job had 2 large windows that put all the load on the 2 outside and center JOISTS  not LAMS  this was a complete mess from a lack of even the fundamentals


----------



## Genduct (Sep 20, 2022)

Mark K said:


> It is of great concern to the architect, engineer, and the owner that the scope of the work is clear.
> 
> As for the question of who is responsible to do the work the answer is clear.  The General contractor is responsible for producing the completed project.  It is the General Contractor's job to make sure that each subcontractor knows what they are responsible for.
> 
> It is not the responsible for the architect, engineer, project owner, or the building department to define the scope of each sub-contractor.


The BIG JOBS are not the problem
It is the small modest sized jobs were the contractors are not as well informed


----------



## jar546 (Sep 20, 2022)

Genduct said:


> It is the small modest sized jobs were the contractors are not as well informed


And this is the real issue.  Typically, the larger the job, the more at stake, and the higher the quality of the team.  If you are only accustomed to large jobs then your viewpoint is limited because you are not familiar with the problems of the smaller jobs where the budget does not put all of the safety barriers in place, and by safety barriers, I mean layers of quality assurance.  Smaller jobs can be a nightmare for the Building Department, especially when there is an architect who wants to do everything and an owner that hires the cheapest contractor, regardless of experience level with the type of job at hand.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 20, 2022)

jar546 said:


> And this is the real issue.  Typically, the larger the job, the more at stake, and the higher the quality of the team.  If you are only accustomed to large jobs then your viewpoint is limited because you are not familiar with the problems of the smaller jobs where the budget does not put all of the safety barriers in place, and by safety barriers, I mean layers of quality assurance.  Smaller jobs can be a nightmare for the Building Department, especially when there is an architect who wants to do everything and an owner that hires the cheapest contractor, regardless of experience level with the type of job at hand.


AMEN!


----------



## ICE (Sep 20, 2022)

Sure got a lot of mileage out of a thread about dirt.

Speaking of dirt...you should see the reaction when I find this on a tract jobsite.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 20, 2022)

ICE said:


> Sure got a lot of mileage out of a thread about dirt.
> 
> Speaking of dirt...you should see the reaction when I find this on a tract jobsite.
> 
> View attachment 9543


So is this the only way we can prove Code Officials have a Heart,  is to carry this cold stone heart around with you?

What kind of message is that?


----------



## ICE (Sep 20, 2022)

Genduct said:


> So is this the only way we can prove Code Officials have a Heart,  is to carry this cold stone heart around with you?
> 
> What kind of message is that?


It's a tooth....from a fish....the size of a Greyhound bus.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 20, 2022)

ICE said:


> It's a tooth....from a fish....the size of a Greyhound bus.


SO you don't have a heart?


----------



## ICE (Sep 20, 2022)

Genduct said:


> SO you don't have a heart?



I made the trip to OZ but hearts are on back order.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 20, 2022)

ICE said:


> I made the trip to OZ but hearts are on back order.


Yep, the SUpply Chain has been a problem,  caused by your LA Port, I believe.

Actually I didn't recognize that as a prehistoric Tooth.  Just looked like a rock,  Pretty cool find

Maybe we better stop the Puns, 

 It is fun to Trash Talk on Job Sites.  Plumbers are my favorite targets where I suggest they should not be allowed to own or operate Saws-alls  My carpenter brain speaking again


----------



## ICE (Sep 21, 2022)

Genduct said:


> It is fun to Trash Talk on Job Sites.


When I had a real job the teasing was a part of life.  For most of my years as an inspector there was plenty of entertainment.  Here lately the goal of so many is to be offended.  Innocent remarks and idle chit chat can be taken out of context and turned into a weapon against you.  Having experienced that first hand, I limit my interaction with everyone to just what is absolutely necessary.

It is getting stranger out there.  The words Sir and Ma'am are toxic.  You have to figure out if He, She or It is appropriate.  Worse yet is not knowing what gender is before you.  I'm not sure what the end goal of this phenomena might be but limiting discourse is one result.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 21, 2022)

ICE said:


> When I had a real job the teasing was a part of life.  For most of my years as an inspector there was plenty of entertainment.  Here lately the goal of so many is to be offended.  Innocent remarks and idle chit chat can be taken out of context and turned into a weapon against you.  Having experienced that first hand, I limit my interaction with everyone to just what is absolutely necessary.
> 
> It is getting stranger out there.  The words Sir and Ma'am are toxic.  You have to figure out if He, She or It is appropriate.  Worse yet is not knowing what gender is before you.  I'm not sure what the end goal of this phenomena might be but limiting discourse is one result.


Agreed

When I started Plan Review, one of the more seasoned people warned me about that very thing.

The problem is,  written RFIs are not a conversation
So, I would call them to fill in the blanks of what was not on the drawing,  then I would immediately send an email that said this is what I called about, this is what they said, and this is what we agreed upon.

I had a little less than 4 years of this (til Covid) but have to report no one tried to game me.

As to my time with the over the counter/contractor conversations,  you have to know they were generally not in a good mood having waited about an hour or so before I saw them.
Generally, the teasing/trash talk almost immediately had them forget  their "wasted time" and it felt like being out on the job.  So my experience was almost 100% positive

My Son is a Mechanical Engineer and we were just talking about this very thing.  He picks up the phone and speaks with them and avoids a lot of wasted effort, that is only meant to CYA by documenting the entire exchange. instead of using my approach to document the conclusion 

The contractor I dealt with saw me as a Problem Solver,  Not a Problem Creator.  That is probably the difference as well


----------



## Sifu (Sep 21, 2022)

ICE said:


> When I had a real job the teasing was a part of life.  For most of my years as an inspector there was plenty of entertainment.  Here lately the goal of so many is to be offended.  Innocent remarks and idle chit chat can be taken out of context and turned into a weapon against you.  Having experienced that first hand, I limit my interaction with everyone to just what is absolutely necessary.
> 
> It is getting stranger out there.  The words Sir and Ma'am are toxic.  You have to figure out if He, She or It is appropriate.  Worse yet is not knowing what gender is before you.  I'm not sure what the end goal of this phenomena might be but limiting discourse is one result.


Wait...are you saying a fire wall has to actually be a fire wall, not just identify as one?

Back to the drawing board.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 21, 2022)

So... there was a question a while back on how a building official who is not a geotechnical engineer is in a position to determine a geotechnical report is not acceptable. It's a situation I feel we can all agree on.

We had a specific engineer working on a project. For those of us working for the government, we have this kind of engineer in every jurisdiction. For the rest of you, you've probably worked with this engineer once or twice and sworn "never again!". They are the ones who appear to stamp any design for the right price.

So, I am in receipt of a geotechnical report from this engineer. Engineers here must determine their own competence. Everyone is an engineer regardless of their area of practice. Now this is the first geotechnical report I am getting from this engineer ever. When I read the report, it was clear that they had not completed a sub-surface investigation. No bore holes. No test pits. Nothing. Just a statement that the soils appear acceptable.

We obviously rejected this report and the owner contracted a different engineer, a full-time geotechnical engineer with decades of experience this time. A few test pits later and the soils were found to not be acceptable and soil improvements prescribed. 

Can I review the sieve tests, acceptable lifts between compaction, whether a plate or roller compactor is necessary, if proof rolling is called for or not? No, and largely I don't need to. 

You hand me something super sketchy, I will reject it.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 21, 2022)

Genduct said:


> You said   "Questions as to what information the Contractor needs to bid the job are the concern of myself and my client and not something that concerns the building department.
> 
> How about a situation I have encountered on a number of occasions, for a MAKE SAFE Permit where our Dept has identified a serious structural problem, and the Engineer has not spelled out the Means and Methods to shore or support some part of the structure to affect the repair.
> You do understand that the Contractor has Completed Operations Liability and their coverage DOES NOT INCLUDE DESIGN ERRORS AND OMISSIONS which is in your wheelhouse.  My experience has been the reverse of what you are suggesting is the problem
> ...


Remember that when you issue your MAKE SAFE order that the target of this order is the building owner. You are not in a position to direct the engineer or the contractor to do something. As the building official you can take action against the building and possibly the building owner.  Inevitability the building owner will address the problem.

The building owner has contracts with the contractor in addition to the design team. Under this system the Owner would typically tell the contractor to make the repair. In some cases, it may be necessary for the owner's engineer to design a repair that will be a part of the completed structure. The Owner's engineer's design has defined what the completed building should look like., not the means and methods of construction.

The reality in almost all cases the contract between the owner and the contractor makes the contractor responsible for means and methods. This is a bedrock principle of owner contractor agreements. The type of insurance the contractor has does not modify this liability. It is not uncommon for contractors to hire their own engineer to advise them on how to affect the repair.

The contractor's contract is based on their having control of the means and methods of construction. If you were to make the Owner's engineer responsible for the means and methods of construction the engineer would inevitably require the contractor do things different than the Contractor assumed in his bid. This in turn would lead to claims against the Owner for the added cost.  So, in the case where the Contractor was responsible for the problem this could result in the Owner being responsible for the repair cost.

It would be interesting if a plan checker on a project being built for the city, he worked for, would require the structural engineer be responsible for the means and methods of construction.  My sense is that this plan checker would quickly get an education.

The building department should focus on code compliance and not on who is responsible.

Where an individual started out is not as important as what they know. Transitioning from working in the trades to being a plan reviewer creates a lot of challenges because inevitably the tradesman has only seen part of the story. This is particularly a problem when a plan reviewer with no structural training tries to plan check structural issues. Here the issue is not who the plan reviewer is but rather what he knows.  In my experience this is not a major problem in California since building departments either have a plan checker with a structural background on staff or contract with a separate firm to perform structural plan checks.


----------



## Sifu (Sep 21, 2022)

tmurray said:


> So... there was a question a while back on how a building official who is not a geotechnical engineer is in a position to determine a geotechnical report is not acceptable. It's a situation I feel we can all agree on.
> 
> We had a specific engineer working on a project. For those of us working for the government, we have this kind of engineer in every jurisdiction. For the rest of you, you've probably worked with this engineer once or twice and sworn "never again!". They are the ones who appear to stamp any design for the right price.
> 
> ...


So had you just shuffled the paper and relied on the stamp without any critical eye, a foundation could have been built and failed at some point.  Who would be blamed?....Everybody including the food truck?  Who does it cost?  In the end, I would think the sketchy engineer, but everyone ends up paying in some form or other.  But with just a touch of critical thinking and attention, the whole situation may be avoided, and the only cost is the lost revenue to the attorneys.

Just today I received the third soils report on a project.  I checked the first one and it was 7 years old, for a different project, different owner and different location on the property (same parcel), not referenced on the engineered foundation.  The report limited it's validity to one year, to the original owner and for the specified project.  Easy, but just to dot my i's" I contacted the geotechnical firm to make sure I couldn't use it.  They said no.  The second one was a little more recent, but still contained all the same limitations.  The third, by the same geotech as the first two, was owner, project and site specific, done within a few days and referencing the engineered design.  This isn't typical, as most around here recognize the need and value (and requirement) of the evaluations.

I do not review, nor in many cases understand the technical aspects of the reports.  But I do my best to make sure they are for the right place.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 21, 2022)

I am very familiar with small projects.   Yes there are some engineers in this market that may not have the highest standards. 

This does not change the fact that any action taken by the building department must be based on the law.  Yes some projects are more challenging and you may need to find a creative solution.  Try sending a letter to the project owner pointing out the inconsistencies and asking for more information.

When a public official, even with the best intentions, decides to avoid the law we have problems.  If you find yourself in what you see as a difficult situation talk with the city attorney.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 21, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I am very familiar with small projects.   Yes there are some engineers in this market that may not have the highest standards.
> 
> This does not change the fact that any action taken by the building department must be based on the law.  Yes some projects are more challenging and you may need to find a creative solution.  Try sending a letter to the project owner pointing out the inconsistencies and asking for more information.
> 
> When a public official, even with the best intentions, decides to avoid the law we have problems.  If you find yourself in what you see as a difficult situation talk with the city attorney.


I'm not sure how what I did was in violation of the law. The code clearly lays out the requirements related to sub-surface investigation. It remains my job to seek code compliance with the owner.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 21, 2022)

Mark K said:


> When a public official, even with the best intentions, decides to avoid the law we have problems. If you find yourself in what you see as a difficult situation talk with the city attorney.


I agree with you on this one.  We must all work within the law and scope of our positions.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 21, 2022)

tmurray said:


> I'm not sure how what I did was in violation of the law. The code clearly lays out the requirements related to sub-surface investigation. It remains my job to seek code compliance with the owner.


I am not sure that was directed at you.  I thought it was for me based on a previous post about smaller projects.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 21, 2022)

Sifu said:


> Wait...are you saying a fire wall has to actually be a fire wall, not just identify as one?
> 
> Back to the drawing board.


Was that a Fire Wall,  Fire Barrier OR Fire Partition,  I always get those mixed up!


----------



## Genduct (Sep 21, 2022)

Mark K said:


> Remember that when you issue your MAKE SAFE order that the target of this order is the building owner. You are not in a position to direct the engineer or the contractor to do something. As the building official you can take action against the building and possibly the building owner.  Inevitability the building owner will address the problem.
> 
> The building owner has contracts with the contractor in addition to the design team. Under this system the Owner would typically tell the contractor to make the repair. In some cases, it may be necessary for the owner's engineer to design a repair that will be a part of the completed structure. The Owner's engineer's design has defined what the completed building should look like., not the means and methods of construction.
> 
> ...


Mark,  I agree with much of what you said

We have 2 levels of Make Safe,  the ID Imenatly Dangerous is the one where collapse or catastrophic failure is possible Requires an Engineer Inspection  / Review and Plans.

If only, the docs reflect the complete analysis you have provided.  The Engineer does not clearly state where their responsibility ends and the Contractor is going to try to make the job look like the Engineer drew it when done,  The Contractor on this small job, not understanding that they don't have a real plan as to how to hold the building up while they are trying to fix it, does their best to make "it happen"  They probably don't understand the Means and methods concept on this small job. 

Since our Job is Public Safety, and I, like you, understand this Means and Methods aspect, feel it my responsibility to bring this to the Contractor's attention.  If fact, I feel the absence of the Means and Methods Sequence or Instructions, makes this Permit Application Incomplete.  I don't want to be involved with a situation where someone would lose their Limbs or Life because of the absence of an engineered approach to fixing a structural problem.

Do you see this as Over Reaching?


----------



## Sifu (Sep 21, 2022)

Genduct said:


> Was that a Fire Wall,  Fire Barrier OR Fire Partition,  I always get those mixed up!


Do we have to choose?  Can if be fire "fluid"?


----------



## Plumb-bob (Sep 21, 2022)

What recourse is there for inspectors when we encounter and engineer that is doing a poor job? I was recently involved with several projects where the EOR was working way outside of his scope, and even the work he was qualified to perform was poorly executed and it resulted in serious pain for the property owners, building department (me), and the engineer.
I, along with inspectors from nearby jurisdictions, reported him to hiss association. As a result he has had his professional designation removed and has fines levies against him.
The experience taught me to not blindly accept anything. If I have questions about something in an engineering report I ask them, even at the risk of sounding stupid.
Not an attack on engineers, I have met inspectors that were not performing their job correctly too. I like to keep in mind that anybody can have a bad day and make mistakes.


----------



## ICE (Sep 21, 2022)

Plumb-bob said:


> Not an attack on engineers, I have met inspectors that were not performing their job correctly too. I like to keep in mind that anybody can have a bad day and make mistakes.


Poorly performing inspectors are way more common that shoddy engineers.  It's not even close.




Plumb-bob said:


> The experience taught me to not blindly accept anything. If I have questions about something in an engineering report I ask them, even at the risk of sounding stupid.


I have encountered engineers that demean the questioner.  Most people experience that just once.  

I have learned a great many things by asking engineers questions.  Keep in mind that the engineer didn't always know the answer....it took someone telling it to him.


----------



## Msradell (Sep 21, 2022)

I don't know about in other areas but here in Kentucky and architect can act as a structural engineer for most buildings.  They can even wet stamp drawings in lieu of a structural engineer stamping the drawings.  Some of them do pretty good but the majority of them provide details that are lacking at best and disastrous at worst in many cases!  I firmly believe that every commercial structure should be Req to have a structural engineer review and stamp the drawings!  Some of the stories I read in the thread certainly support my thought!


----------



## Mark K (Sep 22, 2022)

tmurray said:


> I'm not sure how what I did was in violation of the law. The code clearly lays out the requirements related to sub-surface investigation. It remains my job to seek code compliance with the owner.


The adopted building code is a law..  What gives you the authority to require something not in the law?  What gives you the authority to withhold a permit when there is no violation of the building code?  I contend that when you do such things you are violating the rights of the applicant.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 22, 2022)

Genduct said:


> Mark,  I agree with much of what you said
> 
> We have 2 levels of Make Safe,  the ID Imenatly Dangerous is the one where collapse or catastrophic failure is possible Requires an Engineer Inspection  / Review and Plans.
> 
> ...


The standard owner contractor agreements do a good job of describing the contractor's responsibilities.

There is a difference between sharing insights and using the power of you office to force somebody to do something when you lack legal authority to do so.

You say it is your responsibility to bring the issue to the contractor's attention.  If there is a problem with the submitted permit drawings it is the responsibility of the Owner and his consultants, not the contractor, to address the problem.

Another relevant legal issue has to do with immunity of government employees.  There are exceptions to this immunity.  A common one at least in California is when you have established a special relationship to protect an individual.  When you have crossed this line, you no longer have immunity and can thus have liability.

I will admit that the building code doesn't say a lot about some issues, particularly with regards geotechnical reports, and that there may be no obvious tools to address some of the situations noted.   My advice is to talk with the City attorney.  From the architect's and the engineer's perspective construction administration can be nerve-racking since in addition to worrying about the safety of the building they are also worried about having potential liability for contractors claims.  In such situations you are best served by playing it by the book.  If you take it upon yourself to set things right you may be setting yourself up to take the fall if there are problems.

In the case of what you believe is a questionable geotechnical report where you cannot quote a code provision it might make sense to consult with another geotechnical engineer. to better appreciate what the code says about geotechnical reports.  If you still cannot find a reason to refuse to issue a permit you might want to have a meeting with the owner, the designers, and the city attorney to explain your concerns.  Issue a report summarizing what was discussed.  You might want to suggest the owner bring his attorney.  You might be surprised how such a meeting will get everybody's attention.

Consider having OSHA or your state agency dealing with the OSHA regulations on site during the jacking

There are ways to play hardball


----------



## jar546 (Sep 22, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The standard owner contractor agreements do a good job of describing the contractor's responsibilities.


You are absolutely, unequivocably 100% wrong in this assumption.  Walk in our shoes once in a while and see what kind of garbage gets submitted by contractors.  Everyone (contractors) has their own contract and no two are alike.  Some are so basic they don't even describe the scope of work.  Maybe the projects you partake in are located in the center of Perfect World, but certainly not outside of your tiny little bubble.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 22, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The adopted building code is a law..  What gives you the authority to require something not in the law?  What gives you the authority to withhold a permit when there is no violation of the building code?  I contend that when you do such things you are violating the rights of the applicant.


I relied on this case law: https://www.canlii.org/en/nb/nbapab...html?autocompleteStr=72218&autocompletePos=11 

Specifically the following sections: 



> It is a fact that the “…… ground and surrounding site conditions” of the Red Head area near the subject are subject to unpredictable slope instability and erosion.
> 
> This would, in our opinion, justify a high degree of caution and diligence on the part of the building inspector in assessing an application for a building permit in this area.





> We cannot answer the question as to whether it is possible for the Appellant to obtain a soils report to satisfy the Building Inspector.  Having sympathy, indeed great sympathy for the Appellant, does not change the fact that the Building Inspector had the right to expect certain conditions to be met before he issued the building permit. He does after all, act on behalf of all of the City’s residents.



TLDR: property owner needed to move their home because erosion was causing a risk that their house is going to fall into the Atlantic Ocean. They approach the building inspection department and was informed he would need a geotechnical report. He goes to one firm who told him they will not issue any reports for his area (soils are a known major issue there). He then goes to another engineer who gives him two separate letters, both of which are rejected by the building inspection department. Owner then appeals their decision to not issue a permit. The appeal upholds the building inspection department's decision not to issue the permit based on the inadequacy of the geotechnical reports. 

Unfortunately, case law does not reflect your feelings on this issue. At least not here. Building officials are provided a great degree of latitude in the enforcement of the code.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 22, 2022)

Mark K said:


> The standard owner contractor agreements do a good job of describing the contractor's responsibilities.
> 
> There is a difference between sharing insights and using the power of you office to force somebody to do something when you lack legal authority to do so.
> 
> ...


Mark,  OSHA is limited to Worker / Workplace Safety.  They are not authorized to consider these CODE Issues

What we are talking about is NOT the large Jobs but the smaller ones where often the Contractor is also providing, de facto, the Design Professional's scope of work as well.  They are not signing an owner's agreement or even havinge an Architect.  The days of the Architect acting as the Construction Manager are long gone 

So, these owners are more consumers than well informed Owners / Developers 
We have the responsibility for PUBLIC SAFETY

So we need to Do Our Job!

When you consider these small jobs,  do you apply the same approach?


----------



## Genduct (Sep 22, 2022)

PS if these jobs were fruit the large jobs are the watermelons and the small jobs the lemons


----------



## Mark K (Sep 22, 2022)

jar546 said:


> You are absolutely, unequivocably 100% wrong in this assumption.  Walk in our shoes once in a while and see what kind of garbage gets submitted by contractors.  Everyone (contractors) has their own contract and no two are alike.  Some are so basic they don't even describe the scope of work.  Maybe the projects you partake in are located in the center of Perfect World, but certainly not outside of your tiny little bubble.


There is a difference between the contractors responsibilities and what they do.  In any case it is not the building departments responsibility to determine how the work gets divided up.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 22, 2022)

Genduct said:


> Mark,  OSHA is limited to Worker / Workplace Safety.  They are not authorized to consider these CODE Issues
> 
> What we are talking about is NOT the large Jobs but the smaller ones where often the Contractor is also providing, de facto, the Design Professional's scope of work as well.  They are not signing an owner's agreement or even havinge an Architect.  The days of the Architect acting as the Construction Manager are long gone
> 
> ...


I am hearing you say that our system of laws is not working and that you are appointing yourself as the savior.  Be honest is declaring that you are a law unto yourself and are in rebellion against the state.


----------



## ICE (Sep 22, 2022)

Mark K said:


> you are appointing yourself as the savior


Does that come with designated parking?


----------



## ICE (Sep 22, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I am hearing you say that our system of laws is not working and that you are appointing yourself as the savior.  Be honest is declaring that you are a law unto yourself and are in rebellion against the state.


Well guess what Mark….if we all shared you philosophy hardly anything would ever get done.  We’d be sitting on our hands, afraid to make a move lest we step on a toe that got in the way.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 22, 2022)

Mark K said:


> There is a difference between the contractors responsibilities and what they do.  In any case it is not the building departments responsibility to determine how the work gets divided up.


Who said it was the Building Department's responsibility to determine how the work gets divided up?


----------



## jar546 (Sep 22, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I am hearing you say that our system of laws is not working and that you are appointing yourself as the savior. Be honest is declaring that you are a law unto yourself and are in rebellion against the state.


I don't see where Genduct's posts stated that.  The clear majority of Building Departments work within the limitations of their powers.  Many are just to lazy to do more than what they have to.


----------



## Genduct (Sep 22, 2022)

Mark K said:


> I am hearing you say that our system of laws is not working and that you are appointing yourself as the savior.  Be honest is declaring that you are a law unto yourself and are in rebellion against the state.





Mark K said:


> I am hearing you say that our system of laws is not working and that you are appointing yourself as the savior.  Be honest is declaring that you are a law unto yourself and are in rebellion against the state.


Mark, you really dig in your heels!
It is Sgt Mike , don't let the Gen Duct fool you into believing I am a General Officer.

I think my point is we need to be a bit more Proactive with the smaller jobs.
In fact I asked you if you use a different approach to the bigger vs the smaller projects.
And our responsibility is to make sure the smaller jobs are going to be done SAFELY 

I find that I don't have to "Pull Rank" to gently but firmly remind the Permit Applicant that certain info needs to be addressed so we can do our job.
This is usually done by sharing with the Applicant WHY WE BOTH NEED TO KNOW
I never said "because I said so!" 

That being said, please understand I also know what is important enough to insist on, vs not essential.  I don't insist on Best Practices or make people do things like I
 would do them.  That is not our job.  Our job is to review and Approve their plan to verify they meet the MINIMUM Safety requirements.
Not sure what I said that would lead to believe otherwise.

 I understand that many are reluctant to ask because I am sure we both agree we are the Plan Reviewer and NOT the Design Professional.
I appreciate you may think I crossed that double yellow line and are headed for a head-on collusion.  You are entitled to your opinion 

I really enjoy an honest exchange of views. This forum is a good example of what our Political system should be like

Best,  Mike B


----------



## jar546 (Sep 23, 2022)

This thread is really drifting.  Hopefully ICE will move his post to where it belongs?


----------



## ICE (Sep 23, 2022)

jar546 said:


> This thread is really drifting.  Hopefully ICE will move his post to where it belongs?


It's just after 4:00 AM here in the great state of California.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 23, 2022)

ICE said:


> It's just after 4:00 AM here in the great state of Califonia.


Thank you for taking care of that.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 23, 2022)

A lot of this thread morphed into "how can you require something that the code itself does not require?"
But specific to the original question, all the way back in post #14 the international residential code states the conditions under which a plan checker CAN require a geotechnical report, so the question of authority is already resolved.
Let’s wrap it up and put a bow on it.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 23, 2022)

Yikes said:


> A lot of this thread morphed into "how can you require something that the code itself does not require?"
> But specific to the original question, all the way back in post #14 the international residential code states the conditions under which a plan checker CAN require a geotechnical report, so the question of authority is already resolved.
> Let’s wrap it up and put a bow on it.


Oh, please don't bring up that the code requires an engineer. You're just teeing up Mark K to pull out his old "the code cannot stipulate when engineers are required, it is up to state law" soap box again.


----------



## jar546 (Sep 23, 2022)

*107.1 General.* Submittal documents consisting of _construction documents, statement of special inspections_, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets with each _permit_ application. The _construction documents_ shall be prepared by a _registered design professional_ where required by Chapter 471, _Florida Statutes_ & 61G15 Florida Administrative Code or Chapter 481, _Florida Statutes_ & 61G1 Florida Administrative Code. Where special conditions exist, the _building official_ is authorized to require additional _construction documents_ to be prepared by a _registered design professional_.

Is this thread over yet?


----------



## ICE (Sep 23, 2022)

jar546 said:


> Is this thread over yet?


Did you get a song out of fatboy?


----------

