Trust me. This absolutely a road I don’t want to go down. But, I’m beginning to fear that it may be inevitable, and I’m curious what level of Hell I’m about to experience should it get that far.
Here’s the background. We are putting an addition on our house. We hired an architect to draw up a floorplan, then hired a structural engineer to draw up a framing plan so it wouldn’t fall apart. I then took the floorplan and engineer’s plan and got bids from GCs for a fixed price conract.
It was a pain, but I spec’d out pretty much everything I could think of in the contract, and was explicit that the addition be built as per the engineer’s plan (which I provided to the GCs).
There were a few little things early on that rubbed me the wrong way – basically not following the specs that were laid out in the contract without even telling me. But, I wasn’t going to be a stickler for every detail.
The real problem came with the structural framing. The engineer drew out a specific truss system to make the addition structurally sound. Now, some who have looked at the engineer’s drawings considered it to be overkill – too structurally sound – but I’m not going to argue with the engineer, that’s what he went to school for – not me. Regardless, that’s what I spec’d out, and that’s what I put in the contract.
Early on the GC started talking about some “slight modifications” to the engineer’s plans that he talked to the engineer about, and supposedly got his okay. After some more framing, I questioned the GC because it didn’t seem like a “slight modification” at all, and didn’t seem to be matching up with what the engineer was telling me he had talked to the GC about. The GC told me to relax, that it wasn’t finished yet. Well, now more time has gone by, the structural framing is “complete”, and there is interior framing going on as well – that would be in the way of finishing the structural framing as designed by the engineer.
I’ve raised concerns about the framing and the plans a few times, and gotten assurances everything would be okay. But, at this point, my trust is about gone. Maybe things will turn out okay, but I’m pretty sure when I talk to him tomorrow he’s going to tell me they couldn’t build it the way the engineer had designed, and to try and change it now would involve too much reframing. Kind of like shooting your parents and then asking for leniency because you’re an orphan.
Once again, I’m really hoping we can resolve this and the GC will honor the contract and build the addition as the engineer drew up. If it was a minor issue, I could be more flexible, but I feel like if there is any issue to be a stickler about – structural framing is one of them.
But, if we can’t resolve this, how painful is firing a GC mid-job? What do you do – ask him to come and take away all his tools and don’t come back? What happens to things like lumber and windows sitting on site. Is that mine or his?
Unfortunately, we didn’t have a payment plan per completion milestone. So, trying to figure out partial payment would certainly be a pain. Not to mention the hassle of trying to find someone to come in and finish the job.
Anyone go through this on either end? How hellacious is it? Would I be better off with a house that falls in on itself (that might actually be true in the end – you never know). Like I said, I’m going to try and resolve this – but I’m getting a bad vibe and I need to know how far I’m willing to go.
Replies
Before you go there get the engineer to come to your site and inspect what has been done, he can at that time either reassure you the changes were in accordance with his directions or not. Prep him by explaining what you explained here. Just tell him you are concerned about things , he most likely will show up without delay, it is his license on the line here as well.
If the modifications are in line with his contractor instigated changes are then you have nothing to worry about.
If they aren't you now have a very powerful ally on your side.
In either case he can and will document things for you .
You can also go to the BI or Permit issuer and ask them for help with these issues. Plans submitted by engineers have to be adhered to unless the engineer of record makes the changes.
Something you should consider, who is paying the engineer for these changes. Unless there are design errors, we don't make and approve changes out of the goodness of our hearts. Changes, even minor ones take time, which is money.
Any changes that are made should be spec'd and drawn out with changes being added to the permit set. And the change order set should be stamped, signed and dated so that it shows it supercedes the original.
Consider what will happen when the BI comes out for the structural inspection and sees that the built condition doesn't match the design.
At this point and time, you should be sending the GC by certified mail, notice that he isn't in compliance with the specs. Further more you should be contacting an attorney to at least get some basic advice and maybe assistance with this matter.
And start document everything.
I am not familiar with MA laws regarding GC, but you also may have recourse there too.
Best of luck
Impossible is an opinion.
what engineer guy said is pretty much the deal..it is your OPINION the gc is not in compliance.... but... do you want to spend the next two years or more of your life in litigation ????with no assurance of success ????nope... the original PE seems to be the key person here ... he/she needs a site visit to determine complianceMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
without knowing the modification of which you speak it's hard to tell if you are justified in your paranoia. it's possible that the modification is perfectly satisfactory and the GC saved you thousands on redesigning costs. architects an engineers are the last people on earth other than lawyers that will admit they made a mistake. but imistakes are possible.
say the initial design wouldn't have worked. progress comes to a halt. how would you feel about paying an engineer to redesign while the carpenters stop working.. i have seen plenty of designs that could be slightly modified on sight with no extra cost but weren't and the result was a plan with essentially the same design, but it took days to get it on paper and cost the home owner thousdands.
that being said and knowing what i know i would wait and see what the engineer says before making any rash decisions. a termination is always more costly than a solution.
Every day is a gift, that's why it's called the present.
Although what you said is quite true, the GC should NEVER deviate from the plans without approval from the engineer. If the GC thinks that he/she knows a better way to do something, the time to raise the issue is during the plan review and bid process - not unilaterally.
As both a PE and a GC, I probably have a better understanding than most of the strengths (and weaknesses) of engineers and GC's. Engineers can, do, and will overdesign and they rarely have the hands-on experience to see simplier solutions. GC's, however, have a strong tendency to believe that their experience always trumps the design.
The name of the game is communication and both sides have to be willing to listen and learn. I can't count the times where some tradesman showed me that his way was just as good (or better) than my plan. Those are balanced, however, by the times where I had to explain why his way wouldn't work in this situation and he had to stick with the plan.
The OP needs to get his engineer and GC to work it out regarding deviations from the plans. The engineer's license is on the line and that's no small thing. A BI should limit himself to verification of code compliance and/or plan compliance. He has no more right than the GC to arbitrarily change an approved design.
I assume BI's don't necessarily have much expertise in engineering, do they? I'm sure there is some structural component to their training, but it must be less than an actual engineer. Correct?
The GC said "He was sure it woudl pass BI approval", which is important - of course - but not the main issue. The engineer designed something that I hired the builder to build. If it's expensive to build it, that's the GC's problem - not mine (fixed price contract). If the GC points out to the engineer a modification that is less costly than the original design, but just as good - no problem. I didn't hire the GC to build me the least structurally sound building that would pass inspection.
We'll see what the engineer says.
You are correct. They don't "necessarily' have more training. That is not their job. One portion of their job however is to see that engineered plans are adhered to. That means if it isn't on the engineered print in front of them , and it doesn't match what was submitted that it doesn't pass inspection.
This rule sometimes is "bent " a bit but a pointed question to the BI as to whether he is going to take personal responsibility for any modifications not approved by the engineer will generally "snap" the rule right back again.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Well, if they really compare what's built to the plans, we're in big doo-doo. I'm not an engineer, or a BI, but it's extremely obvious that the built structure looks nothing like the plans.
More updates as events warrant...
if that is the case I would have called the engineer 1st. thing this morning.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Already done.
You had plans drawn and contracted a GC to build it... and he isn't. It's time to stop the job.... NOW.
If the built structure looks nothing like the plans you might have a problem.
Im picturing a prettyy funny scenario in my head right now. You want a sun room he builds a gazebo sying the whole time "just wait till the end itll be just fine". Maybe it'll be one hell of a gazebo.
Few BI's that I've known had much actual engineering training or experience. Many are former contractors and are usually pretty good at interpreting code, and can tell at a glance if a structure is framed correctly.
As I see it, Your situation is that:
your engineer drew up and signed off a set of plans,
those plans were reviewed by the building department and approved with the issuance of your permit.
your GC reviewed the plans and bid the job with the stated (or at least implcit) understanding that he would build per the plans
He didn't!
Since you're paying the bills, he needs to answer to you as to why he deviated from the plans, but even you can't actually approve the changes. The building department issued your permit based on the engineers signed drawings and only that engineer can evaluate and approve changes.
Has any of the framing been inspected by the Building Department?
Unfortunately, we didn't have a payment plan per completion milestone.(quote)
I would think that if you went to all the expensive of hiring an architect and an engineer the addition is not a common type...
So if a bank is involved that means drafts and a payment plan......the GC has put himself out on a limb for some reason.........
Sounds to me like you could do pretty much what you wanted since you're holding all the money.......BUT
I, on a personal level have found that unless you go into a third story most GC's can do as well as the other guys when it comes to structurally building anything but the most complicated stuff.
Thanks for the advice. I think the best approach is to get the structural engineer to the site, have him look over what they have done, haven't done, and plan to do - and have him decide what needs to be done.
That will happen early next week, and I'll post back with the results.
Can you post some pics of the framing and show us what has been done vs. a verbal description of what the plans show?
I was wondering myself how extensive the changes are. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
I was wondering why there are changes?
I smell a "Rest of the Story" (stories??)
Barry E-Remodeler
There are changes because the carpenter knows a better way. I've done it like that for years but in most cases I was right and the fix wouldn't cause me to tear anything out. For instance, I "ignored" a beam that was in a floor system that was carrying NOTHING. It failed inspection. I explained to the superintendent that the beam was left over data from a different plan. The cad guys must of missed the eraser button when they deleted a side boxed out window. I ended up putting the beam in anyways because it was cheaper for me to do it (labor was free to them) but they had to pay for the beam material. It was cheaper because they'd have to pay for the engineer to stamp the new drawings and submit the changes and you know how corporations work...Dilbert style. So...sometimes the carpenters legitimatly make changes...sometimes. This poster is concerned. I don't blame him. I'm curious if there is really any concerns. I wouldn't bet any milkbones at this point either way. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
>There are changes because the carpenter knows a better way.<Yeah, sometimes. And sometimes the opposite is true. The carpenter thinks he knows than the engineer and does it his way which he just pulled out of his asss.http://grantlogan.net
Who got Bo Diddley's money?
I am thinking that the first thing you need to do is pay the structural engineer to do a site inspection and do a written report as to whether the modifications are acceptable or not and what his recommendations are to rectify.
Then deal with the legal and financial issues.
Do not pay out ANY money until you are satisfied.
"how painful is firing a GC mid-job?"
That depends how much you have already over paid the GC.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
Let me guess You went with the cheapest price?
>Let me guess You went with the cheapest price?<
Mike,
Even if he did, it should not matter. If the contractor bid on the job knowing the specs, then he should be doing it to the specs.
If someone asked me to build a custom racing engine and gave me the specs and a list of the parts that he wanted in it, and I gave him a price based on those specs, then when I build the engine, the customer expects to get what was originally contracted for. If I find something during the build that might cause a problem, then it is my responsibility to inform the customer and explain to him why it might be better to build it in a different manner, but it is not my place to do so on my own. It is certainly not my decision to use lower quality parts because " I think the originally specified parts were overkill"
Just my opinion,Bill Koustenis
Advanced Automotive Machine
Waldorf Md
I concur FWIW
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Bingo... Unless he is consulting the person who contracted the work and at every change showing how he is producing a better product at a lower cost.... Every change would be raising a big red flag for me....
I agree, but generally from past experiance the lowballer just doesn't work that way.
I still would like to know where this GC 's bid fit in with everyone elses.
Edited 6/13/2008 10:10 pm ET by mikeroop
I still would like to know where this GC 's bid fit in with everyone elses.(quote)Me too.....I'd like to see the plans.......This guy hires both architect and engineer to build an edition.......(high end?)Then, it seems he hired a low ball GC......and I don't care how everyone else sees it......if a guys too low...he gotta go.Most high end GC's (I know anyways,) have architects in house......and an engineer somewhere in his loop.....so coordination is no big deal cause they all work somewhat together.And if the HO went to all the extra expense of hiring the big guns for an easy job.... he shoulda got a design/build GC to begin with......Edited 6/14/2008 7:13 am ET by jjwalters
Edited 6/14/2008 7:14 am ET by jjwalters
Another possibility is he hired a contractor who is simply a great salesman. From what has been revealed so far about the actual contract I would lean towards that explanation myself.
So far IIRC there has been no $ amount or actual size and scope of this project discussed.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Unfortunately, we didn't have a payment plan per completion milestone. (quote)I can't imagine a GC who would not have set up a payment schedule....even a simple beginning/middle/end type, but these guys seemingly did neither that kind or the one I always used......foundation/framing/etc till final...unless I'm misreading this passage.Is the GC gonna wait till completion to get paid?....if so, he's a dope and probably don't know what he's doing.
a lot of assumptions here by people that dont have any idea what the details of the deal are!
Definitely. That's the thing about the internet.... all sorts of people saying all sorts of stuff.
no disrespect to the OP but one might ask how they would even know whats right or wrong compared to the engineer, GC., Or even read the plans or understand the engineer.
You are right the HO might not know the difference 10 penny box and 16 penny spike.But if the engineer told him that they would use a steel beam or the plan calls for nails every 6" and he does see any stell or nails 3 ft apart almost anyone would be able to tell the difference..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Yea, but you have to admit there is a perverse fun in it all. ;-0
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Yea, but you have to admit there is a perverse fun in it all.
I disagree, makes for a lot of foolish looking people to me! JMO though.
Doug
You are probably right. I have a hard time seeing it from inside the insanity of it.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
Edited 6/14/2008 5:28 pm by dovetail97128
Yes, it is that quote that prompted me to mention the possibility of a super salesman. No coupling of work produced to payments, man that leaves the door wide open. ""Uh sure you can pay me $5000 a week as draws and I will work towards finishing this until it is done or the money runs out . Whichever comes first..
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
I've used three different contractors. One of them had a fixed payment schedule up front - X at completion of framing, Y at completion of electrical, Z at final completion, etc.
The other two I've used (including this one) didn't have a fixed payment schedule. They asked for some money at various stages of the project.
It's not the way I would do things if I were a GC, but I didn't complain because I can always not pay if I feel they haven't completed enough work to justify the charges. In other words, I can look and see if the job is 50% done, and if not, then they don't get 50% of the money.
That sounds strange to me .....unless maybe you're paying out of pocket and are a really easy guy to get along with guy.........usually the bank pays in a certain number of drafts......you sign off/I sign and the money gets spent on subs, etc. up to that point........last draft the GC usually gets his profit........The other sounds a bit too casual for something with a high dollar cost........though I've worked small jobs on handshakes alone before so who knows what goes these days.......last whole house I built was (besides my own) was maybe 10 years ago.I just figured your addition was a high dollar affair because of the architect/engineer involvement.......course the net is 2/3 conjecture 1/3 fact anyways (at it's best):0
"Even if he did, it should not matter. "
yes it should.
it's called Life In the Real World.
do your bottom end customers expect top end performence just because the same guy was at the end of the wrench?
Jeff Buck Construction
Artistry In Carpentry
Pittsburgh Pa
<do your bottom end customers expect top end performence just because the same guy was at the end of the wrench?>
Jeff,
Of course they do, but they dont get it. But ..... they do get what they are willing to pay for and what I told them they would get for thier dollar. That is the point. It sounds like this guy had a very detailed set of plans and specifications. The contractor who got the job knew that. It is not his place to change the plans in my opinion. Bill Koustenis
Advanced Automotive Machine
Waldorf Md
Bad analogy MrBill.When you circulate your need for the engine to be built with your specific specs, you probably are not going to get bids from guys who can't read the specs. Your pool of possible engine builders would be much more streamlined than what is out there doing construction. Out in construction, it's entirely possible to sign over a contract to a guy who shouldn't be allowed to build a doghouse that is going to be used for a test fire by the local fire department. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
<When you circulate your need for the engine to be built with your specific specs, you probably are not going to get bids from guys who can't read the specs. Your pool of possible engine builders would be much more streamlined than what is out there doing construction.>
Jim,
You would be surprised :(Bill Koustenis
Advanced Automotive Machine
Waldorf Md
jim....
<<<build a doghouse that is going to be used for a test fire by the local fire department.>>.
in the early '80's i built three of those for a Cellulose Insulation Mfr..... they invited every BI & fire dept in RI and nearby CT & Mass
called it the "Big Burn"
even had a video crew taping
(3) 8x8 sheds with a door , a window , & a roofMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
LOL! You're one of those type contractors! Did the cellulose impress anyone ? Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
come on Mike finish the story, what happened?
well.... the first one was uninsulated...
the 2d was insulated with fiberglass& the third was cellulosewe poured i gal of thinner in the center of each floor..
and we had a one gal. bucket of thinner next to a sidewall insidethe walls ^ ceiling were all 1/2" drywallthe uninsulated "house" burned to nothing in about 30 minutesthe fiberglass stood tall until the flames got hot enough to melt the glass... then the stud bays acted like chimneys and the flames got into the attic and it was gone in an hourafter three hours of smouldering, we finall called off teh cellulose and put the fire out... the structure was still standingpretty impressiveabout a month after that we had a big fire in town in an old victorian... the kitchen had been remodeled and was insulated with cellulosethe rest of the house had been insulated with fiberglass prviouslythe fire started in the kitchen and spread to the rest of the housethe kitchen survived... the rest of the house didn't........w hen they peeled the charred drywall off the kitchen walls... the cellulsoe & studs were untouchedthose type of things convinced me that cellulose stops fire spreadMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
I had a man that had previously been in business, work for me call me a few years ago to help with a burnout of his customer, same deal, the part he had insulated with cellulose was in relatively good shape, compared to the rest of house.
You, the GC, and the engineer need to get together onsite....all at the same time.... all together.... and lay all the cards on the table. That will solve 90% of your problems. Enough with the "he said", "she said". Big projects need clear and direct communiction... you don't have that right now. You need that.
I agree Brian. The key ingredient missing on this project is someone supervising it. If it were me supervising it, the first instance of a deviation from the engineering would have prompted me to call the engineer to verify it and send the written documentation. All that would have been done in the first ten minutes of discovery. Also, since I am a proactive manager, I'd be discussing the engineering and verifying that the correct parts are there long before the carpenter decided to change it. I'd listen to the carpenter as he made his suggestions, but I wouldn't cave in to his ideas without the engineering approval by phone, followed by paper. This is not a carpenter problem as much as it is a superintendent problem. The superintendent should have simply said: "Your ideas seem to have merit but if I were you, I'd get the oral and written engineering report before I proceeded just to protect your money. I think the engineer will probably want to charge YOU a couple hundred dollars to document that change...and the bill for framing it according the existing documents will run into the thousands of dollars if you are wrong. In any event, I'll not be making any further payments on our existing contract until we work out the engineering paperwork and change order to the contract."Money talks. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
This is why architects should be always on board during construction for field observation and to assure compliance with the contract documents. Was this not part of the architect's services? Whoever omitted that from the agreement bears some responsibility for assuring compliance.
Jeff
Does your building department require a letter of compliance from the engineer? Where I came from, Calif., it was a common requirement on jobs of a significant size. Building departments are becoming more and more by the book. The seat of the pants solution mentality, no matter how logical, won't fly in a lot of places. A big issue is liability and everyone is trying to limit theirs. A GC would be foolish to make undocumented structural changes to the job and I'm sure his insurance company will agree.
Clarifications and modifications are to be expected from both the architect and engineer. The one's that I have dealt with expect them and cooperate willingly. It's a part of the job and their fees should have been anticipated in costing the job.
I look forward to hearing the details as they come clear.
John
Okay, here's the update. Long story short:
1) I wasn't being paranoid
2) It was good I brought the engineer by
3) Everything will be fixed
4) I don't have to fire the GC (Whew!)
Now, the long version for those interested. When building the addition, the framer/head carpenter/foreman evidently built some "temporary" supports that he intended to later beef up to make the structurally sound.
Strangely, after these temporary supports were put up, they then put in some non-structural framing that blocked access to these temporary supports - making it impossible to beef up the temporary supports without ripping out already put-in framing.
This is what led to my concern. I saw these supports which were not sound, and I saw that there was framing that was blocking access to these supports, which made me suspicious they were not planning on beefing them up at all.
According to the foreman, he was planning on ripping out those parts of the non-structural framing to beef up the supports. He says one of the carpenters put them in and they weren't supposed to. Poor management in my opinion, but a believable story. I'm not paying T&M, so if he has to redo stuff because of his own mismanagement it's not my problem.
Having the engineer there was very helpful. He reviewed the framing and how they were modifying his plans, and asked them to beef up some areas here and there to make it more structurally sound. It'll cost me a little bit of money for the site visit, but it was money well spent.
As to the other questions about the GC, I went with a reputable company I had researched on Angie's List and the BBB. I called three of their references and talked to them for quite a while. They weren't a bargain basement company, but were competitive with the other bids I got.
So, it looks like this story will have a happy ending.
Edited 6/16/2008 10:56 am ET by CeltsFan
As others have mentioned, we lack the specifics ... not that they would really matter, since 'the way things work' is pretty much the same.
In preparing the design that you accepted, the engineer used his professional judgment. When you paid him, you also paid him to see that the plans were followed in the construction, to prepare any letter the city might want, and to check the job.
When the GC bid on the job, he based his bid on the plans you gave him. That's what he agreed to build - nothing more, nothing less.
Someone goofs, they get to fix their goof at their expense. If it was the engineer, he gets to redraw it at his expense. If it's the GC who goofed, he gets to re-do it at his expense.
Does the GC get to say 'I have a better / cheaper way,' and just do it? No. If it's different from the plans, he needs authorization in writing - from the engineer as to the soundness, from you as to any extra charges. Anything else is either just sloppiness - or 'bait and switch.' ("Quote Cadillac, deliver Chevy")
As for the building department ... they might act as a check, but whether they sign off on it is pretty much irrelevant.
The inspector might spot a discrepancy, and refuse to sign off without a note from the engineer. Then again, he may not notice the error. If the error is noticed at that point, and the inspector refuses to sigh off, all manner of problems arise.
First, the city will want a 'special inspection' and a 'repeat inspection' - both of which will cost you more. Second, the GC will want more money to take it down and do it over. He really isn't entitled to this additional money - it was his goof, after all - but he will claim you authorize / agreed to the change, and the fight begins.
My general feeling is that you're getting screwed two ways.
First, that engineer has to get off his tail and out of his office - and visit the site, like he's supposed to.
Second, the GC runs a sloppy shop, never read the plans, is throwing together the cheesiest thing he can, and will sock you at the end with all manner of 'change order' charges. You might want to ask the contractors' board for some advice here.
Whether 'it will work' or if 'it's always done that way' does not matter. Those statements are irrelevant. You want "X" built, and something else is being built.
However you handle it, the GC is setting the stage for demanding more money from you. Sometimes these practices are done quite deliberately. That's why I said you might want to chat with the contractors' board. You might even chat with a lawyer. But, first ... make sure you have a problem worth fighting over! That's where the engineer comes in.
In preparing the design that you accepted, the engineer used his professional judgment. When you paid him, you also paid him to see that the plans were followed in the construction, to prepare any letter the city might want, and to check the job.
My general feeling is that you're getting screwed two ways.
First, that engineer has to get off his tail and out of his office - and visit the site, like he's supposed to.
It certainly isn't done that way here. If I take a set of plans to an engineer, he will stamp the design according to my plans. Site inspections or extra jumping-through-hoops are not included. If I don't build according to the plans, or if my as-built plans were wrong, that's on my and not the engineer.
Having an engineer perform site visits is great, you just have to determine if the benefit is worth the cost.
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com Fredericksburg, VA
I agree Jon. We just paid our engineer $100 to stamp some plans. He never left his office and never will. Bob's next test date: 12/10/07
To: All Permit Applicants <!----><!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
From: Thomas H. Goldsbury, P.E., C.B.O., LEED AP<!----><!---->
Chief, Building Inspection Division<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Subject: Documents Prepared Under a Design Professional’s Responsible Supervising Control<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Occasionally we receive drawings submitted for a Building Permit that appear to be prepared by a drafting service and signed and sealed by a registered design professional. In many cases it is fairly obvious that the drawings were prepared by a draftsperson and then “plan stamped†by the design professional, with little or no review or supervising control over them. This practice is contrary to Florida laws regulating the practice of architecture (FS section 481.221(6); interior design (FS section 481.221(7); engineering (Florida Administrative Code 61G15-23.002(2) and landscape architecture (FS section 481, Part II, 481.321(3). The language in these referenced sections for these four professions essentially address the same issue, that being: no architect, interior designer, engineer or landscape architect shall affix her or his signature or seal to any final construction documents or instruments of service which includes drawings, plans, specifications or other documents which were not prepared by her or him or under her or his responsible supervising control or which were not reviewed, approved, or modified, and adopted by her or him as her or his own work with full responsibility as the design professional of record.<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Since it is illegal for an unlicensed person to offer any of the above professional services and it is also illegal for any of the above design professionals to aid or assist such “plan stamping†activities, both the unlicensed person and the design professional are subject to disciplinary actions by their respective licensing boards. (Note: City of Jacksonville Zoning Code, Chapter 656, Part 12, Landscape and Tree Protection Regulations, Section 656.1217(a), requires, except for minor work, a landscape plan signed and sealed by a registered landscape architect or other person authorized by F.S. Chapter 481, Part II, for building and paving permits.) Therefore, when we receive drawings and documents for a Building Permit which we have reason to believe to be in violation of the “plan stamping†laws, we will forward them to the respective discipline’s licensing board for their investigation and appropriate action as they find necessary.<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->We trust that the above information regarding unlicensed design professional activity will be beneficial to you as you go through the building permitting process.
i see the interior designers wormed their way in alsointerior design is pending in California now whaddabunchacrap....
same with architectures trying to keep design of one & two family dwellingsarrrgggghhhhhhMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
"When you paid him, you also paid him to see that the plans were followed in the construction, to prepare any letter the city might want, and to check the job."
Really? I didn't see that mentioned anywhere. Can you post a copy of that contract?
In some ways, your story reminds me of what a customer of mine went through last year.
A year ago last April, he contracted with a GC to remodel a vacant business. There was to be plans, permits, demolition, and the new construction as well.
Well, by last November practically nothing had been accomplished - though the customer had made several payments. By December the customer was frantic .... delay after delay, promises / schedules not met, improper equipment, issues with trash removal, etc. So, the customer began asking around.
City hall, ever diplomatic, told him his story certainly sounded unusual, that real contractors didn't operate that way, that maybe he ought to consider using someone else.
Two other contractors brought in to look at the job shook their heads in despair, asking if this hack was REALLY a contractor.
The other contractors then discussed price with the customer. That is, how much the customer had already paid, how much remained to be paid, the expected cost of replacing the bum. In the end, the customer decided to 'tough it out' and the project was completed in late February ... only two weeks after my December "wild guess" if Feb 2nd. More or less, that is.
While I was not a party to the dispute, my job - the electric - was certainly affected by it all. One thing became obvious to me in my conversations with the GC: there was nothing accidental about his operation. He was, to put it nicely, covering all his bases, making sure he had his money, plenty of 'extras' to claim, and always had the upper hand with the customer. He had not the slightest interest in meeting the customers' expectations, and answering even simple questions honestly was beyond his ability.
Snakes are out there. Are you stuck with one? I don't know. But, for pete's sake ... it's YOUR project, and you ought not let the loss of a few dollars stand between you and satisfaction.
Talk to a lawyer, and find out what is the worst that can happen if you fire the guy now. Be aware that he will likely expect payment IN FULL, and you;ll have a fight on your hands - one that may halt construction until it's resolved. Naturally, he will have no interest in seeing the matter resolved.
And some here wonder why I caution owners not to let the contractor get too far ahead of them. Sigh.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.