an ethical question 9plan stamping0

huangyhg

an ethical question (plan stamping)
this came up on a recent project for one of our repeat clients.  they are a governmental organization (u.s.) that has developed a prototype design of a wood framed house with pre-engineered wood trusses, an elevated wood framed floor over a crawlspace and typical spread footings.
now the prototype plans are 100% fully developed designs and the structural portion includes some general notes that indicate conformance to zone 4 seismic, fairly high wind loading, and 150 psf roof live load.  essentially, good to go for any location in the u.s.
they have asked us for a fee to site-adapt this prototype to a particular location.  the location has lower seismic, wind, snow, etc.  soil conditions aren't really an issue at this site.  (prototype was designed for minimal bearing capacity and our site is on rock).
the question is this:  as an engineer, is it proper for me to trust the general notes and the original prototype engineer and assume that the wood studs, lateral resisting system (sheathing), etc. are indeed designed for the indicated loads, or must i actually re-design / re-check every part of the facility.
the client, we are sure, would be stunned to get our fee with the assumption that we had to re-design everything.  after all, they already paid someone to create this "adequate-for-all-sites" prototype.  i am arguing that i cannot just trust the notes....i must re-design/check everything.  others are arguing that there is a middle ground where i can spot check critical items and call it good.
i insist that we are totally liable for it all, despite what has been done before, and that we are taking a risk if we simply trust the notes.
what do you think?

in spain happens the same in regular projects. since the design + construction design project earn 70% of the fee, only 30% is left for directorship of the works. if the work is to be directed by another, this 30% becomes 36 as "partial mission"...because you have to study the project just in case changes are required (changes would be part of the directorship itself)...but how to know it without full redesign? in the end all take 30% or 36% and whole responsability just for being the director...other thing is that in lawsuits all are included normally and the project designer also gets penalties, anyway. but there truly case when you get 30% or a fraction of it and out of communal penalty be warranting all!
in any case i see difficult to exact all the fee and gain a repeat client. you will have to decide.
if your client developed the design, why not ask for all of the development calculations and review them.  this would be much quicker than re-design, but not as cavalier as just trusting their notes.  then you could stamp the drawings in good conscience.
i agree with husker concerning reviewing the original design calculations. i would go one step further and review the assumptions that were made in the original design, espicially regarding the species and commericial grade of lumber that was assumed, as these can vary considerably.
as a professional engineer registered in a number of juridictions i would never rely completely on the work of someone else. if i apply my stamp, it is only after i am sure that the structure is safe.
i think that this case is close to the case of using pre-engineered metal building.
as engineer of record i check loads applied by building manufacturer, but i can not check his results (he uses software that i do not have and do not know).
i am preparing foundation plan and spec and stamp it. in general notes i specify loads.
i think that you need to get stamped leter from company which designed this building with statement that their design satisfy your criteria.
the answer, in general, may depend upon the state in which you are practicing.  for example,in louisiana, the engineer of record who seals the drawing is certifying that he(or she) has personally performed the work or that the work was done under their "direct supervision". as such, stamping calculations & drawings not performed under one's direct supervision is not only unethical, it is illegal.  better check in your state!   
many states allow more than one eor to stamp the drawings.  say the client has already paid another engineer to design the structure and just needs you to do the foundations to suit the site.  then you would stamp the drawings and note that you are responsible only for the foundations.  the client's other engineer stamps the drawings also and takes responsibility for his/her share.
i agree that if you are the sole eor, you better make sure that you're not just rubber stamping someone else's design.  the fee is based not only on the amount of hours you put in, but also on the amount of risk you are assuming.
some building officials require that you submit structural calculations.  if you didn't do them, then you be hard-pressed to submit them.
secondly, i have a hard time trusting anyone else's design, whether it was done for the us government or us outhouse corp.  usually the low bid got that job, and you get what you pay for.

zulak
jae:
if i were associated with your firm, then you and i would be sitting on the same side of the table. it's far from being just an ethical question. if you stamp it, then you have essentially assumed "responsible charge" as the eor and legally it's yours ---- plain and simple. hence, you had better review it in such detail that you are comfortable with calling it "yours."
on several occasions, i have sealed structures designed and/or manufactured by others, but each time i have been furnished all the design data including code requirements, loads, assumptions, printouts, soil borings, etc.  if i can't independently come up with a reasonably close approximation of the client's design, or they can't tell me how they got their numbers, then together we go back to the drawing board and at that point i have then essentially
"taken responsible charge of the design."
you said, "after all, they already paid someone to create this 'adequate-for-all-sites' prototype."  i'm assuming that that someone is not registered in the state in which this structure is to be built, and that's why they are now coming to your firm. i don't mean to be trite here, but didn't they realize that if this thing is going to become a reality, it needs to satisfy local code bodies and permitting approvals?  and, if someone is expected to put their embossed "jae seal" on it and attach that liability to the firm (as well as you personally), then that action needs to be paid for in full measure.
sooner or later it will dawn on them that what they paid the original designer for the prototype was just a down payment in a long series of individually permitted projects.  even pre-engineered, prefab building firms have to be prepared to have their plans signed and sealed in each and every county in these united states.
if the client can't provide you with all the design data that you need in order to perform an independent check to your satisfaction, and to adequately compensate you for your time and the liability associated therewith, then i would respectfully submit that you don't need them for a client (and being a "repeat client" doesn't grant them some special privilege that can circumvent reality).
hence, your answer is: do not trust the notes or numbers of the original designer and do not assume that the design or procedure is correct until you independently verify it.
hi, jae
when i was a very junior engineer in training (1957 or so), my then supervising engineer had a very useful hypothetical question that he was fond of using.  
in your instance, he would simply have asked you how will respond when you are asked in the court of enquiry, (following a collapse of one of these '100% designed' buildings),  "mr. jae, how can you justify your action in signing off on these drawings when you have, on your own admission, done no meaningful check of the design ?"
i am with all those who say check thoroughly, or don't sign.  (and let your client find some other bunny if that position worries them).
thank you for all your replies.  in fact, i'm probably going to print them and outline the arguments.  
note that i don't have to seal these plans because it is a governmental (federal) orgainization that does not require permits or engineer seals on the plans.  however, even without the seal, there is an implied warranty from our a/e firm and they have qualified us to do the work based on our credentials as engineers.
i know i have to do the complete check of the building.  the problem is, the client will most likely balk at our fee and i end up working on my "own time" to do it right.
thanks again to you all!  good discussion.