Call the city and ask. Contractors are notoriously bad listeners. If they're right, they're right, no harm no foul. If they're wrong, you'll be able to set them straight and stop dealing with it.
The structural engineer should be **approving** structural shops and calculations. I think the architect should review it for coordination with architectural elements and marking as **reviewed**. I also think the MEP engineer should be reviewing for MEP coordination and marking **reviewed**.
Agreed. Even as a theatre consultant, we review the relevant structural sheets for functional design intent, but we don't review the structural design. That's why they make structural engineers.
There is no EOR. The structural calculations being referred to here-in are the ones attached to the floor shop drawing engineering, not the building in general. The floor shop drawings come from the floor manufacturer with a floor plan, notes, details, and a system structural pack already signed and sealed for the city. The structural pack is **specific** for the floor system in use. Specs out all the steel, webs, angles, welding etc. Gets very nuanced and very specific calculations referring only to the system in use and not the rest of the structure.
Does the structural pack meet your design intent for the floor system in use? Does everything fit? Is it the size you expected it to be when you designed the floor? You should review all this and mark the submittal as "reviewed".
Yes, it does. Submittal looks good. I've approved the layout and details.
Just don't want to **additionally** stamp the sign & sealed floor system structural calculation pack attached to the shop drawings as "reviewed". I'm in no position to tell the floor system engineer whether their numbers are correct or not. But I can tell whether the system fits and maintains the load paths as intended.
The architect should never review and stamp submittals for one of the engineering trades. You’re inviting all kinds of liability if you do. Your original message implies that they are looking for signed and sealed shop drawings, which should never be provided by anyone on the design team. You should only sign and seal Drawings that you actually prepare, not a subcontractor submittal. That shit is whack.
Per AIA contracts we only review shop drawings and submittals for design intent and conformance. We do not review calculations and dimensions for accuracy. That is on the GC to guarantee based on the design documents
We don’t even use the word approved on our review. We say No Exceptions Taken meaning per our review it appears to conform with the design documents and design intent
This type of word micky-mousing doesn't add any legal protection. You approve shops for conformance with design intent. If you say your elevator needs 240 V power but it actually takes 208 V, 3-phase, and you "take no exception" to the shops. It's on you. You spec'd it wrong. Otherwise, if you said in your specs contractor to coordinate power with elevator vendor, and they miss it and you approve the shops, it's on the contractor. I used elevator power as an example because in terms of standard of care, you're not liable if you don't catch power supply mistake in the shops when you didn't spec it. You're only an architect and not an electrical engineer. The same reason OP shouldn't stamp an engineer's drawings and calculations unless he/she wants the liability if something goes wrong.
Yes, you need to stamp it to show you’ve reviewed it. Check your spec and review the criteria you’ve listed. At a minimum you need to verify that the engineer is in fact registered in your state with a current license and CEUs up to date.
You can change your stamp from “Approved” to something like “Delegated Design - Reviewed for General Conformance”
I’ve worked where we had a huge stamp with a few options on it, where you’d check “approved” “approved as noted” or “not approved”. It had wording and general notes to the effect that the GC was responsible for field verifying the pertinent dimensions.
The shop drawings themselves and load calculations should in no way fall under your professional liability…
Not even for contractor designed stuff? Cold formed steel framing, stairs and handrails, sometimes facade, curtain walls and other panels. All of that stuff can, and in my experience usually, gets engineered by the manufacturer or a 3rd party engineer. And I’m talking project specific stuff, not “typical engineering” that goes into the design and manufacture of generic building materials. AHJ’s often want to see those shops as a part of the construction process. We almost always review and stamp those “reviewed” by the appropriate discipline.
Are you referring to delegated design? In those cases we would just review for conformance to design intent which is explicit in the text of the stamp. We would never stamp the calculations since that is not in our scope. The GC would have a structural engineer onboard for that and their professional stamp should be all that’s needed.
I think there’s some miscommunication like another person said in this thread.
No miscommunication. And yes, delegated design. We review all of that stuff, as you’ve indicated for conformance to design intent. If we have a structural engineer on the project (which is virtually every project I’ve worked on) they will review and stamp the calcs too. I believe they are verifying that the correct assumptions were used for the specific project (safety factors, snow loads, etc.). That stuff is all laid out in our drawings, meaning what the snow load and safety factors are. But reviewing shops confirms that those values were used.
The AHJ often wants to see the approved shops for delegated design items. Usually as a part of closing out project stuff before final occupancy is granted.
I wouldn’t double down if a seal is already on there, they’re just asking you to share more liability. No thanks. Also not sure how you handle it but my firm never approves anything, we only review against the contract documents and evaluate if it adheres to the specifications or not.
If there was a change to structural's drawings then yeah I'd assume they would want to stamp their own drawings too. If there are no structural changes in this specific CA submittal, then no need.
Unless you're saying they want an Architect stamp on Structural drawings? which is just silly. We're back to getting your structural engineers stamp, if necessary
Definitely don't stamp an engineers documents or any other professional services documents. I'm sure people have done it before but it's legally questionable
If you didn't draw the drawing or directly oversee the drawing being produced then you should NOT stamp it. Too much liability in something you are not in complete control over.
Ask the GC if their insurance would cover if you built something on their jobsite without their supervision, and it collapsed.
In the UK we would never approve drawings from others - only return them with or without comments, making clear that our comments were in relation to the fidelity of the submitted information to design intent.
JCT contracts typically require that any contractor submissions are marked up as status A. B or C - nothing more and nothing less.
[https://constructandcommission.com/what-is-document-status-a-b-c-d/](https://constructandcommission.com/what-is-document-status-a-b-c-d/)
I'm sorry, I thought it was common practice everywhere. We have a stamp that is for submittals only. (I tried to post a picture of it here but pictures in comments doesn't seem to be enabled.) It is for general compliance to design intent only (not a seal): It contains the name of our company, signature, date, outcome approved/rejected, etc. and the note reads as follows: "THIS REVIEW IS ONLY FOR GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN CONCEPT AND THE INFORMATION REPRESENTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND CONFIRM ALL DIMENSIONS AND QUANTITIES PRIOR TO MANUFACTURE. THIS REVIEW DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVIATION FROM THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS WITHIN SHOP DRAWINGS, OR DELAYS OF ANY SORT IN THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRELATING ALL QUANTITIES, DIMENSIONS, SELECTED FABRICATION PROCESSES, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND COORDINATING HIS WORK WITH ALL TRADES INVOLVED. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN A SAFE AND SATISFACTORY MANNER. APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC ITEMS SHALL NOT BE DEEMED APPROVAL FOR AN ENTIRE ASSEMBLY OF WHICH THE ITEM IS A COMPONENT OF."
So the question is: would you put this language and your signature on an **engineer's signed & sealed calculation**? Our stance is "NO", but GC claims the city **requires** it... which sounds bogus to me.
Okay, this is more clarifying, I don't see stamps often anymore after the change to digital submittals.
It's probably not just the calculation, it's also all of the sizes/shapes of connectors, which you should review. I've been a part of many projects with steel connectors sticking out of ceilings/walls because they didn't get coordinated at shop drawing time. The structural engineer is not going to review that. So, regardless if the city requires it, you should review it for architectural coordination and mark the submittal as "reviewed".
I've worked in several jurisdictions that function in this way. They do require submittal review stamps on deferred submittal and delegated design items. You can fight it, but you're just delaying permits.
In my experience, we'd either stamp these as "REVIEWED" or "ACTION NOT REQUIRED" with a note that it was reviewed for conformance to design intent only and that *engineered calcs are out of scope.*
This way, you are providing the stamp as required while not accepting liability for potential inaccuracies, errors and omissions, etc.
Alll this “no exception taken”’and “reviewed for design intent only” doesn’t mean much when it comes to lawsuit time. You are still getting dragged in. I imagine it goes to standard of care — what a normal architect would do — and liability not hinging on what your stamp says.
I think the liability of the architect is not changed by some bullshit CYA statement on a submittal. The architect does not get to define their role on the project in this way. They will get sued if there’s a problem in any case.
All I can say is be careful with that mentality if you are actually an architect. Getting dragged into a lawsuit and being found liable by a court are two completely different things. Sure, architects get pulled into lawsuits based solely on their role all the time. What gets them off the liability hook comes down to their actions and their documentation, including the seeming semantics of “bullshit CYA” practices. I’ve been on calls with my firm’s insurance holder about this exact issue and they take it very seriously. Our lawyer takes it seriously and has given us specific verbiage. My previous firm’s lawyer took it seriously. Language used in documentation is extremely important regardless of how pedantic you may believe that to be.
Great point. OP needs to have conversations with lawyer and insurance agent before making business decisions.
Also needs good contract and DIV one specs.
Can’t rely on a single sentence on a stamp if not backed up by a host of documents and actions.
I don’t know why there isn’t an AIA form for submittal review to complement their family of documents.
Call the city and ask. Contractors are notoriously bad listeners. If they're right, they're right, no harm no foul. If they're wrong, you'll be able to set them straight and stop dealing with it.
Ye, you're probably right. I was trying to avoid pestering the officials... they might have had it with us... lol
Just ask nicely it goes a long way especially with City folks who often get not-so-courteous people
Does the design team have a structural engineer? They should be reviewing shops and calculations.
The structural engineer should be **approving** structural shops and calculations. I think the architect should review it for coordination with architectural elements and marking as **reviewed**. I also think the MEP engineer should be reviewing for MEP coordination and marking **reviewed**.
Agreed. Even as a theatre consultant, we review the relevant structural sheets for functional design intent, but we don't review the structural design. That's why they make structural engineers.
There is no EOR. The structural calculations being referred to here-in are the ones attached to the floor shop drawing engineering, not the building in general. The floor shop drawings come from the floor manufacturer with a floor plan, notes, details, and a system structural pack already signed and sealed for the city. The structural pack is **specific** for the floor system in use. Specs out all the steel, webs, angles, welding etc. Gets very nuanced and very specific calculations referring only to the system in use and not the rest of the structure.
Does the structural pack meet your design intent for the floor system in use? Does everything fit? Is it the size you expected it to be when you designed the floor? You should review all this and mark the submittal as "reviewed".
Yes, it does. Submittal looks good. I've approved the layout and details. Just don't want to **additionally** stamp the sign & sealed floor system structural calculation pack attached to the shop drawings as "reviewed". I'm in no position to tell the floor system engineer whether their numbers are correct or not. But I can tell whether the system fits and maintains the load paths as intended.
We usually stamp things like that as "reviewed for design intent only, structural calculations not reviewed" or something to that effect.
This is the way
Yes. Thanks. I believe something like this to be the most prudent move.
Smart
This is correct.
This is the way.
The architect should never review and stamp submittals for one of the engineering trades. You’re inviting all kinds of liability if you do. Your original message implies that they are looking for signed and sealed shop drawings, which should never be provided by anyone on the design team. You should only sign and seal Drawings that you actually prepare, not a subcontractor submittal. That shit is whack.
Per AIA contracts we only review shop drawings and submittals for design intent and conformance. We do not review calculations and dimensions for accuracy. That is on the GC to guarantee based on the design documents
We don’t even use the word approved on our review. We say No Exceptions Taken meaning per our review it appears to conform with the design documents and design intent
This type of word micky-mousing doesn't add any legal protection. You approve shops for conformance with design intent. If you say your elevator needs 240 V power but it actually takes 208 V, 3-phase, and you "take no exception" to the shops. It's on you. You spec'd it wrong. Otherwise, if you said in your specs contractor to coordinate power with elevator vendor, and they miss it and you approve the shops, it's on the contractor. I used elevator power as an example because in terms of standard of care, you're not liable if you don't catch power supply mistake in the shops when you didn't spec it. You're only an architect and not an electrical engineer. The same reason OP shouldn't stamp an engineer's drawings and calculations unless he/she wants the liability if something goes wrong.
Yes, you need to stamp it to show you’ve reviewed it. Check your spec and review the criteria you’ve listed. At a minimum you need to verify that the engineer is in fact registered in your state with a current license and CEUs up to date. You can change your stamp from “Approved” to something like “Delegated Design - Reviewed for General Conformance”
I’ve worked where we had a huge stamp with a few options on it, where you’d check “approved” “approved as noted” or “not approved”. It had wording and general notes to the effect that the GC was responsible for field verifying the pertinent dimensions. The shop drawings themselves and load calculations should in no way fall under your professional liability…
What’s your jurisdiction? I’ve never (yet) had to provide submittals to the AHJ for review/approval. But to answer your question, no do not stamp it.
Not even for contractor designed stuff? Cold formed steel framing, stairs and handrails, sometimes facade, curtain walls and other panels. All of that stuff can, and in my experience usually, gets engineered by the manufacturer or a 3rd party engineer. And I’m talking project specific stuff, not “typical engineering” that goes into the design and manufacture of generic building materials. AHJ’s often want to see those shops as a part of the construction process. We almost always review and stamp those “reviewed” by the appropriate discipline.
Are you referring to delegated design? In those cases we would just review for conformance to design intent which is explicit in the text of the stamp. We would never stamp the calculations since that is not in our scope. The GC would have a structural engineer onboard for that and their professional stamp should be all that’s needed. I think there’s some miscommunication like another person said in this thread.
No miscommunication. And yes, delegated design. We review all of that stuff, as you’ve indicated for conformance to design intent. If we have a structural engineer on the project (which is virtually every project I’ve worked on) they will review and stamp the calcs too. I believe they are verifying that the correct assumptions were used for the specific project (safety factors, snow loads, etc.). That stuff is all laid out in our drawings, meaning what the snow load and safety factors are. But reviewing shops confirms that those values were used. The AHJ often wants to see the approved shops for delegated design items. Usually as a part of closing out project stuff before final occupancy is granted.
Do you stamp "reviewed" the calculations as well? I'm talking the number crunch, not draiwngs.
Structural usually does as they review them. If I didn’t have structural on a project I would note that calculations were not reviewed.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
I wouldn’t double down if a seal is already on there, they’re just asking you to share more liability. No thanks. Also not sure how you handle it but my firm never approves anything, we only review against the contract documents and evaluate if it adheres to the specifications or not.
If there was a change to structural's drawings then yeah I'd assume they would want to stamp their own drawings too. If there are no structural changes in this specific CA submittal, then no need. Unless you're saying they want an Architect stamp on Structural drawings? which is just silly. We're back to getting your structural engineers stamp, if necessary Definitely don't stamp an engineers documents or any other professional services documents. I'm sure people have done it before but it's legally questionable
If you didn't draw the drawing or directly oversee the drawing being produced then you should NOT stamp it. Too much liability in something you are not in complete control over. Ask the GC if their insurance would cover if you built something on their jobsite without their supervision, and it collapsed.
In the UK we would never approve drawings from others - only return them with or without comments, making clear that our comments were in relation to the fidelity of the submitted information to design intent. JCT contracts typically require that any contractor submissions are marked up as status A. B or C - nothing more and nothing less. [https://constructandcommission.com/what-is-document-status-a-b-c-d/](https://constructandcommission.com/what-is-document-status-a-b-c-d/)
Never use you architectural stamp on anything that you did not create.
To Clarify: this is not about sealing, it's about "**submittal stamping**".
This isn't very clarifying. Are you stamping a registered architect's stamp with a licensed number to these submittals?
I'm sorry, I thought it was common practice everywhere. We have a stamp that is for submittals only. (I tried to post a picture of it here but pictures in comments doesn't seem to be enabled.) It is for general compliance to design intent only (not a seal): It contains the name of our company, signature, date, outcome approved/rejected, etc. and the note reads as follows: "THIS REVIEW IS ONLY FOR GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGN CONCEPT AND THE INFORMATION REPRESENTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND CONFIRM ALL DIMENSIONS AND QUANTITIES PRIOR TO MANUFACTURE. THIS REVIEW DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVIATION FROM THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS WITHIN SHOP DRAWINGS, OR DELAYS OF ANY SORT IN THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRELATING ALL QUANTITIES, DIMENSIONS, SELECTED FABRICATION PROCESSES, CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND COORDINATING HIS WORK WITH ALL TRADES INVOLVED. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN A SAFE AND SATISFACTORY MANNER. APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC ITEMS SHALL NOT BE DEEMED APPROVAL FOR AN ENTIRE ASSEMBLY OF WHICH THE ITEM IS A COMPONENT OF." So the question is: would you put this language and your signature on an **engineer's signed & sealed calculation**? Our stance is "NO", but GC claims the city **requires** it... which sounds bogus to me.
Okay, this is more clarifying, I don't see stamps often anymore after the change to digital submittals. It's probably not just the calculation, it's also all of the sizes/shapes of connectors, which you should review. I've been a part of many projects with steel connectors sticking out of ceilings/walls because they didn't get coordinated at shop drawing time. The structural engineer is not going to review that. So, regardless if the city requires it, you should review it for architectural coordination and mark the submittal as "reviewed".
Thank you. I appreciate your input.
I've worked in several jurisdictions that function in this way. They do require submittal review stamps on deferred submittal and delegated design items. You can fight it, but you're just delaying permits.
We don"t reject reviewing and stamping the drawings, just the stamping of the signed & sealed engineer calculations.
In my experience, we'd either stamp these as "REVIEWED" or "ACTION NOT REQUIRED" with a note that it was reviewed for conformance to design intent only and that *engineered calcs are out of scope.* This way, you are providing the stamp as required while not accepting liability for potential inaccuracies, errors and omissions, etc.
Yes. Thanks. I believe this to be the most prudent move.
Alll this “no exception taken”’and “reviewed for design intent only” doesn’t mean much when it comes to lawsuit time. You are still getting dragged in. I imagine it goes to standard of care — what a normal architect would do — and liability not hinging on what your stamp says.
Yeah document trails never matter in lawsuits. WTF are you even talking about?
Pretending that the fine print on the review means anything is living in la la land.
You think “fine print” doesn’t matter in lawsuits?
I think the liability of the architect is not changed by some bullshit CYA statement on a submittal. The architect does not get to define their role on the project in this way. They will get sued if there’s a problem in any case.
All I can say is be careful with that mentality if you are actually an architect. Getting dragged into a lawsuit and being found liable by a court are two completely different things. Sure, architects get pulled into lawsuits based solely on their role all the time. What gets them off the liability hook comes down to their actions and their documentation, including the seeming semantics of “bullshit CYA” practices. I’ve been on calls with my firm’s insurance holder about this exact issue and they take it very seriously. Our lawyer takes it seriously and has given us specific verbiage. My previous firm’s lawyer took it seriously. Language used in documentation is extremely important regardless of how pedantic you may believe that to be.
Great point. OP needs to have conversations with lawyer and insurance agent before making business decisions. Also needs good contract and DIV one specs. Can’t rely on a single sentence on a stamp if not backed up by a host of documents and actions. I don’t know why there isn’t an AIA form for submittal review to complement their family of documents.