Last year I had an architect forge a proposed site plan using my name and title block from the existing conditions topo plan I had prepared.
The old thread is here: https://surveyorconnect.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=264126
After that, last fall, I prepared a proposed plot plan for the site that shows the proposed house and garage foundations and their setbacks from the property lines (based on the architect's proposed plan).
Turns out, my client shortly after fired that architect (not because of the forgery) and hired a new one.
Today I visited the site for the first time to stake the foundations.
The client and contractor asked if I had seen the plans that were submitted to and approved by the Board of Appeals. Since I wasn't involved in the planning or submission, I said I had not. So out come the plans: one was my proposed plot plan. The other was a proposed site plan prepared by the new architect. He had taken my proposed plot plan, and added proposed grading (based on the topo I had prepared earlier) and proposed improvements.
Like before, everything within the property lines had been removed and replaced with hand drawn buildings, driveway, contours, etc.
What caught my eye was MY title block, MY PLS seal, and MY signature on HIS plan. He had added a note saying something like "additions by XXX Architects", but had not added his seal. It is apparent to me that it is not my plan, my I doubt that anyone else who looks at it will think so.
Complicating the whole issue is that when this was submitted to the Board of Appeals (so the client tells me), the Board said that they didn't care about foundation setbacks, they only cared about nearest-part-of-structure setbacks (in this case, to roof overhangs). So instead of providing me with the roof overhang dimensions and having me revise my plan to show roof overhang setbacks, the architect took it upon himself to change the setbacks on his site plan (the one bearing my seal & signature).
The trouble is he estimated the roof overhangs incorrectly - they have increased from what he submitted. He also just subtracted the roof overhangs (more than 12" on each side) from my foundation setbacks, without accounting for the buildings not being parallel to the property lines.
So now when the foundations are placed where my (real) plan said they would go, the roof overhang setbacks will all be 0.2 to 0.3 feet less than those approved, and short of shrinking the buildings, there is nothing I can do to prevent that. The house is a 200 year old structure being relocated to the new foundation from elsewhere on the property, so its dimensions obviously cannot be changed. The builder may be able to reduce the roof overhangs on the garage, and the client is fully aware of all this, so I don't think I will get in trouble.
But really - what is wrong with these architects?? I don't think that they have a clue that they are doing anything wrong, and it appears to me that this is standard practice for them.
I am just flabbergasted and very angry.
I have always thought that the Architect was the dumbest SOB on the job. Way dumber that the mortar mixer!:-D
"But really - what is wrong with these architects??"
They haven't been reported to and/or sanctioned by their Boards...
Or welders. Friend of mine used to work on the north slope pipeline. He said all the welders talked about was welding o-beam.
> "But really - what is wrong with these architects??"
>
> They haven't been reported to and/or sanctioned by their Boards...
Exactly!
When you first found your signature & seal on the architect's altered plan, why didn't you address it clearly and forcefully right then? By letting it slide and doing nothing more than venting here, you have made the decision to share the full amount of any liability for the incorrect aspects of the plan.
Worse than that, since the architect did not add his seal or signature, and was not explicit about what information was added by him vs what was reported by you, he has a level of deniability for any particular piece of data.
IMO, you need to address this head on, insisting that the architect redraw and correct his plan, and resubmit it on his title block, with his seal and signature and a statement that it supersedes all previous plans. The alternative being that you file a complaint with his licensing board and copy the local Board of Appeals and any other agencies from which approvals were required.
The job may be completed without incident or repercussion, but if any problems do surface, you will be at the top of the list of responsible parties.
> When you first found your signature & seal on the architect's altered plan, why didn't you address it clearly and forcefully right then?
I did - I told the first architect to knock it it off last fall, and he did. This is a second architect (who replaced the first) and I just saw the plan today.
Architect should be reported to whatever board holds his license.
The subsequent action will ripple through his community.
Sometimes a well publicized punishment the only way to educate a populace.
Definitely the dumbest mortar forker on the job site.
My latest encounter with an architect was well after a survey had been ordered by civil and field work had commeneced. He requested that the survey be "accurate and to scale"!
He then insisted that the rail shown did not exist when it was exisitng long before the architect.
Their arrogance is never ending and they are never, ever wrong.
Applicable law or regulation?
Does anyone know of a Massachusetts law or regulation that addresses this?
I looked through 250 CMR, but did know see anything I thought was directly applicable.
I would like to quote an actual regulation when I contact the architect about this.
Thank you all for your replies!
Applicable law or regulation?
In your case, I would begin by getting the paperwork that he altered and your original paperwork and sit down with someone at the DA's office.
Talk with your BOR and get their view of what happened and send notice to his BOR.
The original architect may have been fired because he would not forge your work anymore.
I have been amazed over the years at what our clients and what other professionals expect us to ignore for their own gain.
I had a friend back in Missouri that was presented a plan set with his seal and signature on it. The problem was he had never seen it. He ripped on the person who did it and made them pay him to do the project. The Board found out and suspended HIS license for not turning the other guy in.
Our Rules can be used to educate others. Some cases are beyond that. Choose your actions wisely...
This exact same thing happened to one of my mentors. He was surprised to find a site plan done by an architect with his survey data and stamp on it, work that had been done for another client of his. When I asked him why he didn't pursue it and rake the perp over the coals for such a blatant rip off, he just said to me it just wouldn't be worth it for the amount of work he would lose in the long run by burning bridges with this architect and his cohorts. How's that for sucking it up? I would have gone to war on principle. As long as they get away with it, I expect this kind of thing to continue. 🙁
But this is standard practice...
I emailed the architect yesterday expressing my displeasure and demanding that he take responsibility for changing the setback distances, never do it again, etc.
He replied this morning, apologizing and taking full responsibility for the setback issue (in an email cc'ed to the client), so that much is good.
However, in explaining his actions, he included this paragraph that bothers me:
>It is very typical for construction document drawings to have the title block of more than one professional on the same sheet, structural, HVAC, electrical engineer, site planner, etc. along with the architect to indicate a shared design for the information presented.
So basically, "This is the way we always do it." I don't know how to respond to that. No surveyor (or even some non-surveyors) I've heard from agrees with that. The public (clients, public officials, etc.) really don't care or even understand that there is an issue here.
At this point, I'm beginning to think that even reporting him to his Board would be futile since it would be made up of architects who also do this. I also haven't (yet) been able to find any particular regulation that would directly address this.
Well, at least I've got this documented now. If anything goes wrong, those emails will "come in handy during the deposition", as I like to say.
But this is standard practice...
There are mechanisms in many States for addition of work to an existing product. All I am aware of require clear delineation of who did what. We occasionally collaborate with others and make these products. It sounds like this guy doesn't see an issue with blurring the line...
But this is standard practice...
Title block, maybe but not leaving your seal and signature! Do all those other people sign and seal the construction drawings?
But this is standard practice...
To be fair, I could tell what was changed and what was mine, and the architect certainly could - his work was hand drawn, mine was all CAD. But there was nothing that actually STATED what was his, so the general public would have no idea. The setbacks were neatly done and were difficult to tell from mine.
One common theme I notice with this and the previous architect is that they hand draw their work still; maybe they are too lazy to draft their own plans. A third architect on a different job of mine received the same type of digitally signed PDF of the existing conditions plan, but they also requested and received a CAD file (with the title block stripped) and created their own site plan with their title block only - everybody's happy.
But maybe that's not it. The best architect that I know still does all his work in pencil on vellum (and also signs and seals all his plans - to this day his is the only architect's seal I can remember seeing on a plan).
Maybe the solution is to not issue PDFs and only issue paper originals (with my red stamp/blue signature and a note saying without that it's a possibly altered copy). For CAD files, I always strip the title blocks and survey data anyway. The PDFs seem to make this too easy for them, even though I use an encrypted digital signature (nobody seems to know or care what that is though).
