Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
Peter,
I usually agree with your take on things. In this instance I'm really uncomfortable with your common sense view. The problem is that the surveyor knows the purpose of the work. And the architect is contracting for something the surveyor knows is less than necessary. Contracts that call for lesser than minimum standard practice are not usually found to protect the professional.
It's nice to be nice and reasonable, but it can get one into trouble at times.
On these types of things I usually tell them what I think they need and estimate appropriately. And yes, I didn't get many of them. But lawsuits were filed in some of them too.
I've never had to defend competence, but people do bitch about my fee. I'd just as soon keep it that way.
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
Occasionally at my previous job we would do a topo for the Engineers or Landscape Architects. I came to believe after a while they didn't know what a topo was for, it just confused them.
My current job my boss always tells us to topo the entire project, no skimping. It's much better and I think our engineers actually know how to design a grading plan (amazing stuff you know).
I can't count the number of restroom buildings built in a hole at the last job.
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
> I can't count the number of restroom buildings built in a hole at the last job.
Please tell me they were outhouses and not sanitary sewer! I guess they never learned it don't go uphill?!
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
I had to pay a change order on a building because they had the sewer coming out the wrong side of the building.
It's not like it was a mystery, there is a sewer manhole plain as the nose on your face right next to the building (they tore one down and built a new one).
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
> If I understand correctly your client is an architect, a licensed design professional. He is willing to design the site with a minimal number of spot elevations. He is the one assuming additional liability.
>
> > I just thought how strange the request was.
> > It basically was cut my fee in half,
> > but to provide him with everything he needs for design.
>
> Not to provide everything he needs but everything he asked for in writing.
>
> Peter Lazio
You keep using this "licensed design professional" term - How is this so high & mighty over surveyors? Surveyors are licensed professionals that know far and away more about topos and the field work needful for design work than any engineer or architect. you have a license, you took those shots, things don't work out so good design-wise, count on being called into the lawyer scrum that may ensue...you may or may not wind up being on the hook when things clear, but why take the chance with shortcut work? Its risky for a licensed surveyor doing that. The Archy would be better served by a contractor with a laser level in that instance, and then he (licensed design professional!) truly does absorb all the liability. Do you get that now?
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
> Peter, if you just get shots where he wants to place the house, how are you going to prove your work was right when it got knocked out. You have no evidence.
This argument is a canard. Suppose I do an exhaustive topographic survey with 0.5' contour interval, how am I going to prove my work was right when the ground is disturbed during the construction of the house? The same way I would prove my work for the reduced scope of work. My evidence is my field notes including the electronic field book files with recorded check shots. If I follow consistent defensible procedures in the normal course of business I am as safe from liability as I can be. The only way to totally avoid liability is to never do any work at all. Remember there is a difference between being sued and being liable. Anyone can sue anyone else for the most trivial of reasons. That does not mean there is any liability.
The only argument thus far that holds water with me is Duane's argument that "Contracts that call for lesser than minimum standard practice are not usually found to protect the professional." In this case if the architect were to bring a case against the surveyor he would in effect have to say he was not competent to define the amount of information he needed to design a site plan.
Once again I am not saying to do shoddy work just less. I see the architects request to "... pick up a few shots while you were out there" as an opening to negotiate the scope of work. Negotiate to a point where both of you are satisfied. If cannot come to a mutually agreeable fee then walk away. What if the architect said I just want a boundary survey no topography. Would you insist you must provide topography as well?
I don't recall 6th ever saying how large the lot was and what type of relief there is. Quite frankly on the south shore of Long Island on a typical residential lot you could produce a workable site plan with about a dozen spot elevations.
Peter Lazio
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
Give him a list of elevations and a list of coordinates.
Just don't tell him which one goes with what.
You do realize
that 6th PM does not live on Long Island, correct?
As for your saying that taking a couple of shots is going to be safe, it is not. In a full topo, you would have control offsite that can be verified by a third party in your defense (shots on finish floors of adjoiners, elevations on sanitary systems, obviously bench runs that the third party can run back in and see if your bench is correct, etc). Those alone would be your few shots. No, you cannot do a few shots in an area with a fair amount of elevation change and release a safe map. The very least you would need is the footprint of the building and have to stake it out. In the area 6th is from, 5 feet can go from nice to ugly! Just handing a judge those field notes and saying this is your proof is stoopid! You need enough elevations offsite to give a judge reason to believe your stuff onsite was accurate. And to do that, you cannot "just pick up a few shots while you are out there". That is a great way to lose that house on long island. Or at the very least the work of someone who has had too many Long Island Iced Teas.
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? give me a break
first peter is the one that sees it right other than myself--6th is in my backyard and fully understands where the archy is coming from--peters comment on a reduced scope are perfectly valid--surveyors need to stop being expert measurers for a moment and see the other professionals side--tailor the work and scope to his desires and get your rate for the time--we are headed for a major depression, little if any work is out there 80 percent of all clIents in colorado are headed for or are in bankruptcy--get what honest wok you can--remain flexible the market is nOt conducive to 150 dollar an hr fees and probably will never be again.. TDD
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
>You keep using this "licensed design professional" term - How is this so high & mighty over surveyors? Surveyors are licensed professionals that know far and away more about topos and the field work needful for design work than any engineer or architect. you have a license, you took those shots, things don't work out so good design-wise,...
Yes I recognize that the land surveyor is a licensed design professional as is the architect. I do not believe that architects are "... high & mighty over surveyors." However, I do believe the fact that the client, in this case, is a fellow professional changes the relationship somewhat. The relationship between two professionals is different than that between a layman and a professional. It is reasonable to assume that a fellow professional is competent to spec out the work he needs for a particular project. I do not make that assumption with a layman. It is condescending to dictate to a fellow professional what he must have to do his design.
If the design does not work out so well it is not because of my shots. My topography, based upon the limited scope of work, will be professionally done. If the design does not work out so well it is because the topography was poorly spec'd by the architect. If the architect realizes he needs more information he can contract to get more topography for additional fee. If he does not it is his fault not mine.
I've seen these situations play out. A solid written contract spelling out each professions responsibilities is defensible. The architect would have to assert he is incompetent to claim liability from the surveyor.
Peter Lazio
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
> >You keep using this "licensed design professional" term - How is this so high & mighty over surveyors? Surveyors are licensed professionals that know far and away more about topos and the field work needful for design work than any engineer or architect. you have a license, you took those shots, things don't work out so good design-wise,...
>
> Yes I recognize that the land surveyor is a licensed design professional as is the architect. I do not believe that architects are "... high & mighty over surveyors." However, I do believe the fact that the client, in this case, is a fellow professional changes the relationship somewhat. The relationship between two professionals is different than that between a layman and a professional. It is reasonable to assume that a fellow professional is competent to spec out the work he needs for a particular project. I do not make that assumption with a layman. It is condescending to dictate to a fellow professional what he must have to do his design.
>
> If the design does not work out so well it is not because of my shots. My topography, based upon the limited scope of work, will be professionally done. If the design does not work out so well it is because the topography was poorly spec'd by the architect. If the architect realizes he needs more information he can contract to get more topography for additional fee. If he does not it is his fault not mine.
>
> I've seen these situations play out. A solid written contract spelling out each professions responsibilities is defensible. The architect would have to assert he is incompetent to claim liability from the surveyor.
>
> Peter Lazio
Peter - my post was heavier handed than it needed to be. It just sounded like you were advocating that as long as an engineer or architect (someone else w/ a license) are stamping off on the design, the surveyor's in the clear. Your service is treated as a commodity until the crap hits the fan, then all of a sudden, they remember you too have a license.
The statement "It is condescending to dictate to a fellow professional what he must have to do his design." never seems to swing both ways for surveyors. To most engineers & archs, you are simply that contractor w/ a laser level. But yes, work is work is work and we all need it.
You do realize
> As for your saying that taking a couple of shots is going to be safe, it is not. In a full topo, you would have control offsite that can be verified by a third party in your defense (shots on finish floors of adjoiners, elevations on sanitary systems, obviously bench runs that the third party can run back in and see if your bench is correct, etc). Those alone would be your few shots. No, you cannot do a few shots in an area with a fair amount of elevation change and release a safe map. The very least you would need is the footprint of the building and have to stake it out. In the area 6th is from, 5 feet can go from nice to ugly! Just handing a judge those field notes and saying this is your proof is stoopid! You need enough elevations offsite to give a judge reason to believe your stuff onsite was accurate. And to do that, you cannot "just pick up a few shots while you are out there". That is a great way to lose that house on long island. Or at the very least the work of someone who has had too many Long Island Iced Teas.
When did I say my work would not include verifiable benchmarks outside of the area of disturbance? When did I say I would not do defensible work within the scope specified by the architect? I have been advocating a reduced scope of work not incompetent work. It is the architects responsibility to specify what he needs for his design. It is my responsibility to do the work as spec'd in a defensible manner.
And your implications that I would do the job in an impaired state, "after having too many Long Island Ice teas," and your explicit statement that I am stoopid [sic] has degraded what up to now has been a civil exchange between professionals who happen to disagree on a particular issue.
Peter Lazio
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
I'll provide the archt whatever he wants, whenever he wants it.
It will be spelled out in advance.
THE problem is (read - WILL BE), when the design professional calls me two days after I deliver the survey asking about the other elevations and spots he needs. - THIS WILL HAPPEN if I proceed the direction he wants, and that direction is based upon the premise that my service is over priced.
~
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
"The architect would have to assert he is incompetent to claim liability from the surveyor."
IMHO that is not true at all. I'm not going to get into a "post cases for proof" thing, but I've read an awful lot of them. Still, I appreciate the dilemma and thoughts of you and TDD.
I think what needs to happen at the least is that you prepare a document with your contractual recommendations. The architect and/or engineer and/or attorney, signs this document specifically rejecting your recommendations and asking for the reduced scope of work.
Merely accepting a scope of work that you know will probably cause problems, even if specified by another professional, is not going to protect you when things go wrong (if the attorneys are any good).
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
> IMHO that is not true at all. I'm not going to get into a "post cases for proof" thing, but I've read an awful lot of them. Still, I appreciate the dilemma and thoughts of you and TDD.
>
> I think what needs to happen at the least is that you prepare a document with your contractual recommendations. The architect and/or engineer and/or attorney, signs this document specifically rejecting your recommendations and asking for the reduced scope of work.
>
> Merely accepting a scope of work that you know will probably cause problems, even if specified by another professional, is not going to protect you when things go wrong (if the attorneys are any good).
Duane,
I appreciate your comments and will have give this some thought. We regularly negotiate the scope of work though never something as vague as "give me a few shots."
Do you believe, though that the fact that the architect is a design professional puts more of an onus on him to correctly spec the work needed for his design?
Peter Lazio
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
I do not see the Architect as the client, but more as a second consultant to the property owner. The architect is using your data, but the client is the property owner. If you are crazy enough to sign the contract with the architect, and he fails to pay, what can you do? If you sign the contract with the land owner -at least in this state- you have the right to lien. And if the land owner is the client, he cannot reasonably know that "just a few shots" is not enough info. The architect makes his recommendations to the client as to what is needed. You need to do the same. The client is not being well served by you when you know that the data you are giving them is not enough and you purposefully give them only what they asked for, knowing that they will have to come back and ask for more which means a higher total fee than what they would have gotten if they had just done what you said was the minimum to begin with. Do we not have an obligation to protect our clients from the poor advice of other design professionals? Make the point to the client that what is being asked for will not be enough for the design, then if he chooses to pursue the avenue suggested by the Architect, you are better protected. But make sure your fee still has enough in it to correctly run elevations in and to set benches offsite and to have check shots offsite to prove yourself when the crap hits the fan, because most likely it will.
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
Peter
I agree with you in that a fellow professional should scope his work that fits his needs and that we should meet those needs. As you say, the contract can clearly spell this out and the contract is what will protect us if the scope and duties are well defined.
I also, have not seen, "get me a few shots" but more of the reduced scope detailing just what those few shots should be and where they should be taken.
Often for a critical places in drainage or in setbacks. Not the generic 'just give me a few shots"..
I have found that it's not just Architects or Engineers but sometimes contractors who require a 'few' shots and not a full blown topo.
I think that if the work is clearly defined then I see no problem with a reduced scope as long as there is nothing involved in our MTS.
Deral
Ring - Ring panties in a wad ??? he's reasonable says me !!
I say that a 1/2 way job, like he is aksing for,.... will result in something later going wrong.
You need enough shots, to really cover the area of construction, and INCLUDING drainage IN, and OUT.
And, by the time you do that, most contour software only takes 5 seconds to generate contours.
So, what's the point?
A dollar chasing a dime.
Nate
