Personally, I have seen both sides - the Designing / EE side and the Contracting / Bid / EC side. Each side has valid arguments as to whom is responsible.
For me, I would find it very uncomfortable to send out any bid sets which were not Engineered properly and WITH ENGINEERING ETHICS!!! [sorry to shout this, I'll explain why later].
My Prelim. E Sheets were - and will continue to be - complete in project scope / description, comply with applicable code[s] and conform to the client's specs. Also, I make the stuff "Electrician Logical" [circuit numbers in order, etc.] and properly size circuits for loads [200% grounded conductors where applicable, proper IG's, etc.].
This results in little - if no - Plancheck revisions to the preliminary bid set.
Same goes with sets that are revised as the project evolves [such as "SK"'s].
On the Bidding / EC side, one problem I am currently having is that I am no longer working "Semi-Solo", but now work for another General Contractor who does "Inhouse Electrical". Great Company to work for! Everyone is sharp, understands their work, etc.
For the 3rd time now I have been asked to bid projects [Bank Branch remodels / T.I.]. I have found each of the E sets to be a complete joke!!! The last set's E sheets look like they were 2/3 of the way finished before being sent to the Architects!
This set has some circuitry overkill, but very sloppy CAD and Engineer work runs rampant throughout the E sheets!!! Macros being used improperly, attributes not labeled correctly - or text wrapped bad [or over other text], Blocks pasted to the drawing to be copied, but left all over the place [in the wrong places!], etc., etc., etc...
The other 2 sets were just a joke! Covered only by disclaimers "Install per applicable codes" and "Install per client's specs". No scope, no existing plan, no nothing!
I'm currently working on a project in which the "Approved Planset" - the one stamped by the city, which has passed plancheck - had no 1 line diagram, no load schedules, nothing listed for AC units' branch circuit sizes or conduit sizes, nothing regarding subfeeds, 1/2 A** panel schedules, silly Title 24 energy conservation items, the typical Blocks used for teller line outlets [which have never been correct!], on and on!!!
To sum it up, NO ENGINEERING ETHICS!!!
As to Rojo-sy's scenarios, I could point out the following:
Scenario #1: The Contractor is at fault, since the Contractor is supposed to perform the Installation to any Applicable codes.
Since it has been accepted and paid for, the 1 year warrantee is binding the EC to any breakdowns of installed equipment.
--HOWEVER,--
Since the job has been accepted by the client, if there are any code issues, it's now the CLIENT'S responsibility to satisfy the Building Dept. This one could fall back into the 1 year warrantee [I suppose], so there's a good scenario for the lawyer to ponder.
To me it seems that the Client is now responsible to bring things up to code, but may take action against the EC for not complying to a contract. If the contract for some odd reason does not specify installing to code[s], or overseeing that codes are satisfied, that might place 100% burden on the Client.
Scenario #2: This one seems simple to me, but has been bounced around for days on a few projects [more than I would like to have seen!].
This one sure places the EC at fault, but the provisions of the prelim bids are to bid from the planset AS SHOWN. If any conflicts or inconsistency after project's beginning - which were unseen at the time of proposal by the EE or the EC, submit this to the EE / Architect [AKA Try to Request for Extra].
On almost every project I am involved with, the short and long term code issues are not something that would just "Pop Up". Can't say the same for other projects.
Scott SET
