That is exactly where the confusion sets in. In TN it truly means a review stamp saying they reviewed our shop drawings, calculations, etc. and our design/shop drawings/submittal is per the design standards they set forth in the construction documents as the design professional. If the state of TN has to review our shop drawings this is what they look for (not a "seal"), our shop drawings must have been reviewed by the engineer/design professional of record for the project. And most people are taking it as they have to be sealed.
Bobby Gillett Sr. Project Manager Key Fire Protection, Inc. (731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax (731) 267-4853 cell [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Engineers Stamp vs. Seal Maybe I'm a little confused (wouldn't be the first time). I interpret a stamp as being an ink transfer and a seal being an embossed likeness. I have the embossing gun for my CT license, but have never used it. When the "design professional" was putting a stamp on the drawing after a review, was it a professional engineer's stamp or just one of the standard stamps that say it had been reviewed and we haven't found any problems, but if we missed something, it's still your fault? Review stamps a purposely vague, but the PE stamp implies a liability. In CT, shop drawings have to be stamped with either a PE stamp or a Designer's License (have to have NICET Level III or IV). That is part of State Code and not something from a spec. haven't seen it with seismic yet, but very well could after the incident in VA yeaterday. At 10:47 AM 8/24/2011, you wrote: >To all; > > > >This is not a question in reference to NFPA; however a cry for help to the >industry. Does anyone else run into this? > > > >We prepare shop drawings with calculations for every project, and for some >projects seismic design shop drawings with calculations. Here in TN >(although this scenario has happened on projects outside of TN as well) we >have the standard of care, which means there are to be fire protection >intent drawings created by a registered design professional as part of the >original construction documents and when we complete our shop >drawings/calculations that registered design professional shall review them >for acceptance and stamp them. What we run into at random is what we believe >is a misinterpretation of the code (IBC for instance) and it gets put into >the specifications for the project; It is interpreted as our shop drawings >have to be stamped AND SEALED by an engineer and this is getting applied to >the seismic design specifications now as well. The fire protection >contractors that do not catch this or overlook it, as we did years ago, end >up having to hire (at their expense) a registered engineer so they can >provide sealed drawings/calculations, even though there is one already on >record for the project. Then you run into the problem of the need for the >engineer to create the drawings and calculations themselves due to the fact >they cannot seal anything they did not create. Now more time, coordination >and costs are incurred by the fire protection contractor. We have added an >exclusion in our base bid letter for the cost of providing an engineers seal >on our shop drawings and calculations for a couple of years now and just >revised it to exclude that same cost on seismic design and calculations, as >we are seeing this requirement in specifications more frequently. It is our >interpretation that each project shall have a registered design professional >to set the standard for the project and that professional shall review our >shop drawings and calculations for acceptance with a stamp; not a true need >for a SEALED set. Every time we ask the question to the design professionals >for the project they can't tell us where it came from other than this is >what is required per code and will not listen to our argument/explanation. >Somehow, if our interpretation is correct, we need to get this amended to be >clear to all. > > > >Thank you, > > > >Bobby Gillett > >Sr. Project Manager > >Key Fire Protection, Inc. > >(731) 424-0130 office (731) 424-9285 fax > >(731) 267-4853 cell > > <mailto:[email protected]> >[email protected] > > > > > > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment s/20110824/710401d4/attachment.html> >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3854 - Release Date: 08/24/11 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
