Didn't you say this was a firehouse? Maybe get the fire marshal involved. If an engineer stamped the plans and gave those out as what to bid on then if you win the contract you build to what the engineer said. Who are you, lowly contractor/engineering tech to argue with the mighty PE? But if he's working outside of his area of expertise (suggested by an inadequate plan set) then you may want to be having a talk with your state's board of licensing.
https://www.nspe.org/resources/issues-and-advocacy/professional-policies-and-position-statements/sfpenspenicetascetncees On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:18 AM Steve Mackinnon <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Kyle, > > > > I might be getting the terminology incorrect, but this is a sub prime > project where all trades are equal and work directly with the > “Client/customer”. The client in this case is the Town and typically the > Architect becomes the chief amongst the trades… but with only a little more > say overall. > > > > On this project the engineering firm can allow or turn away extras at > their discretion. > > > > Unfortunately in these parts (Long Island/NYC) the engineering firms tend > to hire plumbing engineers that know very little about sprinklers. But > because they have a PE behind their name they try and over extend their > power or expertise. > > > > It then becomes the responsibility of the installing contractor to fix the > mistakes and make a project code compliant. If there’s more work involved, > then an extra is submitted and normally approved. > > > > For some reason on this project the engineer is putting their foot down > and won’t budge. > > > > We are trying to get the attention of the Town/Architect, but they a slow > to respond. > > > > Luckily, this is a one off and we don’t normally have this much trouble. > > > > Regards, > > Steven > > > > *From:* Kyle.Montgomery <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2022 12:27 PM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: plans and specifications vs design build > > > > In your first email, you said the engineer rejected you changer order > request. Is your contract with the engineer? Or is there a general > contractor or owner that you should be dealing with? > > > > If no one can be reasonable, then it will come down to contract language. > But I wonder how they would justify that the note saying “provide a > code-compliant system” would take precedence over the notes on the same > drawings saying specifically what size the pipe should be? > > > > At the very least, I think I would want to talk to whoever it was (owner, > architect, GC) that paid this engineer to do such a crappy job in the first > place. I’m sure I’m not the only one on this forum who is tired of seeing > “engineers” do preliminary designs that are crap, and they probably got > paid more to do that then the sprinkler designer who will eventually do it > correctly. > > > > -Kyle M > > > > > > > > *From:* Steve Mackinnon <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2022 6:52 AM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Sprinklerforum] Re: plans and specifications vs > design build > > > > Good morning Matt, > > > > We have spoken with the engineers for more than a month, we reviewed their > calculations and found big errors. We calculated their layout and went over > the results… we generated a shop drawing showing the correct pipe sizing > and layout, then had more meetings and conversations… after all this, the > engineer came back an rejected our extra. > > > > There are two water flow tests, as the engineers test was over a year old. > The pressures did drop on the second test making their layout even worse… > but we tried to work with them on their flow test to show, even with the > better flow test their calculations don’t work. > > > > Unfortunately with this type of project, exceptions in a proposal don’t > hold much weight. > > > > Thank you everyone for your helpful suggestions, previous experiences and > comments! > > > > This group is amazing! > > > > Steven > > > > *From:* Matthew J Willis <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 17, 2022 4:15 PM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: plans and specifications vs design build > > > > Not sure submitting an inadequate system, with your name on it is a good > approach. Remember, our drawings are lifelong legal documents. > > And you cannot submit a drawing on behalf of the engineer. Besides, it > should already have been submitted with the Building Plan Package. > > > > I am assuming we are beyond a phone call… > > > > If you do not have the “adequate water supply” note on your proposal, you > can still point to the water. > > Especially if the one provided by the Engineer is higher. It had to be > provided to them, I am sure. > > > > If the Engineer did not provide water, then you and the Engineer have a > common enemy and can work together. > > > > Just my thoughts. > > > > R/ > > Matt > > > > *Matthew J. Willis, CWBSP, C.E.T.* > > > > *Rapid Fire Protection, Inc.* > > 600 E. Carlson St. Suite AB | Cheyenne, WY. 82009 > > Office (307) 426-4077 ext. 404 > > Direct (307) 316-6630 > > Cell (605) 391-2733 > > > > > > *From:* J H <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 17, 2022 2:05 PM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: plans and specifications vs design build > > > > This should be cut and dry. The engineer is just in damage control mode. > The fact is EVERYONE was bidding off those documents and provided numbers > based upon those plans. A generic note about providing a 'compliant system' > does not remove them from any negligence they might have engaged in and > because you intend to provide them w/ a code compliant system is why you're > bringing this up! If they want to dispute your calculations then fine, they > can lay down theirs on the table and you can discuss it. Any honest > individual should be able to see the problem here, it's just that since > there's money involved they want to play dumb. Personally I would just give > them an ultimatum: 'you either sign off on the change order or we walk from > this! You can take us to court and see what they have to say!' - a > disinterested arbitrator will see through this in a second. They need to > know that. > > > > JH > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:48 PM Brett Peters <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's a good idea actually, then you can throw back at the mechanical > engineer and say it was designed as per the tender drawings, if they > require a safety margin on the contract that would be in excess of the > tender requirements. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Brett Peters > > General Manager Installation & Design > > Proudline Fire Protection Services Ltd. > > [email protected] > > 780 490 7602 office ext 202 > > 780 490 7605 fax > > 780 777 0568 cell > > 780 718 2676 24h > > Visit us at www.proudline.ca > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.proudline.ca/__;!!Ba8_KKAT!IoaGuSEMQ_c4zjT7h5DZOEHhe_rFun4Pf2KqmdLF8e60lePl0nWEOrY0memHHX8XidxycK_Hn0B-of9bjLg$> > > > > Proudline now offers ULc listed monitoring services, please contact > [email protected] for more information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:44 PM Steve Mackinnon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Brett, > > > > We have a similar note on our proposal, but this is a fire station with > the town and they don’t acknowledge exclusions or exceptions with this type > of bid. > > > > We did contemplate submitting the engineers layout to the fire marshal and > have them kick it back due to lack of safety margin… we might still go this > route. > > > > Thank you for your help! > > > > Steven > > > > *From:* Brett Peters <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 17, 2022 11:24 AM > *To:* Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [Sprinklerforum] Re: plans and specifications vs design build > > > > We always put a note in our quotes that our pricing is based on an > adequate water supply, if the water supply won't support the pipe sizing > the engineer put on the tender drawings then ask for a change to contract > based on the water supply from the water purveyor being inadequate to > support tender documents. > > Mechanical engineers never like being told they are wrong, have to be > creative and give the mechanical engineer an out, so it's not their fault, > better chance of getting that change order. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Brett Peters > > General Manager Installation & Design > > Proudline Fire Protection Services Ltd. > > [email protected] > > 780 490 7602 office ext 202 > > 780 490 7605 fax > > 780 777 0568 cell > > 780 718 2676 24h > > Visit us at www.proudline.ca > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.proudline.ca/__;!!Ba8_KKAT!IoaGuSEMQ_c4zjT7h5DZOEHhe_rFun4Pf2KqmdLF8e60lePl0nWEOrY0memHHX8XidxycK_Hn0B-of9bjLg$> > > > > Proudline now offers ULc listed monitoring services, please contact > [email protected] for more information > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:39 AM Steve Mackinnon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Good morning everyone, > > > > There is a project that was put out for bid as a “plans and > specifications”, showing approximate locations of heads, pipe sizes, etc… > > > > We were awarded the project and found out the engineer who laid out the > bid set did not adequality size the sprinkler pipe for the water supply. > The hydraulic calculations will not support the pipe sizing noted on the > bid plan. > > > > Now we are trying to get an extra for the additional material and upcharge > for larger pipe. The engineer has rejected our extra and stated we are > responsible for providing a “Code complaint” system, and has gone as far as > to show us a note on the bid plan stating such. > > > > We feel this is wrong and it shouldn’t be the installing contractor > responsibility to pre-calculate or redesign “plans and specifications” > during the bidding process. But I can’t find anything that backs us up in > our argument. > > > > Does anyone have experience with this situation? > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > Steven MacKinnon > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!IoaGuSEMQ_c4zjT7h5DZOEHhe_rFun4Pf2KqmdLF8e60lePl0nWEOrY0memHHX8XidxycK_Hn0B-MQFlFaY$> > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!IoaGuSEMQ_c4zjT7h5DZOEHhe_rFun4Pf2KqmdLF8e60lePl0nWEOrY0memHHX8XidxycK_Hn0B-MQFlFaY$> > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org__;!!Ba8_KKAT!IoaGuSEMQ_c4zjT7h5DZOEHhe_rFun4Pf2KqmdLF8e60lePl0nWEOrY0memHHX8XidxycK_Hn0B-MQFlFaY$> > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] > > > _________________________________________________________ > SprinklerForum mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > [email protected] >
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
