F-10: Poor Inspection of Remote Site

Statement of Case: An equipment dealer was developing a new depot (warehouse) in a small

town. A large architecture/engineering firm from a distant city designed the building for the

depot. Engineer A was Project Manager for the firm. Engineer B, a sole practitioner, lived in the

small town and offered her services to Engineer A, to perform site inspection. She said that her

office was close to the site, and she could easily serve as a resident engineer. Although the

project was large, Engineer A declined Engineer B’s offer because there was not enough money

in the fixed-sum contract to cover the costs of a resident engineer. Instead, Engineer A intended

to make short visits to the site, every second week, on a regular basis.

The depot building was to be built of concrete block, with a partial second storey for offices.

There was some structural steel in travellers and roof trusses. The foundation for the walls was a

strip footing, about 1.2 m below grade. When the contractor excavated for the footing, the

ground was uneven, and the contractor poured one side of the strip footing on exposed,

thoroughly frozen ground. This work was done while Engineer A was absent from the site and

backfilled before his next visit. Engineer B observed how the pouring had been done and

reported it to Engineer A. She again offered her services, offering to reduce the cost by attending

the site only at critical stages, on short notice from the contractor, when these critical events

occurred between Engineer A’s visits. Engineer A again declined and took no action with respect

to her report of poor workmanship in the footing construction.

Question: Was Engineer A acting in a professional manner by attempting to monitor and inspect

a project from a distant location?

Outcome: Shortly after occupancy, the building began to settle, where footings had been poured

on frozen ground. Expensive underpinning was necessary to rehabilitate the structure. The

lawyer for the equipment dealer initiated a lawsuit against the architecture/engineering firm, and

against Engineer A, to recover the costs of the underpinning. 

Authors’ Comments: By failing to monitor the footing construction—a key stage in any

structural project—Engineer A did not provide an adequate level of field service and, therefore,

did not act as a faithful agent of his client. 

Since the project was large, Engineer A should have included full-time inspection when fees were negotiated with the client.

If Engineer A was not successful in obtaining adequate fees for field services, he should have informed the client in writing of the risks associated with inadequate inspection. 

The Code of Ethics requires full disclosure of the consequences when key technical decisions are overruled.

If the client refused to fund the recommended inspections, Engineer A should have scheduled the inspections for critical stages, such as footing excavation, placement of re-bar, and concrete mixing and

placement, rather than fixed dates. Alternatively, he should have arranged with Engineer B to

make some of these inspections. Engineer B acted very professionally by informing Engineer A that the footings were poured on frozen ground, but Engineer A compounded the problem by ignoring it. He should have made a special site visit to investigate and should have required the footings to be replaced. Site inspection is extremely important. Many structural failures are the result of low-quality

materials, poor construction methods, or sloppy work that is easily remedied in the early stages

of construction. Full field services and inspection provide confidence and guarantee good

quality, thus justifying the investment.