Structural Engineering Services Agreement

Good contracts are an important part of any construction company`s practice. A good contract can make your projects more efficient and improve your company`s profits. Conversely, an inappropriate or poorly written contract can be catastrophic for your business. This article is the first in a series of CASE articles that help statisticians have more profitable business by using contracts efficiently. Reduce conflicts and avoid disputes – the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC) develops and updates fair and balanced contractual documents that are the most recent and best thought in contractual relations between all parties involved in construction and construction projects. We recommend using Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox with the Contract Documents Store. A statistician agreed to review the proposed project for the contractor, which establishes the structural framework for an extreme sporting event structure. The engineer`s contract states that the engineer would „analyze and design a temporary ramp structure“ and that the engineer „would consult with (the event organizer and the ramp contractor).“ One of the athletes was seriously injured by an athlete`s error, aggravated by a totally non-structural problem that developed during the competition. The athlete`s lawyer used the usual „shot gun“ approach and sued more than twenty companies, each company that participated in the event anyway. Since the judge interpreted the engineer`s term „ramp structure“ by inserting all the physical aspects of the event and not just the primary structural components, and the engineer`s responsibility being to coordinate the entire event and not just the primary structural components, he did not agree to dismiss the engineer from the complaint, although the structural components designed by the engineer work perfectly.

As a result, the engineer paid US$25,000 in legal fees, plus US$25,000 for a transaction, as the cost of fighting the lawsuit would be significantly higher than the transaction. If the engineer`s scope had been written in such a way as to make it clear that the engineer is only responsible for the structural planning of the primary structural components and specifically lists those components, the company might have been dismissed from the complaint when it would still have had $25,000 in attorneys` fees. The intention of the engineer and his client, a supplier of prefabricated concrete parts, was that the engineer, as a specialized engineer, verify the reinforcement of the proposed design of the supplier of prefabricated parts and, if necessary, modified so that it complies with the construction code. Shortly after the construction of the prefabricated, non-structural cracks formed due to the way the prefabricated parts supplier configured the structure…