SB 404 - Master file engineering law

[Vernon Leslie]

Group:

 

I have been informed that SB 404 has been signed into law. The complete bill is attached. The following is an excerpt of the bill relevant to the aluminum industry:

 

	Description: An act relating to ... prohibiting the prevention of a licensed engineer or architect from contracting directly with a licensed contractor for the preparation of plans, specifications, or a master design manual when making an application for a building permit; prohibiting the requirement of site-specific drawings, specifications, or plans for certain structures; authorizing local code enforcement agencies to accept or reject plans prepared by certain persons; defining the term "master design manual"; providing requirements regarding the preparation of such manuals; requiring that a master design manual contain certain information; requiring that such manuals be peer reviewed by a licensed engineer or architect who meets certain criteria; requiring that the reviewer be identified in the manual; providing that a licensed engineer or architect is not required for the preparation or use of certain design guides....
	Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
	Subsection (9) of section 489.113, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 489.113  Qualifications for practice; restrictions.-- (9)(a)  Nothing in This part does not shall be construed to prevent any contractor from acting as a prime contractor where the majority of the work to be performed under the contract is within the scope of his or her license or and from subcontracting to other licensed contractors that remaining work which is part of the project contracted. (b)1.  This part, chapter 471, chapter 481, or any other provision of law does not: a.  Prevent any licensed engineer or architect from contracting directly with a licensed contractor for the preparation of plans, specifications, or a master design manual addressing structural designs used to make an application for building permits. b.  Require a licensed engineer or architect, when preparing drawings, specifications, plans, or master design manuals for use by any licensed contractor, to prepare site-specific drawings, specifications, or plans for the design and construction of single-family and two-family dwellings; swimming pools, spas, or screened enclosures; or any other structure not exceeding 1,200 square feet or one story in height. For the purpose of issuing building permits, local building officials shall accept such drawings, specifications, or plans when submitted by any licensed contractor. Upon good cause shown, local government code enforcement agencies may accept or reject plans prepared by persons licensed under chapter 471, chapter 481, or this chapter. 2.  As used in this section, the term "master design manual" means a restrictive design manual intended to be used to design, permit, and construct structures as described in this section. Any such manual must be prepared by a licensed engineer or architect and specifically detail the limits of its use, including, but not limited to, the structure type, size, materials, loading conditions, time limits, applicable codes, and associated criteria. The manual must also detail the required training for the contractor, engineer, or architect using the manual. All master design manuals must be peer reviewed by an independent licensed engineer or architect having no financial interest in the development of the manual or the construction of structures pursuant to the manual. The engineer or architect conducting the peer review must be identified in the manual. (c)  Notwithstanding anything in this chapter or any other provision of law, a licensed engineer or architect is not required for the preparation or use of any design guide adopted by the Florida Building Commission as part of the building code pursuant to s. 553.73.
	This act shall take effect July 1, 2007.
	CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.

 

 

Vern

(561) 718-6089

(561) 249-4930 fax

ve...@enclosuredesigns.com

 

 

[Brian Hall]

Has anyone "tested" this new law out yet? The specific "test" that I
would be referring to would be to pull a permit based on your
contractor's license alone (not even masterfile engineering).
The way that I am interpreting the law is that the contractor
(specialty or otherwise) does not need an engineer or architect to
validate the design of any residential (one or two family dwelling)
structure, pool & spa, or screen enclosure either through a sealed set
of drawings and specifications or master file manual. The way the
semi-colons are placed leads me to believe this. The problem I'm
having is that I'm getting this "It's too good to be true" gut
feeling.

Is there anyone out there that is closer to this than I am and can
shed some light on the intent behind this amendment?

Here's a link to the official statute (489.113 - Paragraph 9(a))

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0489/SEC113.HTM&Title=->2007->Ch0489->Section%20113#0489.113

--
Brian

On Jun 28, 10:53 am, "Vernon Leslie" <v...@enclosuredesigns.com>
wrote:

> v...@enclosuredesigns.com
>
> Proposed Legislation.pdf
> 57KDownload

[David W Miller]

You might be interested to know that at the August Florida Board of
Professional Engineers meeting, the proposed aluminum responsibility rule
was withdrawn.

As to what is now known as Ch. 2007-227 (SB404), potentially, each person
will have his own interpretation and implementation procedure, with a
potential for another mess. A contractor group, such as, for example, the
Palm Beach AAF Chapter, should take a leading role in interpreting the law
and providing the local jurisdictions with an implementation strategy. I
have to believe that the Palm Beach County building department would want to
cooperate and participate. It is in everyone's best interest for a uniform
and consistent set of procedures.

David Miller

[Brian Hall]

I guess the only way to truly see if this is indeed the correct
interpretation is to take one in and see if the building department, first;
understands the statute as written, and second; allows you as a contractor
to pull the permit with out any site-specific engineering or master file
referencing.

I'm not so sure it's a good thing to allow a contractor to write his/her own
ticket with the design (if this is indeed the intent behind the amendment).
I know of very few that actually have the capability to actually calculate
allowable moments and stresses etc. in order to determine member selection.
If they don't have the capability then how would they know if they're in
compliance with the building code? For that matter, how would the building
officials and Plans examiners know if the design is in compliance? Are they
supposed to take the word of the contractor and release their liability back
to the contractor? The contractors out there that do want to be in
compliance could have the best of intentions and think that he/she is
designing properly, but with out some sort of basis (other than plain
experience - which does count for something, just not everything IMHO) they
could inadvertently design it below the embedded safety factors to where the
enclosure would truly "fail" during a design event. Then there are the
unscrupulous contractors out there that would just say, "You bet a 2x4 can
span 30 feet" (exaggeration - maybe). This kind of interpretation of the
amendment has the potential to introduce a new set of problems if not
closely monitored somehow. I don't necessarily think that every contractor
will rush out and develop their own in-house design manual, but I'm just
throwing out some scenarios to see if it sparks any discussion.

On the flip side, it does give the contractor (across all industries
apparently) a little more leverage with the building departments when there
are disputes with master file design manuals.

Any thoughts?

--
Brian

[Stephen Raskin]

Keep in mind that the bill was designed for master plans design manuals.
Both of which require peer review as I recall. In addition building
officials can request calculations be submitted before approving the use of
any Master Plan or design manual.
I believe discussions with the proper building officials in each
jurisdiction by AAf Chapter representatives may very well be appropriate. I
plan to speak with the PBC Board at their meeting tomorrow on this issue.

[David W Miller]

Gentlemen:

Under Chapt 2007-227 (FS 489.13 Section 8, Subsection 9), could not a
contractor submit a set of plans accompanied by appropriate calculations
without reference to any master design manual and expect to be issued a
permit? I read no requirement for the use of a master design manual or spec
sheet of any kind. The jurisdiction must, under the law, accept the
submission.

[Stephen Raskin]

David I believe you are correct however the building official can show good
cause to reject if submitted by anyone licensed under Section 471 or 481.

[David W Miller]

Stephen:

Agreed, but that is nothing new, the only thing that is new is that they
must accept a set of unsealed plans by a contractor licensed under 489. I
would hasten to add that the act of accepting the plans does not necessarily
mean that they would issue the permit until such time that they were
satisfied that the design met code, again, this is not really a change
either except it does not allow the building department summarily reject a
set of plans simply because it is not sealed.

I do not, for the life of me, know what contractors actually want, and it
runs the gamit from "we want code compliance" to "these rules are
ridiculous, we should be able to build whatever we want." The additional and
sadist part of this range of attitudes is that the majority of pool
enclosure contractors expect "someone else" to facilitate a situation
suitable to each one of them. I'm sure you agree this is preposterous.

David

[Tom Matson]

Good Point David, I agree with you.

"pool enclosure contractors expect "someone else" to facilitate a
situation
suitable to each one of them. "

That seems to be the case.Its too bad for our industry.

Tom

[Stephen Raskin]

Needless to say I agree. Mike Sonsini and I talked about this today and we
are going to discuss at our Board meeting next week.

We are going to suggest and now suggest to you that the State Board appoint
several representatives from the AAF to meet with BOAF to discuss this
issue. Uniformity in all jurisdictions makes sense to me and I hope to the
majority of Contractors who understand that SB 404 was not meant as a
license to do as they please. We need to be sure that what we build is code
compliant, will be accepted by reputable and knowledgeable engineers, and
serve the best interests of the public. I will make this in the form of a
motion at the State Board meeting in Orland in a few weeks. We need to get
with the program and do what is right.
Stephen

[Stephen Raskin]

Tom: Do you have any suggestions?

-----Original Message-----
From: Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Matson
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:06 PM
To: Aluminum Structure Contractors
Subject: Re: SB 404 - Master file engineering law

[David W Miller]

Stephen et al:

I think everybody is on board with "Let's do the right thing." The ongoing
debate is about what constitutes: "The right thing." We all know this and
agree that this is the stumbling block.

First, I question the wisdom of going to the BOAF without specific goals and
a program. Whatever is decided is "right" will be opposed by one or more
segments (geographic areas) of the industry and membership. This is the
single most difficult and polarizing and political issue in the industry.
Moreover, I am not convinced and have not seen any compelling evidence that
building department jurisdictions are willing to take a drastic step such as
the one taken by Roland Holt in Palm Beach county and hold contractors feet
to the fire. Don't legislate what can't be enforced, only the better
contractors will suffer.

We went thru it with the white book in 1987 and again with the AAF Guide in
2002 & 2003.

Each person (contractor and building official and plans examiner) has his
own concept of what's right, and that includes all of the various shades of
grey involved in code compliance.

Who is and who is not a knowledgable and reputable engineer, and who decides
which? What is code compliant?

Chapt 2007-227 has changed the landscape.

I think you have to be very careful how you proceed and don't be naïve about
how quickly any progress can be made.

[Bob Barden]

I could not agree more with David. In Brevard and Orange county there
are other engineers that are very popular up here, whose manuals are
very easily manipulated by the contractor. These manuals seem to fly
right through the bldg. departments. These areas and others in the
northern part of the state do not seem to be held to the same
standards as South Florida. Is it the Bld. departments,contractors or
the engineers fault? As tight as the market has become price seems to
be the driving force today. Its a shame that we may loose this
opurtunity to "get it right". Whatever is decided needs to be
enforcable state wide or again it will be a tremendous waste of time.

On Aug 9, 4:04 pm, "David W Miller" <d...@specialtystructure.com>
wrote:

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brian Hall]

I have to admit that there was a part of me that was more in favor of
site-specific engineering being the law of the land. This is simply
because it would seem to be (on the surface at least) more enforcable
than other methods. If everyone had to have sealed drawings then
there were no advantages gained by any one particular contractor.
Obviously there are many counter arguments to that point of view (many
of which I would probably agree with), but my point is that now, we as
contractors, might have to create a committee or board that helps
police the industry similar to the way the FBPE polices the
engineers. I know that might sound unusual but it would probably be
better than someone outside of the industry policing us or setting the
standards for us (i.e. building departments). The law is "on our
side" and this would be a perfect opportunity to take a leadership
position on assisting code enforcement agencies in understanding the
structures that we build and giving guidance as needed.

In any case, I think each chapter of the AAF should strive to invite
the local building officials to their next local meeting in order to
open some lines of communications and start dicussions on establishing
some guidelines for the local area. Setting statewide guidelines
would be a daunting task as David mentioned earlier. This way at
least some direction is established relatively quickly.

[Tom Matson]

One thing is for sure , these changes will allow contractors to show
their true colors when it touches on "quality vs. cost". My opinion is
that self regulating is our only option. I would like to see a formal
agreement, from the BOAF and FBPE that if we as an industry police
ourselves they would recognize and support us when we establish a set
of guidelines. In the event an issue is raised (and pressed against
the guidlines) the proper procedures would be followed and we would
have the ability to stop contractors from practicing when neccessary.

Again this touches on "contractors expect "someone else" to facilitate
a situation.." and to a degree thats not wrong, it's why we have trade
organizations, with boards of directors. I put it on their shoulders
as already organized groups "...dedicated to the promotion of High
Standards of Ethics, Competence, Workmanship Practices & Policies
Integrity, Honesty and Quality in its dealings with the Public and
Government Agencies."

Tom

[Dave]

Tom,

PLEASE, don't even think about inviting the FBPE back into this
dog fight!!!!!! That is for sure!

Dave

[Stephen Raskin]

At the moment the FBPE has withdrawn their rule. Leave them alone.

Although it is an interesting hypothesis Tom, Good Luck.

I for one have an interest in standardization which may be able to be
accomplished with a committee of rational Contractors having the industry in
mind and not their own special interests. If that can happen, the Trade
Organizations such as AAf, GCBA, NAHB, Assoc of Pool Contractors etc may be
able to influence BOAF. The building officials will then have an easier time
approving Permit Applications and better understand our engineering sheets.
We can standardize in regard to Section Properties of Extrusions,
methodology of calculating loads, strength of fasteners used, which joints
need to be fixed and which pinned etc. etc.etc.

I will have more to say on this subject at the State Board Meeting.

Stephen

-----Original Message-----
From: Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:46 PM
To: Aluminum Structure Contractors

[Brian Hall]

Good commentary Tom. I see where you are headed with this. I do agree with
Stephen though. The FBPE has its own set of issues and agendas that we
probably shouldn't allow to get mixed in with ours. We are walking a fine
line between freedom of the market to make its' own path and over
regulation.

I like Stephen's premise on standards. Instead of "Span table standards"
(i.e. the current AAF manual) create an environment for each contractor,
designer, or engineer to have the ability to determine their own member
selection and connections properly. Here's an idea; maybe we could even
take the AAF manual and "revise" it to resemble something more like the ADM;
only it would be specific to our industry with, perhaps, a more simplified
approach. This way, there won't necessarily be span tables available in
which a building official could use as a direct comparison against something
that an engineer, designer, or contractor would submit to them. As of right
now the AAF Design Guide could be the basis of "good cause" by a plans
examiner / building official to reject a site-specific design (not sealed by
a P.E.) submitted by a contractor; even if it is part of a Master Design
Manual put forth by another engineer.

With all of the procedures that have to be followed in the revision of the
AAF Manual that is obviously a bold statement to make and I know that. I
simply think that the AAF Manual could be used as a vehicle to propagate the
standards that this potential board that Stephen speaks of would come up
with.

If this standards idea is even moderately successful then the AAF would be
in a position of providing guidance to code enforcement agencies in their
dealings with contractors around the state. We could provide an outlet for
our own peer review system and guidance for interpretation among other
things. This way we as an association aren't necessarily doing the policing
and deciding which contractors are allowed to keep their licenses. That
would fall under the normal regulation agencies to enforce. Rather, we are
the unbiased "expert witness" of sorts that shed light on a situation from
an educated, practical, and realistic approach. If we become the direct
policing agents of our industry that could open Pandora's Box to human
political greed and power because of the fact that a small group of
contractors could (in effect) create their own market by "controlling" their
competition. It would simply be counter productive.

--
Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

Stephen Raskin
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:32 PM
To: Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com

[Tom Matson]

Thank you Brain, maybe I got a little happy suggesting the FBPE but
the point is the same that we will need the backing of authorities
that can enforce regulations. I like the "expert witness" analogy too;
we certainly don't want anarchy or especially not a dictatorship. The
standards idea is a good start (although not a new one); it has the
potential to establish a good solid base to work from. I can see
training courses on a few different levels. Obviously there will be
quite a bit more to do than just training but needless to say a plan
needs to be put together to include all of these facets.

Stephen, why the sarcasm though? (It's not very productive)
I too think there is a need right now for "...rational Contractors

having the industry in mind and not their own special interests."

Instead of being "able to influence BOAF."as Stephen suggests, It
would be in our best interests to work closely with them and have them
give us there input and suggestions, this would create a "culture of
cooperation", that would not go un-noticed.

Tom

[Stephen Raskin]

Enough commentary. Brian, I do not know you but hope to see you at the AAF
Board meeting in Orlando. I would like to speak with you at length.

Tom, I was not being sarcastic. There are too many special interests and we
all have to work together. Come to Orlando. Take part in the meeting.
Present your views. We need proactive industry leaders. Become one.

David, I hope you are monitoring all this.
I am done until Orlando. See you at the conference.

[Brian Hall]

Stephen, I will be there and look forward to discussing this further with
you or anyone that wishes to do so. I see on the events schedule that it's
starting @ 2:30 p.m. on Friday. Feel free to contact me directly.

[Tom Matson]

Thank you for the invitation Stephen, but I will not be able to join
you in orlando this time.
I would however like to have a part in the "standardization" process.
I have a few ideas on the best way to proceed and how to include
people in our industry that might not otherwise be able have any
input. There is a lot of talent out there that is being kept behind
the scenes. If we can tap these resources in an organized transpaerent
process we will have a more robust solution.

Of course this is going to take leadership that truly understands the
process from the ground up and in detail. But one that listens to a
support group for advise and direction. I wonder if a group could be
formed where representatives from different parts of the state (and
different parts of the industry) would start outlining a goal and
plans for the scope of this project? When I say "the scope of this
project" I mean just that, identify how truly large this is going to
be, to my knowledge it has not been quantified yet.

Starting this way in my opinion avoids the "My way is the right way"
start, we are simply identifying the scope of the project.With the use
of the internet and groups like this one we could be in our respective
locations and accomplish what we need to. After getting a stamp of
approval of the project scope and required actions needed we will then
know better how to proceed.

This is a brief outline of my first suggestion. I openly ask for
opinions and suggetions.

Tom
561-376-4012
tnma...@bellsouth.net

[David W Miller]

Group:

The strategy of "defining the problem", or scope of the issue, making an
outline, is an essential component. It's hard to ask someone to participate
without their knowing exactly what they're participating in. I suggest you
guys in Palm Beach begin with a small group and get your intentions down on
paper (or, in this case, virtual paper). If you can negotiate it locally
with each other, you might have a prayer of getting consensus from around
the state, but you still must work in the local jurisdiction. Don't get too
ambitious up front.

David Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Matson
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:07 PM
To: Aluminum Structure Contractors
Subject: Re: SB 404 - Master file engineering law

[Bob Barden]

Is Senate Bill 404 considered part of the state building code ?

On Aug 13, 3:29 pm, "David W Miller" <d...@specialtystructure.com>
wrote:

> tnmat...@bellsouth.net- Hide quoted text -

[David W Miller]

To All:

What was known as SB 404 is now Chapt 2007-227. It is not part of the
building code. The building code is a rule, not a law. The building code
rule is mandated by law, but it is a rule, therefore, Florida Law prevails
over the building code if and when there is a conflict.

While that may be true, it is only true, as a practical matter, if the
building department recognizes the law and decides to abide by the law, and
then properly interprets the law (whatever that means). As always, there may
be a disconnect between what should be and what is. Everything else gets
forgotten, negotiate, or litigated. So, either forget it, negotiate it, or
litigate.

[Tom Matson]

If I understand it correclty, in the event the building departments
"wanted" to enforce more stringent requirements than the law allows
(Chapt 2007-227), they would not be able to, if and when challenged?

Tom

[David W Miller]

Tom:

I'm sure I don't understand your comment or question.

But, as experienced contractors I'm sure we'd agree that sometimes, some
building departments can be arbitrary and capricious on either side of the
coin, conservative or liberal. Building departments are to contractors, the
800# gorilla. They're hard to confront because they can retard revenue flow
by denying the issuance of permits, whether or not they have a bona fide
reason to do so. I've found contractors most willing to roll over and do
what the building department wants, primarily because the contractors are
less well organized and don't have the resources to fight the issue.

To your point, building departments will interpret Ch 2007-227 and act
accordingly, but they can only enforce something stronger in the absence of
resistance (i.e. the acquiescence of the contractors).

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Aluminum-Struct...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Matson
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:46 PM
To: Aluminum Structure Contractors
Subject: Re: SB 404 - Master file engineering law