THE DISCIPLINE FILE
Decision Summaries
The contractor did not insulate the hot water branch piping in the parkade; substituted half-inch closed cell foam insulation for half-inch fiberglass insulation; and substituted alternative domestic hot and cold water branch piping in the parkade. Both the Professional Member, P.Eng., and the Permit Holder were aware of the alternative piping and insulation that had been used, which did comply with the Alberta Building Code . The Professional Member, P.Eng., and Permit Holder issued Schedules C-1 and C-2 under the Alberta Building Code , but neither schedule enclosed documentation of the omission of insulation or the substitutions. The Profes- sional Member, P.Eng., and Permit Holder felt that, as long as the changes were code-compliant, the change documents were not required with the Schedules. However, the Permit Holder’s Professional Prac- tice Management Plan (the “PPMP”) provided that the Permit Holder would, for each project, create a project delivery strategy outlining change controls, and that procedures for handling change requests would be the responsibility of the Professional Member. The Hear- ing Panel noted that the professional engineer stamp and signature of the Professional Member, P.Eng., were on both Schedules on behalf of the Permit Holder. The Hearing Panel also examined the Permit Holder’s PPMP in context with APEGA’s Practice Standard for Authen- ticating Professional Documents v3.0 , which addresses change controls. The Hearing Panel accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and accepted the admission of unprofessional conduct by the Professional Member, P.Eng., and the Permit Holder. The parties also made a joint submission on sanc- tion. The Hearing Panel accepted the joint submission and ordered the following: 1. Both the Professional Member, P.Eng., and Permit Holder shall receive a formal reprimand for the unprofessional conduct with the written decision of the Hearing Panel to serve as the formal reprimand. 2. The Professional Member, P.Eng., shall pay a fine in the amount of $500 within 1 month of the Discipline Committee’s written decision, failing which his
Date: July 20, 2017
Case No.: 16-006-FH
REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF A PROFESSIONAL MEMBER, P.ENG., AND A PERMIT HOLDER Under the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act, RSA 2000, c E-11, a hearing into this matter was held by a Hearing Panel of the Discipline Committee on June 23, 2017. The hearing addressed the conduct of a Pro- fessional Member, P.Eng., and a Permit Holder. The Professional Member, P.Eng., was at all material times in regard to this hearing a principal and one of the Re- sponsible Members for the Permit Holder. At all relevant times the Permit Holder held a valid Permit to Practice. The hearing dealt with the following charges: 1. The Professional Member, P.Eng., and the Permit Holder were charged with accepting deviations from the specifications for a residential building project in Calgary, Alberta, as specified on two specific items on one drawing, without ensuring proper change controls or the documentation of proper change controls as required by the Professional Practice Management Plan for the Permit Holder. It was alleged that the above-referenced conduct constituted unprofessional conduct as set out in section 44 of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act . The Investigative Committee and the Professional Member and Permit Holder proceeded by way of Agreed Statement of Facts and Acknowledgement of Unprofessional Conduct. The Agreed Facts included that the Professional Member, P.Eng., and the Permit Holder were engaged to provide architectural and mechanical engineering services for a series of resi- dential condominium complexes in Alberta. One of the stamped and signed drawings of the Professional Member, P.Eng., included specifications about insula- tion of water piping. The mechanical contractor did not follow the speci- fications on the drawing concerning the insulation.
68 | PEG WINTER 2017
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker