Would an architect who truly believed that the house plans he had designed for a client were not finished--in that they still needed to have structural engineering done by a licensed engineer on a major site-built truss--send the blueprints to the printer and have 3 complete copies of the entire 11 pages of plans made? Or is it more likely that the architect would only have 3 copies ordered if he believed that the plans were finished as is? (Not talking about client deciding to change anything, I'm talking about not yet having the structural engineering done)

Just from my viewpoint, I think that it would depend on who was paying for the blueprints to be done. No, I don't think that three copies of a blueprint would need to be done, especially if it they were really to be considered as some sort of draft.

Completed blueprints would seem to need all of the particulars applied to them so that construction could start and be successfully completed as per the complete blueprints.

Just my opinion here. Thought that I would give this a shot since no one else had come along to answer your question.

Thanks!

Just FYI: Client (we) had to drive to printer and pay for and pick up the blue prints...

Thanks, Clough, for caring to answer. Folks like you--who perhaps look for unanswered Q's and try to help-- make this a cool place to come to. Much appreciated.

By the way, no one ever considered our plans as drafts until the architect involved used that 'defense' when he was caught engineering major structural beams w/out a license and billing us for his extensive engineering time. And as I was trying to 'prove' my case, it suddenly occurred to me--why would he have ordered 3 copies if he himself hadn't considered that our prints were 'finished'?

I was just asking so I don't look stupid trying to use it as an offense to his defense. I'm not in the building industry and so I didn't know if such a practive was in fact common place and I didn't want to come off with egg on my face if I tried to point to the 3 copies as evidence that our plans were 'complete.' So I'm hoping for an architect answer, too.

I don't think him having some copies printed is an indication he thought they were complete necessarily. 3 copies could have been printed so he had one, you had one and he could give one away to a Engineer. Who knows what he was thinking, I know you are having problems with this guy. Did he put 100% Construction Documents on the title block or any kind of title. We give our drawing sets a title like Schematic Design, Owner Review, 100% CD's... etc.

What were they for, one copy to file with the building inspector for them to review another copy to go the engineer for their review ?

The only reason I know of would be for preliminary reviews by other agencies/utilities. For instance the power company may be able to determine what type service is needed and the lack of 100% structural review might not affect them.
The qualified structural engineer certainly needs a set. There may be othe sub-architects/engineers that need updated sets of plans. And as Chuck says the building permits people might want to get started on reviewing everyhting except the final structural version.
But once you bring up alleged fraud on behalf of the architect, it certainly clouds the issue.

OK, thanks. Those are good points, amricca. That certainly helps me to understand what his defense could be when I go into this.

Looking at my cover page, the title block just lists 'Residence For (and our names and address of building)' On the 'Directory' block it lists us as owners, us as construction manager, and him as architect. So, could it be anything for me to point out that on the cover page he didn't list the engineer he expected to be involved? Would the engineer name normally appear on that cover page directory block? (especially since his excuse has been that he never ever intended these plans were complete and stated that he only did our truss engineering because it was supposed to show the engineer what he wanted done.) (But I know from investigatiing with other clients he has never hired an engineer nor ever named the engineer he's used or was going to use... )

At the meeting when we'd picked up the plans he went over them with us and we were going to go get our construction loan and were at that time having him prepare take offs for us, later that changed (long story when we found out he couldn't do basic math) and so we were taking the plans to go out and get bids. At same meeting he gave us suggestions of suppliers we should call on. All 3 copies went home with us to be handed out to suppliers/subcontractors for bids, no questions/cautions ever made on his behalf about that. At no point in anything we did with him did he ever mention anyone else involved in or to be involved in our plans. In fact, the major structural beams he planned to come on-site to help us build. Everything was always him alone. He was the expert. He was taking us under his wise wing to help us (!)

An Engineers name may appear on the cover page, but not necessarily. Their name would be on any drawings they produce. Contractors can bid projects with a simple set of plans and some info about finishes so drawings often they go out for bid before they are 100% complete and sometimes just a set of "Builders Plans" are produced. This may be a set that we leave the construction and detailing up to the Contractor and produce a simple set showing Floor Plans, Elevations, a Site Plan and some Structural drawings. I would never even think about designing a house for someone and not getting an Engineer to look at the Structure, the whole structure not just a truss... and you won't find me out on site building one either.

Yes, what we were supposed to get, according to our contract, was a 'builders set' that is the entire product we contracted for. So does that indicate anything regarding what we lack in engineering? I don't want to have misunderstood something this whole time because I misunderstood some terminology.

And, even once the problems started, he's still only ever offered to get an engineer 'review' of our truss (whereas in this long process I've actually educated myself to read the presciptive method for ICF and can prove how our wall openings do not fall within the scope of the engineering tables in the method and as such also need structural engineering. This has been a life-lesson to be sure! (I hope my posts can prevent someone else from having to learn it as we did.)

If all he was doing was a builders set, his drawings are most likely as far along as they are going to be. I still think a Structural Engineer should look at it, even if it means you hiring one. Didn't you speak with someone from that ICF website I sent you awhile back? What was their opinion on Structural Engineering?

Yes, your advice there was GREAT. Technical guru there was the invaluable person who actually walked me through the Prescriptive Method Tables so I could see that our design needs engineering, something our architect has never admitted and something another distributor for the same ICF block company that this architect (also distributes for) ends up fixing for him in all his projects he leaves behind. The other guy gets called in by unhappy clients of the architect guy and that's when they find out their structures aren't sound. The building depts here don't know much about ICF and the code guy even told me he just 'assumed' that we'd get all the information we needed to build it structurally sound from the block company (and the block company has the precriptive method pdf on their webpage so that's the thread of discovery I followed to see what we had to do and then started realizing that our design fell outside the method... as I said... long story... ) But that's more than this thread should be getting into, so sounds like you've answered/helped me with my Q again, amricca. Thanks again.