If your structural engineer doubts it will calc out, it has nothing to do with the inspector or your g.c and is all about the structural integrity and safety of the build.

Have your g.c bring it up to par.

You can always stay mum and wait for the house to collapse...

Why did you ask for a change that might result in structural problems without verifying prior to making the change? Verify now. If a problem, payment will probably be from your pocket.

There are alternatives to plain steel columns.
A true Lally column filled with concrete has a mush higher load rating.
This might allow a smaller diameter while still providing the needed support.

Thanks for these quick replies. My thinking is that I did pay for the CO, and that my GC should have known to have my requested change calc'ed-out by the engineer. Since this was not done, who pays for the re-do? Brickeyee, my engineer says (off the record) that the change may never result in a failure, but he certainly would not bet his license on it. Also my construction is of wood, and with the right hardware, maybe I can keep my aesthetic vision and attain structural integrity.

coinciding with the continued advise of your engineer.

you requested teh change, so YOU pay to bring it back up to code. you GC has a signed CO from you asking him to do something not to code, so he is free and clear.

Davidandkasie, My original contract with my GC does not specificlly ask that all work be done to code, by your reasoning I must now suspect the entire project may not be to code. It seems that no GC should proceed on a project without first considering and informing the HO about code violations or engineering concerns.

The GC is not an engineer and cannot pass on the change.
If you told him to make it the responsibility is yours.
The engineer is probably relieved of liability since you did NOT follow his plans.

Pay the engineer to run the numbers and make a change, then pay the GC to work it.

The GC is not there to make sure you had the change cleared, he took your word for the change.

well said brickeyee.

"You can always stay mum and wait for the house to collapse..."

I agree. I can't tell if you want it redone or you want to leave it as it. In any event, you asked for the change. If it needs to be redone, you should have to pay. You made the decision and now you must live with the consequences.

There were other times when the Inspector pointed out problems, the GC always took responsibility on his dime to correct, even when he built to plan. My CO asks for a shift in a column's position, the particular details of how this shift weakened the support of the beam were not detailed. My GC mentioned in our discussion that he thought there was enough support in the remaining column to take care of the load. I believed him; the change was not noticed by the Inspector; Would'nt the GC be responsible to have the change reviwed by the Engineer before proceeding?

Why the heck would you want your family to live in a potentially dangerous situation? Your house is probably the biggest investment you will ever make - do it right!

I think the GC should be responsible for this. They have a set of plans, the homeowner asked for a structural change to achieve a look, the GC should have said either (1) No problem, or (2) I'm not sure if there is a problem, I'll have to check w/ the structural engineer & are you willing to pay for that, or (3) No way, that will not pass code thus I can't make that change.

Sound like he opted for #1 which he should not have. If the OP asked for a change order to bury junction boxes behind sheetrock do you think the GC or electrician should say "Oh, if the homeowner asks for it then it must be OK & I'll forego that I know it is against code".

Whoever's name is on the permit is the one responsible for ensuring that things are done to code.

In response to the OP's question, the obvious thing to do is to tell the GC you want it made right i.e. to pass code. Then negotiate with him who incurs the costs.

Why would I have to negotiate with my GC on this? Shouldn't he bear full responsibility for a structural failure or the fix that would avoid failure? Others on this forum are suggesting that I should bear responsibility because I was the one who asked for the change. What is the legal principle here? Do contractors loose their license if they build not-to-code, even upon client request? I am not a contractor or engineer, when my contractor said that "it would be good enough" I have to believe that was a professional opinion and so I approved the change order.

I would like to hear from the earlier post-ers about Mike13's opinions--

Your engineer isn't even saying that it is a structural problem. According to you, he said it may not calculate out but he said he probably would not result in failure. Your engineer is speaking to you off the record. Why isn't he speaking on the record?

Where was this engineer when this change was proposed? What is the working relationship between your GC and the engineer? If you have a structural engineer, then I would say it was his responsibility.

Personally, I think you sound like a pain. You ask for this change, the GC did what you wanted and apparently the GC, right or wrong, thought this was OK, it passed inspection and now you are having second thoughts and want to voice concerns to the inspector and have the GC eat the cost when you are the one who created this concern and it still isn't established as a fact that it really is a problem. Why didn't you bring in this engineer into the conversation with the GC when you asked for the change? I find it hard to believe that you had an engineer on the payroll all this time and the engineer and GC did not discuss this and the engineer did not raise concerns before the change was done. You make all these excuses but the reality is you are looking for a way out of paying. You don't want to accept any personal responsibility.

premier, i could not have said it better!

premier did say it well. No doubt some will chastise because it was not diplomatic enough. I tried for diplomacy in my earlier post on this subject. The entire stimulus/reason for this change was the request of the owner.

I was depending on the expertise of the Contractor, why are you not taking this into account? And, yes I should be trying to avoid paying for it if the Contractor had an obligation to know or check structural integrity! I will quote my contractor again:"It should be good enough" said prior to my signing the change order that he composed to account for my requested change. Engineer was consulted by contractor on other issues on a case-by-case basis, he had already been paid for his work. (not on anyone's payroll)

I was depending on the expertise of the Contractor, why are you not taking this into account? And, yes I should be trying to avoid paying for it if the Contractor had an obligation to know or check structural integrity! I will quote my contractor again:"It should be good enough" said prior to my signing the change order that he composed to account for my requested change. Engineer was consulted by contractor on other issues on a case-by-case basis, he had already been paid for his work. (not on anyone's payroll). I think this forum needs to hear from less self-interested contractors--any opinions from neutral parties?

Any changes made after the fact to the engineers stamped drawings are NOT their responsibility.

I have been sued over such changes, and simply had my attorney show a picture of the changed area and the plans to the judge.
The whole case ended in about 45 minutes.

Did you contact the engineer before the modification and request a review/update of the plans?

Your fight is going to be with the GC who altered the plans at your request.
A local attorney can help you sort this mess out since it is very likely to depend on local standards and the exact contract language.

"I was depending on the expertise of the Contractor, why are you not taking this into account?"

Because a GC is not a structural engineer and you had previously consulted with a structural engineer so you obviously knew what the role of a structural engineer is versus a GC. You should have consulted with the engineer. And the GC can say that he knew that you employed a structural engineer on other issues and that he believed you consulted with the structural engineer on this issue. Once you brought a structural engineer into the mix, you releaved the GC from being responsible for structural integrity. If you hired the engineer before on other issues then you obviously didn't rely on the GC for opinions on structural integrity.

You are looking for people to agree with you and when they don't you accuse them of being self interested. None of us have any interest in your situation. You are being difficult. Do what you want and see how it plays out.

Am I one of those "self-interested contractors"? No. So I guess that means you want my opinion.

Do I think you're looking for a way to get out of paying for something that I think we both know you should AT LEAST be splitting with the GC? Yes. Do I think that if the you know what hit the you know where, the GC would be on the hook? Yes. My non-self-interested opinion is that if this ever went to court...and I'm sure there is scant documentation on all this...that the "professional" is and will be held to a higher standard than the consumer.

Here's something to ponder...you seem quite quick to blame the very guy that you will probably need several times in the next year. You know, the guy that's going to come out on a Sunday when something inevitably goes funky at the worst possible time. Do you really think this guy is going to come running to you after you toss him under the 4:15pm to downtown? How much could this possible cost to fix? A new lally, sheetrock, tape, mud, trim and paint...A grand...two? Is this really worth what will absolutely destroy whatever relationship you've got with this guy? Maybe it's already shot and you don't care. Either way, it should be something you consider.

BTW...this sounds as much like a design issue as a building one...why aren't you trying to get the architect to pay??