ᐅ Approval of the rough site survey report: who is responsible for this?

MartinS_NK schrieb:

Hello everyone,

Unfortunately, we have a conflict where the parties involved (surveyor, architect, construction manager) have different opinions.

The surveyor (or one of his employees) carried out the rough staking and now wants written approval for the staking plan.
The protocol for the rough staking includes a signature line. He will only proceed with the fine staking after receiving this written approval.

Neither the architect nor the construction manager want to countersign and expect this from the surveyor (self-monitoring of work).

The question is: who is responsible for approving the rough staking protocol? Is there a standard or clear regulation for this?

Thank you very much for your support and best regards,
Martin

I don’t understand the issue. We had the fine staking last week and the rough staking a few days before that. We were never asked to sign or approve anything. What is the purpose of this approval?

Tom1978 schrieb:

I don’t understand the problem. Last week we had the fine staking out and a few days earlier the rough staking out. We were never asked to sign or approve anything. What is the approval supposed to be for?

We also never had to provide a signature.

The surveyor wants to cover his backside in case he made a mistake during the rough staking and it turns out during the fine staking that the base level might be too close to a boundary or something at some corner.

From my point of view, this is a bit of a defensive move, but there really shouldn’t be any problem.

I checked my email correspondence and saw that my surveyor also wanted something like that. I then asked the site manager if everything looked correct from his perspective. He said yes, but that I didn’t need to do anything. I actually didn’t sign it either. And the process continued. To be honest, I’m not sure whether the site manager or someone else from the construction company ended up signing it.

However, I would have signed it at the time as well.

Tolentino schrieb:

The surveyor wants to cover his backside in case he made a mistake during the rough staking, and it turns out during the fine staking that the base layer might be too close to a property boundary or something like that.
From my perspective, it’s just a defensive move, but actually, there shouldn’t be any problem.
I checked my email exchanges and saw that my surveyor also wanted something like that. I then asked the site manager if, from his point of view, everything was fine. He said yes, and that I didn’t need to do anything. I actually didn’t sign it either, and the process continued. Honestly, I’m not sure if then the site manager or someone else from the construction company signed it.
I would have signed it at that time, though.

And what are you paying for then? I could just measure everything myself with a tape measure :-)

How far is this supposed to go? What are the experts and trained professionals there for? Just to send invoices?

How should anyone other than the surveyor themselves be able to say whether the measurements are correct?
We didn’t have such a process, and if we had, I would have asked my site manager/architect if they saw any defects before signing.

But as I said, I would have trouble understanding why I should sign this now.

guckuck2 schrieb:

How is anyone other than the surveyor supposed to say whether the measurements are correct?
We didn’t have a process like that, and if we did, I would have asked my site manager or architect if they noticed any defects before signing.

But as I said, I would have trouble understanding why I should sign now.

Maybe hire another surveyor who won’t question the original survey?