California Surveyors Forums

I'm sure that no one reading this a stranger to the statute requirement that vertical control provided by bench marks be perpetuated...

(b) When monuments exist that control the location of subdivisions, tracts, boundaries, roads, streets, or highways, or provide horizontal or vertical survey control, the monuments shall be located and referenced by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer legally authorized to practice land surveying prior to the time when any streets, highways, other rights-of-way, or easements are improved, constructed, reconstructed, maintained, resurfaced, or relocated, and a corner record or record of survey of the references shall be filed with the county surveyor.

CEAC provides a Guide that shows a sample of a CR for this purpose: http://www.lcso.com/South/guide.pdf

Now ... did you know that NGS provides a guide on how to "do it"? Bench Mark Reset Procedures Bench Mark Reset Procedures

Information courtesy of:

Scott P. Martin, PLS
California Geodetic Coordinator

Thanks, Rich.

The NGS Bench Mark Reset Procedures document makes reference to this FGCS document, which stipulates that the leveling rod used must be one piece.

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FGCS/tech_pub/ ... .specs.pdf

Those of us concerned with a negligence claim for not maintaining the proper vertical procedures and related technical mumbo jumbo - worry not fellow travelers. My personal experience includes reporting to BPELSG a professional land surveyor that contracted to perform “first order levels”. Understandably, some folks, including a request for proposal (“RFP”) author, may use this term as meaning the same as “do a good job”. However, the RFP went on to reference the specifications which were to be used and I believe, the accuracy from the specifications – a little more than “do a good job”. It was referenced in no less than two places in the RFP. A professional land surveyor would not commit to first order levels unless experienced in the process, right? Minimally, the professional land surveyor would address this to the client prior to submitting a cost estimate, right? First order leveling is an expensive endeavor. The overall scope of work included construction staking and the setting of several benchmarks “using first order levels” after construction. There were a couple of iterations of scope, interestingly, the initial price never varied from proposal to contract and first order levels remained in the scope – this becomes important later.

First Order Levels

For the uninitiated, first order levels are a special operation. As mentioned by Scott Martin, the rods must be one piece – with supports. Transporting the rods is an issue onto itself. They have to be calibrated within a specified time frame of the work being completed. The last time I calibrated rods it was $4500 for a, 8 ½ x 11 piece of paper stating the rods were calibrated. From the hip, I recall the process includes maintaining temperatures at each rod –which is recorded, breaking the setup and double measuring between the rods. The rods have to be within specified feet, sub-meter, of being equidistant apart. The distance between turns is short, maybe 30 meters. Readings are hard/impossible to record in the shade. It takes forever to get down the road. It has been a number years since performing first order levels – I am not writing a manual here - but readers should get a sense of the precise procedure requirements. It was this experience performing first order levels that made the RFP catch my eye.

The Surveyor and BPELSG Staff

The surveyor contracts for first order levels and ultimately, never performed. Although I don’t recall, I would bet even money the surveyor wasn’t equipped to perform first order levels, few people outside of public agencies are.

There was never a contract amendment, never a reduction in price. Invoices included the full dollar amount in response to the initial RFP -which included first order levels. It was stated that before the work began the agency dropped the first order levels – I found this interesting in that few people would sign a contract to perform first order levels with no intention of performing the work – especially an expensive operation like first order levels. It gets messier. Restated, the client decided they do not want the first order levels, the price was not reduced and the surveyor signs the contract after the understanding the work will not need to be completed? Apparently so.

Ultimately, BPELSG staff drops the investigation – washes it away like the spillway at Oroville dam into the Feather River. Especially interesting, according to the BPELSG staff report, the surveyor that signed the contract “wasn’t responsible for the work” rather, it was another surveyor unnamed in the contract.

The Lesson

Fact, based on the described experience, contracting for services not performed may be the responsibility of a professional that did not sign the contract – it remains unclear to me, but that is what the letter said and ultimately, the second surveyor wasn’t responsible either. First order levels can be offered and there will be no verification by BPELSG staff as to whether the firm contracting has the equipment or experience to perform the tasks – no discussion about an investigation of practicing in an area of competence. This would have been easy to verify. There is no shortage of paperwork associated with first order levels.

The professional has no obligation to monitor the services which are being contracted, pre, post or during time of service or any obligation explaining to the client the precise technical nature of the services. Bus. & Prof. Code § 8759 notwithstanding. For example, apparently, I have wasted a good portion of my career educating clients about what is meant by accuracy specifications – who hasn’t seen a required accuracy of 0.01’? Anyone ever completed monitoring well surveys? Is that one sigma or two sigma with your tea? I have lost many, many projects because the client insisted on the specified accuracy and the price reflected the same - only to find out the project was completed with an RTN/RTK system (ah, but they used a bipod and took several epochs over the course of a minute or two).

If staying out of trouble with the licensing board is a motivation for maintaining a technical standard I end where I began – worry not fellow travelers. I have the paperwork to support my claim.

Lastly, anyone inclined to defend BPELSG staff or technical experts please spare me. It is what it is, no ill will here.

Lunch break is over.

D. Woolley

I've lost a bunch of jobs to the "accurate to 0.01 foot" specification. Even after detailed discussions with the project owner, they always find a surveyor willing to say, "Sure, we can do that!" and then deliver 3rd Order (or worse) vertical.

I don't anticipate ever proposing on any First Order leveling. Second Order Class II is as high as my ability, equipment and boredom threshold allow me to go. And these days the weight of that big stiff-legged leveling tripod is more than I like to haul around for days at a time.

DWoolley wrote:
.... My personal experience includes reporting to BPELSG a professional land surveyor that contracted to ...

D. Woolley

I've got to ask, was the aforementioned complaint filed after a competitor had being selected over your company in a QBS procurement process? I might understand a situation where one might take action against one who takes away work by performing in a substandard manner which results in harm to the clients/public.

Or was the complaint filed for a different reason?

Am curious simply as this story sounds familiar, albeit with a few blocks of the foundation removed.

I've lost a bunch of jobs to the "accurate to 0.01 foot" specification. Even after detailed discussions with the project owner, they always find a surveyor willing to say, "Sure, we can do that!" and then deliver 3rd Order (or worse) vertical.

Last time I checked, we live in California with active fault lines, and the earths crust expanding and contracting continuously, so how accurate anyone state we are doing first order work pertaining to elevations?

The work I perform is relative to the referenced point(s), found/established.