The length of the control line is 70 feet.
This site is roughly 1,400 feet in lenght and roughly 800 feet wide.
I have been fighting these folks for 4 months now and they have affectively delivered nothing. Their stance is they don't want to take on any of the surveyors liability for this site.
My stance is I have enough liability in ensuring I can locate the buildings accurately according to their design. They need to be clear on the buildings locations on the site.
We are not designers. We are Surveyors and are not allowed to design. By us placing these buildings on the site we are affectively outside our proffesional liability and have moved into the designers role.
The way I see it, you have two issues, and neither is surveyor liability
unless you proceed to stake out a 1400' x 800' site solely from a 70' control line set by questionable methods.
The first issue is one of licensed practice, professional responsibility, and performance. As you pointed out, you are not licensed to perform building or site design, so the matter of insufficient information provided to determine the placement of the buildings on the site is one of design liability. If the building designs were supplied to the site engineer with insufficient data within themselves, that is a matter between the site engineer and the architect and has nothing to do with the surveyor at all. If the building plans were sufficiently complete but the information was simply not properly indicated on the site plans, that's the civil engineer's failing by issuing an incomplete design. If you take it upon yourself to attempt to complete that design, it is still design liability, but as unlicensed practice, not as surveying.
In short, the civil engineer is the only one licensed to prepare the site plans. It is his/her professional responsibility to ensure that the plans are complete. He/she has failed in the performance of supplying plans adequate for the construction of the proposed facilities. The engineer must supply enough information for you to fully determine the relationship of the building locations to the project boundary and to one anothe.
The second issue is one of inadequate control to provide positional certainty adequate for the placement of buildings and other improvements on the site. If the buildings are no longer than the control line, the distance to the furthest building corner is no farther away than the control line is long, the relationship of the building locations to the project boundary is not critical, and you have a distance check along the control line that is within the tolerances of the building construction, the control may
be adequate, but probably not.
You said the points were fly-tied. Assuming your local terminology is near the same as mine, that means that the points were each single tied from another control point or each from a separate point, possibly with a repeated angle, but possibly not having even that little bit of redundancy. They may have been observed to a prism pole or a tripod mounted target. Coordinates may have been established by a single RTK observation. fly tie can mean any of these things to me. For site control for anything beyond rough grade, any of these methods is inadequate.
Knowing nothing of the control these 2 points were established from, you know that they could easily each have a positional error of up to 0.03' if the field crew was moderately careful, and that the centering error for each is independent of the other, resulting in a control line that could be short, long, or skewed by several hundredths over that 70'. That does not take into account the quality of the control they were located from or the quality of the observations made to locate them, each of which will add another factor of uncertainty. If your 70' control line is neither long nor short, but is skewed by just 0.05' in that 70', that translates into a relative positional error with respect to the site of 1.00' over the 1400' site if you did nothing to add other sources of error.
The site designer worked from a pre-construction site survey. There is positional data associated with that survey that they must give you. That would be in the form of dimensions to and along the project boundary, coordinates on the project boundary corners that can be related to building corners, and/or to broader project control. They would be wise to provide that data subject to you verifying it prior to relying on it, but they need to provide it in order to make the plans usable.
Even engineers should be expected to understand error propogation.
If you get inadequate cooperation from the engineer, explain these issues to the prime contractor and/or to the person representing the main client. Alternately, if the people associated with the project who are in a position to insist on cooperation from the engineer can't understand the issues and decline to do anything to help, take the issue to the State Licensing Board. Sometimes a call from the Board's staff engineer works to educate one on proper practice so that a project can move forward and no formal complaint needs to be made.