designers failing at their job and its ok?

[Strathead]

Here, Here!!!!!! You hit the nail on the head (bender on the pipe, monkey juice on the wire; whatever :lol

The trend has been for quite some time to reduce engineers and designer fees, as others have said, by shopping them around. Which means to charge less, the client gets less. Odd though, because I have found Owner's are willing to pay for example 5% higher on construction costs, but wants the engineer to keep fees to a minimum. 5% higher on construction is a lot more money than 5% of my fees.

So, I base my design estimates on how the client wants to pay - the higher the fee, the more detail they get. From what I call an "A" job to an "F" job. For an "F" job, I provide a one-line or riser, and could literally write "meet minimum requirements of NEC and AHJ". From there on up, everything costs more.

The "F" job will mean it is pretty much design build, the "A" job will be a lot of detail and thus fewest RFI's.

I feel there is a huge flaw in your logic. A job that has a properly spelled out floor plan. Not that difficult, shows receptacle placement, designates any special pieces of equipment, has proper light layout and levels. Even a narrative of owners desires. Then the riser and minimum NEC, will cause far fewer questions problems and change orders than a strict specification job that misses things. When the plans are somewhat open, but have the essentials, it isn't that hard to give the customer what they want. When you tell me specifics design and construction standards but there is not apparent reason behind them or it is obvious that the reasoning is because you just do it that way, like compression connectors or insulated throats, or industrial spec grade devices, or copper transformer windings, etc. That is when I am not going to make a decision on my own or make observations that may or may not have had a valid reason, since that is what you are being paid for.

I do however, fully agree and sympathize that you are in the same boat as we are that clients nowadays have this idea that things should cost less and forget that they get what they pay for.

 

[ron]

SCCR is one of them. There are still a bunch of people who just will not pay to first off decide what SCCR is appropriate and secondly to pay for a SCCR that costs more than the cheapest possible answer. So, every quote now tells them that they are getting either the SCCR they asked for, or our default (5 or 10 kA - I do so few of those that I don't recall offhand which it is). If they deliberately choose an inappropriate SCCR level, how do we stop them?

If a client doesn't want a complete short circuit study as part of the design, I determine the service size, guess conservatively at the service transformer and impedance and every breaker in the system gets that high SCCR. If they don't want everything to be 100kA or 65kA or whatever I calculated, then they they have to choose the full system calculation.

I will not put lower SCCR values on my drawing than could be possible, due to liability. In the medical profession they call it defensive medicine, and we do the same for defensive engineering.

 

[Shoe]

Just the two months ago I see load drawn for a panel "A" at 22 amps and the feeder to be 100 amps, Then the breaker of the feeder suppling the panel "A" is 60 amps. The distance of the feeder is 500'. The wire size is #1.


For god sake this is a 60 amp feeder disguised as 100 for the sake of not complying with the upsize rule for the ground.
The PE knows it and should face disciplanary action for this and other blatant things he has done.

Just curious about your example. In this case, could the EE have been sizing the wiring for voltage drop for a 60 amp feeder? Based on how I interpret the information above, it seems to be deliberate and probably correct design.

 

[kwired]

From the design build side of things - most of what I do I design. Most of it is pretty simple though and shouldn't really need an engineer to be involved. But I have found dwellings to be the worst case - they come to you with a floor plan - if you are lucky it was drawn with a CAD program, often is a crude hand drawn floor plan, but no electrical details on it whatsoever. They want you to give them a price with no specifications to go from That may be fine if they want a rough number, but they then do the same thing with a couple other EC's and pick the lowest price. They then complain later on that they didn't get this or that---- you never had any specifications of what you wanted in the first place and everyone you got a price from probably didn't price you the same thing:slaphead: There is one guy in the area that gives really low prices for this kind of job, but he generally only goes with code minimums and is very basic with things like lighting, so if you want something special you better tell him upfront or you will not get it. I always price things with what I feel is better design and more tailored to the customers needs - never is the lowest price, but not necessarily the highest price either.

I try not to get into much dwelling work though - other and these are some of the reasons why. Commercial and industrial customers know more about what they want, to some extent, and they are more likely to know and trust the people they hire instead of shopping best bargain. Some of those same people are the ones I do more work for in their homes though - they know and trust me and want me to do their work.

 

[kingpb]

I feel there is a huge flaw in your logic. A job that has a properly spelled out floor plan. Not that difficult, shows receptacle placement, designates any special pieces of equipment, has proper light layout and levels. Even a narrative of owners desires. Then the riser and minimum NEC, will cause far fewer questions problems and change orders than a strict specification job that misses things. When the plans are somewhat open, but have the essentials, it isn't that hard to give the customer what they want. When you tell me specifics design and construction standards but there is not apparent reason behind them or it is obvious that the reasoning is because you just do it that way, like compression connectors or insulated throats, or industrial spec grade devices, or copper transformer windings, etc. That is when I am not going to make a decision on my own or make observations that may or may not have had a valid reason, since that is what you are being paid for.

I do however, fully agree and sympathize that you are in the same boat as we are that clients nowadays have this idea that things should cost less and forget that they get what they pay for.

No flaw at all. I will look at it from Contractor's perspective, which I once was. So you the client asks for a bid to do a job. No specs, very limited information, means design-build; and I have to interpret job. I qualify my bid with a bunch of assumptions, each of which is to keep the cost to a bare minimum. Now the equipment gets bought, architects start designing, and low and behold its different from what I assumed; and the assumptions are part of the Contract. Ching, ching $$ CO baby. Over and over, Issue RFI - response is different from assumption - CO.

Now on the flip side. Client pays a reasonable price for up front engineering. Which means specs, details, Contractor submittable requirements, assumptions are reviewed during bid process and evaluated with bid, Contractor costs for CO's are negotiated up front, etc... I'm not going to say you won't get a small CO here or there, but I can pretty much guarantee you will not make a living or your profit margin on CO's.

First method- higher construction costs, but low engineering costs, overall higher Project costs.
Second method - higher engineering costs, but construction costs are on budget. Overall lower Project cost.

 

[iwire]

First method- higher construction costs, but low engineering costs, overall higher Project costs.

And likely a finished project that is less than what it could have been for the costs.

 

[steve66]

1st paragraph- Life safety is NOT design build 90% of the time in the northeast. It's not that I don't like it, it's not a matter of preference. I cannot bid on your drawings for FA when we have to create a shop drawing.... after I am awarded the job. The shop drawings require prior AHJ approval. So we are stuck in the middle. The designer's plans are so lacking and there is no time to adequately address them. Then we have to risk a low bid and hope the change order comes our way, or lose the job to the guy that will hack it in and doesn't care.

I accept and appreciate change orders and some customers demand a code minimum drawing, hoping to skate by the AHJ review, when the local requirements are more stringent. AHJ's won't even let us put conduit stubs in for FA without an approved permit. As the boots on the ground we have to toe the line to maintain healthy relationships with them.

Until recently in Texas, PE's couldn't submit FA plans unless they could prove proficiency in FA, like nicet. This should be a universal concept PE's abide by- if it's out of your wheelhouse keep your hands off it. I'm betting it's part of your standards of conduct. As it ours to pummel you with RFI's, but that leads us to your....


2nd paragraph- This reflects firm's inability to manage their work load and individuals failure to maintain the professional standards of conduct the society's they are members of. PE's successfully assign the risk and responsibility to the contractor when things go wrong. Legally they may be in the right. However it is a question of ethics. As Ron said the commodization of your trade diminishes your capacity to do good work. You are allowing it individually and collectively. I'm not perfect and am a realist but I strive harder to do it right than increase volume and productivity at the cost of public safety and the clients money.

(The word you here is a generalization not an attack)

I do agree with what Ron said about design-builders putting pressure on engineers.

However, it sounds like you are specifically talking about fire alarm systems. I don't design fire alarm systems. There is no way I could keep up on all the details of all the different brands of panels and devices and expansion cards and NIC's etc.

I may show device locations on the drawings, but that is as far as I go.

Our spec. requires the contractor to design the Fire Alarm System. The contractor has to provide a NICET certified person to verify device locations, specify the wiring, do the battery calculations, voltage drop calculations, and specify and provide any additional hardware that is needed.

That's all on the contractor, & I don't expect to get RFI's or change orders due to a contactors lack of effort to determine what is needed before bidding a project. In most cases it seems like the contractors can't even be bothered to visit the site before bidding a project. Then they expect a change order because the existing panel doesn't have expansion space or battery capacity, something like that.

If you think that's too much work to do during bidding, you can always pass on bidding a project.

 

[Strathead]

No flaw at all. I will look at it from Contractor's perspective, which I once was. So you the client asks for a bid to do a job. No specs, very limited information, means design-build; and I have to interpret job. I qualify my bid with a bunch of assumptions, each of which is to keep the cost to a bare minimum. Now the equipment gets bought, architects start designing, and low and behold its different from what I assumed; and the assumptions are part of the Contract. Ching, ching $$ CO baby. Over and over, Issue RFI - response is different from assumption - CO.

Now on the flip side. Client pays a reasonable price for up front engineering. Which means specs, details, Contractor submittable requirements, assumptions are reviewed during bid process and evaluated with bid, Contractor costs for CO's are negotiated up front, etc... I'm not going to say you won't get a small CO here or there, but I can pretty much guarantee you will not make a living or your profit margin on CO's.

First method- higher construction costs, but low engineering costs, overall higher Project costs.
Second method - higher engineering costs, but construction costs are on budget. Overall lower Project cost.

I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to the money side, I was referring to the question side. On a bare minimum design job, I don't see or expect RFIS and questions to fly. If the plans say 60 amps for HVAC and it turns out to be 70 and the drawings were bare bones, then no RFI is needed tell the GC that the equipment is large and submit a change order. Usually without EE involvement because his contract was to provide drawings based on the information he had, not to oversee the project, otherwise it would a C job not an F job. OTOH it is an A job I have to write and RFI and you have to get involved because I don't dare deviate from your specs even when I disagree with them. That was the point I was getting at.

 

[Strathead]

And likely a finished project that is less than what it could have been for the costs.

I think that king is one where your statement is correct, but it totally depends on whether the Engineer arbitrarily thinks they know best or they look at it with an eye toward practicability. I work in a University town, so I see more of the second than the first. Get 40 miles away where I live and I see more of the practical engineer.

 

[Strathead]

I do agree with what Ron said about design-builders putting pressure on engineers.

However, it sounds like you are specifically talking about fire alarm systems. I don't design fire alarm systems. There is no way I could keep up on all the details of all the different brands of panels and devices and expansion cards and NIC's etc.

I may show device locations on the drawings, but that is as far as I go.

Our spec. requires the contractor to design the Fire Alarm System. The contractor has to provide a NICET certified person to verify device locations, specify the wiring, do the battery calculations, voltage drop calculations, and specify and provide any additional hardware that is needed.

That's all on the contractor, & I don't expect to get RFI's or change orders due to a contactors lack of effort to determine what is needed before bidding a project. In most cases it seems like the contractors can't even be bothered to visit the site before bidding a project. Then they expect a change order because the existing panel doesn't have expansion space or battery capacity, something like that.

If you think that's too much work to do during bidding, you can always pass on bidding a project.

At first I agreed with you and then you wrote the last part. On new construction I would 100% agree with you. On an existing building expansion I 100% disagree with you. It should be your job to research the existing installation and provide the necessary details for a competitive bid. If an expansion card is needed etc. that should 100% be on you. If you don't know what you need, then you consult prior to drawing the plans. To do otherwise would be like telling me I should have known that the existing service wasn't large enough for the new load and I should have replaced it in my bid.


That is the pitfall of you designing it and us trying to be the lowest bidder. If you want me to assist in the design then hire me up front.

 

[nhfire77]

I do agree with what Ron said about design-builders putting pressure on engineers.

However, it sounds like you are specifically talking about fire alarm systems. I don't design fire alarm systems. There is no way I could keep up on all the details of all the different brands of panels and devices and expansion cards and NIC's etc.

I may show device locations on the drawings, but that is as far as I go.

Our spec. requires the contractor to design the Fire Alarm System. The contractor has to provide a NICET certified person to verify device locations, specify the wiring, do the battery calculations, voltage drop calculations, and specify and provide any additional hardware that is needed.

That's all on the contractor, & I don't expect to get RFI's or change orders due to a contactors lack of effort to determine what is needed before bidding a project. In most cases it seems like the contractors can't even be bothered to visit the site before bidding a project. Then they expect a change order because the existing panel doesn't have expansion space or battery capacity, something like that.

If you think that's too much work to do during bidding, you can always pass on bidding a project.

OK- so you know enough to know you dont know how to design the FA. Yet you do, kind of sort of anyway?

I certainly can layout and even design a complete FA for bidding purposes. But my specs will be very specific. So specific I will guarantee change orders due the inherent nature of me not sitting at every possible meeting.

If there is integration to be had, I can certainly apply the prescriptive code. But, I have to confirm with all the other trades, their specs, the AHJ for- elevator recall, HVAC shut down, fire damper operation, exhaust fan operation, door release, access control release pressurized stairwells etc. Isn't the lion's share of this the designers job? Oh and I have to RFI you to get your blessing on all these items BEFORE I bid?

Who does that?

 

[ggunn]

Until recently in Texas, PE's couldn't submit FA plans unless they could prove proficiency in FA, like nicet. This should be a universal concept PE's abide by- if it's out of your wheelhouse keep your hands off it.

I sure do; I am a PE in Texas and my discipline is EE. I went round and round with a former employer who was pressuring me to stamp pages of structural plans, but no way was I going to put my license on the line for something out of my area of expertise. He also wanted me to let him use my stamp when something was due to come out while I was on vacation. He also wanted me to come back after he had laid me off to stamp revisions he had made to plans after I was gone.

 

[steve66]

At first I agreed with you and then you wrote the last part. On new construction I would 100% agree with you. On an existing building expansion I 100% disagree with you. It should be your job to research the existing installation and provide the necessary details for a competitive bid. If an expansion card is needed etc. that should 100% be on you. If you don't know what you need, then you consult prior to drawing the plans. To do otherwise would be like telling me I should have known that the existing service wasn't large enough for the new load and I should have replaced it in my bid.


That is the pitfall of you designing it and us trying to be the lowest bidder. If you want me to assist in the design then hire me up front.

Like it or not, that's the way I see most fire alarm projects bid - design by the contractor. That's also the way most fire protection contracts are bid.

How would I know if a panel needs an expansion module? Most of these existing installations look like crap with wires hanging out and everything else imaginable. I wouldn't dare touch it, much less open a cover and try to decide if an expansion module is needed. My only hope would be to ask the person who has installed and maintained this mess, who is basically going to be one of the bidding contractors. His incentive to be helpful is ziltch, and he is free to lie all he wants. And if I asked 5 different people, I'd get 5 different answers, and whoever got the contract would still come up with some off the wall request for a change order for a needed upgrade or recall, or some other made up reason to ask for more money.

I see electrical contractors work their buts off for a bid, but it seems like its too much trouble for a fire alarm person to even visit the site?? And fire alarm contractors usually have an inside track based on the existing brand of panel- the manufacturers limit the number of competing contractors, or it may even be a single sole source contractor with no competition.

 

[steve66]

OK- so you know enough to know you dont know how to design the FA. Yet you do, kind of sort of anyway?

I show device locations on the drawings, but as far as I'm concerned, anything brand specific is up to the contractor.

I certainly can layout and even design a complete FA for bidding purposes. But my specs will be very specific. So specific I will guarantee change orders due the inherent nature of me not sitting at every possible meeting.

Sorry, I'm not following you here. You guarantee change orders? So even if someone gave you a perfect set of plans that showed everything, you would still expect to get paid for change orders?

If there is integration to be had, I can certainly apply the prescriptive code. But, I have to confirm with all the other trades, their specs, the AHJ for- elevator recall, HVAC shut down, fire damper operation, exhaust fan operation, door release, access control release pressurized stairwells etc. Isn't the lion's share of this the designers job?

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you on this one. And most of the time (maybe even all the time), I do show all that stuff on the drawings. The problem is, none of the other contractors ever seem to provide what is shown on the drawings. Then we get change order requests for something the HVAC contractor changed, sometimes we get huge change order requests for really minor stuff. So now we have to add a bunch of "coordinate work with other trades" language to the specs. We get tired of playing middle man between contractors that only want to save themselves money, and other contractors that are just looking for a huge change order to be the source of all their profit for the project.

So don't blame the engineers for that one, blame the contractors that have tried to take advantage in the past.

Oh and I have to RFI you to get your blessing on all these items BEFORE I bid?

You don't have to RFI anything to get my blessing. Just make it meet code and the plans, pass inspection, and don't ask for change orders for things that should have been obvious, and I'm good.

Who does that?

 

[gadfly56]

I show device locations on the drawings, but as far as I'm concerned, anything brand specific is up to the contractor.

...You don't have to RFI anything to get my blessing. Just make it meet code and the plans, pass inspection, and don't ask for change orders for things that should have been obvious, and I'm good.

You're kidding, right? Pull the other one. The major dilemma is that some MEP firm has put out the drawings for bid, and the sales department has bid to spec and plan, won the bid, and THEN it lands on my desk.

They want fire alarm drawings. Identical to the bid set, of course, with my stamp on them. Except, the MEP mope left off all the monitoring for the flows and tampers, has the wrong smoke detector spacing on the beamed ceiling, and utterly inadequate strobe coverage. Usually I tell them "You already have a design. Signed and sealed. Doesn't your MEP firm know what they're doing? What did you pay them for? Otherwise you should have come to me first for a proper design." At least that's what I dream of telling them. But it's RFI's and change orders all around. Catch it during bid? Don't make me laugh. The bid package comes in on Friday for a Tuesday turnaround. THERE IS NO TIME. Half the time we're bidding as a sub to the EC. The RFI never makes it up the food chain in time for consideration. Plus, why should I redesign your goofs for free? The one time I contacted the engineer doing the FA for the MEP to point out a code violation he'd put on the drawing, he said "thanks", and the same violation showed up in the next rev. Plus, everyone else is bidding the plans and specs AS IS. I'm with nhfire77 on this. Too much junk is coming in the door and the A&E firms are not doing their job.

 

[nhfire77]

I show device locations on the drawings, but as far as I'm concerned, anything brand specific is up to the contractor.

Brands have nothing to do with it- Unless its existing then its the only thing that matters

Sorry, I'm not following you here. You guarantee change orders? So even if someone gave you a perfect set of plans that showed everything, you would still expect to get paid for change orders?

I guarantee there will be many change orders when there is lack of details/generic wording. My assumptions will be you meant to leave out half of the minimum horns and strobes for prescriptive design. But the specs say we have to install to code...hmmm ok.... Is this a performance based design and no one told us or, the contract put me on the hook for the code minimum design regardless of the drawings. ..."Contractor to provide all labor and materials to deliver a code complaint AHJ accepted system..." Sounds like no matter what mistakes or omissions you do, I have to pay for it? Why is that ok? (i understand most designers work hard and I am not attacking your personal work ethic, its the industry as a whole)

You and I don't have the time do go back and forth with RFI's about what you meant due to time constraints. If you don't have enough time to design it, then ensure the customer knows this and is prepared to pay a contractor to create drawings for bidding. Of course this is illogical, but I cannot bid on generics without overlooking all the information left out. Then we are back to RFI's. Its a self feeding problem you see?

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you on this one. And most of the time (maybe even all the time), I do show all that stuff on the drawings. The problem is, none of the other contractors ever seem to provide what is shown on the drawings. Then we get change order requests for something the HVAC contractor changed, sometimes we get huge change order requests for really minor stuff. So now we have to add a bunch of "coordinate work with other trades" language to the specs. We get tired of playing middle man between contractors that only want to save themselves money, and other contractors that are just looking for a huge change order to be the source of all their profit for the project.
So don't blame the engineers for that one, blame the contractors that have tried to take advantage in the past.

If the other drawings are lacking- Send them back!!! Don't accept generic language yourself, substandard work is pervasive. Easier said than done, but we have to stop the bleeding.

You don't have to RFI anything to get my blessing. Just make it meet code and the plans, pass inspection, and don't ask for change orders for things that should have been obvious, and I'm good.

YOU get tired of playing the middle man? Really, well you've turfed it to other contractors(me) and I should be compensated to do this work- But we are not supposed to make those decisions without getting designer approval or review. I have to do the ground work, run it by you and then its ok, and do all this for free, because you we're too busy. This is the core issue of my original post. Its the ethics/standards of practice we are beholden to from the national boards/societies etc you and I belong to. But we are not, we a whole accept garbage in garbage out. At the risk of sounding greedy, if designers are over worked, certain duties that you have now need to be delegated to the contractors, and we are going to raise our rates. Something has to give, take back what's yours and raise you rates instead or advocate for delegation in the industry

 

[Sierrasparky]

Just curious about your example. In this case, could the EE have been sizing the wiring for voltage drop for a 60 amp feeder? Based on how I interpret the information above, it seems to be deliberate and probably correct design.

Bingo!
Yes I would belive for voltage drop.
The problem is they do not specify a larger upsized grounding conductor.

That to me is Fraud. as to me the EE is trying to evade the upsizing of the grounding wire when they are upsizing the current carrying conductors for voltage drop.

I don't know how they can get away with this garbage , when it is us EC who get chastised from the inspectors or other AHJ.

 

[Sierrasparky]

No flaw at all. I will look at it from Contractor's perspective, which I once was. So you the client asks for a bid to do a job. No specs, very limited information, means design-build; and I have to interpret job. I qualify my bid with a bunch of assumptions, each of which is to keep the cost to a bare minimum. Now the equipment gets bought, architects start designing, and low and behold its different from what I assumed; and the assumptions are part of the Contract. Ching, ching $$ CO baby. Over and over, Issue RFI - response is different from assumption - CO.

Now on the flip side. Client pays a reasonable price for up front engineering. Which means specs, details, Contractor submittable requirements, assumptions are reviewed during bid process and evaluated with bid, Contractor costs for CO's are negotiated up front, etc... I'm not going to say you won't get a small CO here or there, but I can pretty much guarantee you will not make a living or your profit margin on CO's.

First method- higher construction costs, but low engineering costs, overall higher Project costs.
Second method - higher engineering costs, but construction costs are on budget. Overall lower Project cost.

And likely a finished project that is less than what it could have been for the costs.

You guy's are correct.

The problem is some EE and contractors think they can bid projects based on change orders to make the profit.

 

[__dan]

Not having read the whole thread.

There are a lot, I would say more than 50%, of EE's designing who expect you to catch their errors, but will castrate you for yours.

yup.

Due to pressure from the design builders of the world, this trend will get worse.

The design engineer is often beaten down on fee and shopped around in the same way the trades are shopped around before construction contract award. This was never the way in the past.

The trend is to push more of the design onto the tradesman, and until the Engineering community resists the commoditization of our work, it will not get better.

It's worse than that now. Tier 1 owners have property management companies between themselves and the GC's, outside PE's, subs. Sales, profit quotas, take precedence over engineering, design suitability, implementation and installation. If you look at the contract structure you may have all unlicensed people as first and third parties with no access to a PE to mitigate disputes (unlicensed designers and construction specifiers, supervisors). Company policy manual states change orders are zero. Of course they make a mistake that will cost them their money. Tell them that, I will help you.

You see, run conduit from source A to load B (150 kW). Do it get paid. Source A is must run critical uptime and already at max calculated allowable load (no load may be added). The guy who ignores this gets the job. The guy who says that would be wrong gets stabbed and dragged to the curb.

Labor needs to be better organized, perhaps the engineers also.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Not having read the whole thread.



yup.



It's worse than that now. Tier 1 owners have property management companies between themselves and the GC's, outside PE's, subs. Sales, profit quotas, take precedence over engineering, design suitability, implementation and installation. If you look at the contract structure you may have all unlicensed people as first and third parties with no access to a PE to mitigate disputes (unlicensed designers and construction specifiers, supervisors). Company policy manual states change orders are zero. Of course they make a mistake that will cost them their money. Tell them that, I will help you.

You see, run conduit from source A to load B (150 kW). Do it get paid. Source A is must run critical uptime and already at max calculated allowable load (no load may be added). The guy who ignores this gets the job. The guy who says that would be wrong gets stabbed and dragged to the curb.

Labor needs to be better organized, perhaps the engineers also.

Engineers need to go before the boards that license them and face diciplinary actions for their incompetence or willful fudging of the numbers or specs knowing they are wrong.
Pay fines or loose their license . Get put through the ringer by all parties. Spend years in littigation and spend huge amounts on legal fees.
It is about time that the EE and their cronies stop protecting one another.