Questioning the Engineer

[shockin]

I'll pick on this one since you brought it up. Not too many dollars to save on this item, but for the sake of discussion ...

Al bus in lieu of copper

I too would perfer copper, but the AL bus bar has been thru the same UL testing standards as the copper and is produced by the same reputable mfg. I don't picture aluminum that has been properly installed to be a ticking time bomb. If it was no manufacture would use it in their gear. Their name is on it too. And they have much deeper pockets to go after in a law suit.

I have seen AL fail, but I have seen copper fail as well. I'm sure you have too. It comes down to installation. I have no concerns about my installation methods and I give the mfgs credit for being able to produce a product that will give many years of reliable service. This is assuming that cost is a major consideration on the project.

 

[charlie b]

I still wonder why they would use two different terms in the same section. Outside - Outdoors.

My guess is that the phrase "outdoors of a building" is intended to explain what they meant by using the word "outside" in the title of the article.

 

[zog]

Zog - Thanks for the responce. I understand what you're saying but I do have to disagree with you. In reviewing the proposals from the other mfgs I do not believe there is a differance in the BOM. If it was bid according to specs (other then no sub on the Sq D) there is no reason the BOM should be any different. I pretty much disagree any time I see "no sub" on drawings. To me that means the customer will not be getting the best price available for the project.

I do realize that at times there are very valid reasons for requiring only certain mfgs due to existing equipment ect. Most of the time I assume that a certain engineer just played a round a golf with a certain manufactures rep. Could be wrong - been wrong before.

Different features on trip units, monitoring systems, acceptance testing included or not, single or multi-tap CT's, included accessories. communication capabilities, space heaters, I can go on and on with things that can be included or not with out changing a single thing about the switchgear itself.

Seriously how many people know the difference between a GE AK-2A-50 and a AK 2A-50A or a AK-3A-50 and a AK-2A-50? Not many.

 

[shockin]

Seriously how many people know the difference between a GE AK-2A-50 and a AK 2A-50A or a AK-3A-50 and a AK-2A-50? Not many.

I am willing to admit I have no clue what the differance is without looking it up. But what I would do is submit my shop drawings to the engineer for approval. If he/she has it specified a certain way, I am confident that my alternate mfg will meet the specs. How is it that you believe an infereior product will get thru this review process?

 

[triplett]

I am willing to admit I have no clue what the differance is without looking it up. But what I would do is submit my shop drawings to the engineer for approval. If he/she has it specified a certain way, I am confident that my alternate mfg will meet the specs. How is it that you believe an infereior product will get thru this review process?

Because they do ... ALL THE TIME.

When I am spinning 10-12 projects at a time, all in different phases, I don't have time to do detailed review of V.E. submittals. I have trusted Contractors and Manufacturers Reps in the past and been burned bad. Most of my work requires multiple manufacturers from the start, so I generally do not accept alternates.

 

[weressl]

My guess is that the phrase "outdoors of a building" is intended to explain what they meant by using the word "outside" in the title of the article.

The outside may also intend to refer to the service entrance portion that is outside of the NEC realm.

 

[RB1]

I think the term "outdoors" is used to delineate the point where the tap is required to be made. I think this was added in the 1996 Code.

 

[shockin]

When I am spinning 10-12 projects at a time, all in different phases, I don't have time to do detailed review of V.E. submittals.

Trip - welcome to the forum. No offense, but isn't the customer paying a fair amount of money to the engineer, part of whoms duties include a detailed review the the submittals. I ASSUME this is included as a part of their contract. IMO There is no reason why anything should get by the engineer.

While I understand that you may have a large workload, I would never use the excuse that I let some code violation get by because I was too busy. Maybe I'm not comparing apples to apples?

 

[HighWirey]

Trip - welcome to the forum. No offense, but isn't the customer paying a fair amount of money to the engineer, part of whoms duties include a detailed review the the submittals. I ASSUME this is included as a part of their contract. IMO There is no reason why anything should get by the engineer. While I understand that you may have a large workload, I would never use the excuse that I let some code violation get by because I was too busy. Maybe I'm not comparing apples to apples?

Good answer shockin.

Don't we poor ole ECs also have multiple projects ongoing at one time?

Rethorical question here: Do we ECs or our mechanics get any relief for substandard output because of our workload?

Best Wishes Everyone

 

[jghrist]

Trip - welcome to the forum. No offense, but isn't the customer paying a fair amount of money to the engineer, part of whoms duties include a detailed review the the submittals. I ASSUME this is included as a part of their contract. IMO There is no reason why anything should get by the engineer.

While I understand that you may have a large workload, I would never use the excuse that I let some code violation get by because I was too busy. Maybe I'm not comparing apples to apples?

A detailed enough review of all vendor submittals to catch any deficiencies would be prohibitively expensive. The vendor is responsible for providing a product that meets the specifications.

 

[shockin]

The vendor is responsible for providing a product that meets the specifications.

I agree, which is exactly what I said previously, and thats why I don't have a problem getting quotes from alternate suppliers. However if the engineer dosen't trust the vendor to supply exactly what is specified, then he can review to his hearts content. That's what he's getting paid for.

 

[petersonra]

I am willing to admit I have no clue what the differance is without looking it up. But what I would do is submit my shop drawings to the engineer for approval. If he/she has it specified a certain way, I am confident that my alternate mfg will meet the specs. How is it that you believe an infereior product will get thru this review process?

I would not want people sending me dozens or hundreds of sheets of drawings and claiming it is my responsibility to review them all to make sure they meet the spec. Its the vender's job to either meet the spec or clearly outline those areas in which the equipment he wishes to provide does not meet the spec. if you want to pay the engineer to review your drawings to see where they meet or do not meet the spec, that is certainly your prerogative.

The reason virtually all contracts are written putting the onus on the vendor to meet the spec is just because many unscrupulous contractors have substituted inferior products in the past.

 

[petersonra]

Cut acceptance testing

I am in favor of doing an appropriate level of testing. Someone has to make a judgment as to what level of testing is acceptable. IMO, for common switchgear, MCCs, and the like, the standard factory testing is quite acceptable. Acceptable testing of the installation itself might range from visual inspection to meggering every conductor. Its hard to make a general statement about what level of testing is acceptable. Some contractors I trust to do a better job than others. I might well accept a far lower level of field testing for their work just because I know its likely to be a quality job in the first place.

Al bus in lieu of copper

IMO, Al bus is equal to Cu bus. Its a little larger physically for the same ampacity, but I don't see that as a big deal.

Use apprentices in lieu of mechanics.

Most electrical work can be done quite adequately by apprentices, or even just laborers, if they are properly supervised. No reason to pay journeyman wages for laborer work.

cheaper products, substitutes.

Less expensive products often fill the bill quite nicely. Price is a very poor indicator of quality, despite what a lot of contractors and other vendors want you to believe.

 

[weressl]

I agree, which is exactly what I said previously, and thats why I don't have a problem getting quotes from alternate suppliers. However if the engineer dosen't trust the vendor to supply exactly what is specified, then he can review to his hearts content. That's what he's getting paid for.

The Vendor supplies the information to cover his legal options. 'Buyer beware' is the codeword, especially if the Vendor supplied you with information. If the engineer issues a specification and the Vendor bids on that specification, it does not automatically mean that the bid meets the specification in all aspects. Some of the features may be different from the specification, but the equipment still performs as intended, some features between Vendors differ between each other how they accomplish the desired functionality, etc. Unless the engineer specifically request from the Vendor to list ALL deviations from the specification, then it remains the engineer?s responsibility to thoroughly review the supplied documentation. Even if the liability remains with the Vendor if he does not meet the original specification, it does little good for the overall good of the project if it is discovered during startup or installation. There is a lot of unrecoverable cost gets expended.
.

 

[weressl]

I'd be smiling to if I could figure out how to insert those darn things.

Thanks for the responce. I enjoy constructive arguments.

What he did not spell out that you have just cost the engineer some future jobs, actually undermining his professional services. Be careful, if it is best for an EC and the EE to be highly respectful and dependent on each other and back each other up. That will produce the best product and service for the Owner as well. Just like Nash said in the Beautiful Mind.

 

[HighWirey]

A detailed enough review of all vendor submittals to catch any deficiencies would be prohibitively expensive. The vendor is responsible for providing a product that meets the specifications.

I love it. Pabulum at its best.

If your firm put enough money into their bid to cover your cost to perform "A detailed enough review of all vendor submittals to catch any deficiencies would be prohibitively expensive", your firm would not have won the project, now would they?

Sounds like that same 'ole, same 'ole conundrum that us po 'ole ECs suffer at every bid.

An EC does not have the luxury of blowing off his responsiblilty to someone else because he bid lower than the next guy. An EC must dance with 'what he brung'.

Best Wishes Everyone

 

[zog]

I am in favor of doing an appropriate level of testing. Someone has to make a judgment as to what level of testing is acceptable. IMO, for common switchgear, MCCs, and the like, the standard factory testing is quite acceptable. Acceptable testing of the installation itself might range from visual inspection to meggering every conductor. Its hard to make a general statement about what level of testing is acceptable. Some contractors I trust to do a better job than others. I might well accept a far lower level of field testing for their work just because I know its likely to be a quality job in the first place.

This is pretty well defined by NETA acceptance testing stsndard which is also an ANSI standard.

http://www.netaworld.org/Category.cfm?CategoryID=230

 

[shockin]

Be careful, if it is best for an EC and the EE to be highly respectful and dependent on each other and back each other up.

I argee with you, this is an improtant relationship for both parties.

My point about cost savings and alterantes really only comes into play for me once the project is over budget. I realize I may step on some toes along the way, but ultimatly if I can cut some costs and help make a project go, then the GC is going to (hopefully) remember that in the future, and I'm going to get off on the right foot with the owner as well.

I would certainly perfer to have the EE recomend some savings options, but that would again be hard for them to explain why they weren't doing it in the first place. I personally have never had an EE suggest alternate options.

It is really a situation where someone is going to loose. I could do nothing and let the job be over budget and not happen which is bad for me and the owner and the GC, or I can try to be helpful with suggections and options which is possibly bad for the EE but good for me, the owner, and the GC. At the end of the day, you do have to look out for your own best interest.

That being said, I still believe working together is preferable when possible.

 

[shockin]

Sounds like that same 'ole, same 'ole conundrum that us po 'ole ECs suffer at every bid.

I don't want to turn this into an engineering bashing thread, because most of them are very helpful (especially on this forum which I greatly appreciate), but I do have to agree with you.

 

[john_axelson]

This post is going to be off topic of the original post.

Maybe everyone isn't looking at the whole "over budget" issue correctly? Who is responsible for the design on a project like this? The engineer, correct? Who is responsible for the budget during the design process? Usually no one. How many engineers out there ever know the electrical budget on a "standard" Design/Bid/Build project? And if you do know the budget, how many of you actually design to that budget?

Perhaps the best way to "save face" for the engineer that doesn't like the "VE" process would be to have them re-engineer the entire project without any re-imbursement for the re-engineering costs. Perhaps that would encourage a few to move away from the single name spec or at least require you to get a "allowance price" included in your design, from that single name spec, so you know how much not having competition is costing you.

Also, unfortunately, most designers and engineers, appear to have a condesending attitude toward ALL contractors. Don't you think forming a working relationship with most contractors would be best? Do you have any contractor contacts that would be willing to help you out on a pre-bid budget to ensure your project is within the electrical budget, prior to issuing drawings for bid? Wouldn't this be a more constructive way of ensuring the design you spent many hours on still gets installed?