Questioning the Engineer

Status
Not open for further replies.
shockin said:
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.
Click to expand...

The EE had already considered the best cost for the job after reviewing all alternatives.

If you had alternative, cost saving consideration you should have proposed them AT the time of the bidding process, have the engineer validate it and go forward.

If the budget is tight, because you are unable to bring it in for the bid price, then you should suggest the Owner to review the original specification with the EE to see what compromises can be made, then make the revisions.

The person who originally generated the engineering documentation should always be consulted before changes made. If it isa PE stamped documentation, you CAN NOT make ANY changes to what it contains, be it material, installation method, whatever.

The best product is always produced when the decision you make is made in your best interest AND the best interest of all members invloved. (Nash's paradigm.)
 
This thread has de-railed. :grin:

On the subject of the OP, my primary concern if I were you would be whose rear end is on the line if there is a problem. Is it the engineer for designing it or you for installing it (or both)? I don't know what the answer would be in your case. If it is just the engineer, you have cleared your conscience by bringing it to their attention but now you should just do what they designed. If there is a problem later then the engineer will learn a lesson the hard way, which is the best way to remember any lesson. If you will have any culpability in the matter and you think there is a problem then you'll have to go over or around the engineer somehow since many of us (engineers, that is) have this thing where we never admit we're wrong. You'll never get anywhere arguing with them if they have already stated their point. There is no better way to make an enemy of that engineer no matter the outcome, but if you feel strongly enough about the situation it may need done anyway.

From my own design experience, the electricians I have worked with would have to go to their supervisor who would go to the general contractor. That (again, in my experience) is the first person who has any weight with the engineer because they likely know the engineer's boss. My work was with the government on a naval base though, so it might not have been a realistic example of the rest of the world.

Now, back to where the thread de-railed. Let me state up front that all of the following is based on nothing more than my own opinion so that I don't have to keep saying it during the paragraph. If you are handed a set of prints for work that needs done, all you need to do is do the work. Yes, if there is a code violation it needs brought up, but if you simply disagree with the way something was designed then install it anyway. If you have an idea that would save money, keep it to yourself unless someone specifically asks you for it. If there is enough money to go around then noone has a problem and the money doesn't need saved. If there is a money problem then whoever is paying for it will ask the designer to value engineer if they can. At that point, the engineer will approach you if they want your ideas. I have done that plenty of times because I recognize that electricians know a lot more about some things than I do. The difference here is that the engineer approached you, not the other way around. This is just the way a smooth project sails. Everyone does their own job to the best of their ability and trusts everyone else to do their job right.

Ok, that was fun. :smile: Now back to work.
 
weressl said:
If you had alternative, cost saving consideration you should have proposed them AT the time of the bidding process, have the engineer validate it and go forward.
Click to expand...

That one is NEVER going to happen. Why should the "bidding" contractor present any ideas at all during the bidding process? The documents should be clear and concise, should relay all of the intended owner's requirements and be within budget. If the engineer was not able to do these things then what was the engineering company paid for? The "bidding" contractor shouldn't have to present any cost saving considerations during the bidding process. The apparent, responsible low bidder may want to make these suggestions when asked by the owner or GC. The truth of the matter is, that sometimes the "cost saving ideas" are the ones that differentiate you from your competition. By the way, not all VE items are always deducts. What about the contractor that takes into account energy consumption, potential payback, and maintenance costs for item that is slightly more expensive initially, but will have a much lower life cycle cost than what is specified?

weressl said:
If it is a PE stamped documentation, you CAN NOT make ANY changes to what it contains, be it material, installation method, whatever.
Click to expand...

Even if the PE's design is a Code Violation? I bid a project yesterday where the registered engineer indicated I was to feed a 208V, 1 phase 10kW Duct Heater with a Fractional Horsepower Motor for a fan, with 3/4", 2#10 and a #12G on a 50A/2P breaker. Hmm...clearly a code violation, so we shouldn't change this since it was signed by a PE? Should I have included the correct sized wire and breaker in my bid or should I have planned on it being a change order? This is also another form of Value Engineering that we do. By the way, I did submit it as a question a week before the project was bid and it wasn't addressed in any of the 3 addendums issued on the project after I submitted my question.
 
john_axelson said:
That one is NEVER going to happen. Why should the "bidding" contractor present any ideas at all during the bidding process? The documents should be clear and concise, should relay all of the intended owner's requirements and be within budget. If the engineer was not able to do these things then what was the engineering company paid for? The "bidding" contractor shouldn't have to present any cost saving considerations during the bidding process. The apparent, responsible low bidder may want to make these suggestions when asked by the owner or GC. The truth of the matter is, that sometimes the "cost saving ideas" are the ones that differentiate you from your competition. By the way, not all VE items are always deducts. What about the contractor that takes into account energy consumption, potential payback, and maintenance costs for item that is slightly more expensive initially, but will have a much lower life cycle cost than what is specified?
Click to expand...

My response was to the argument that when the GC runs out of money and they come to the EC to see how they can save some money, the EC should not be coming up with money saving ideas all of a sudden. He had his chance in the bidding process. I said if things need to be changed mid-project get all the parties together and see how the original design criteria can be modified that still meets the Owners needs.



john_axelson said:
Even if the PE's design is a Code Violation? I bid a project yesterday where the registered engineer indicated I was to feed a 208V, 1 phase 10kW Duct Heater with a Fractional Horsepower Motor for a fan, with 3/4", 2#10 and a #12G on a 50A/2P breaker. Hmm...clearly a code violation, so we shouldn't change this since it was signed by a PE? Should I have included the correct sized wire and breaker in my bid or should I have planned on it being a change order? This is also another form of Value Engineering that we do. By the way, I did submit it as a question a week before the project was bid and it wasn't addressed in any of the 3 addendums issued on the project after I submitted my question.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but you should have pointed that out during the bidding process and it should be documented via revised drawings, documentation by the PE. If you change it without drawing corrections and an incident takes you to court, you will be partially liable for not following the drawings. Even if it is not the cause of the incident and even if was a Code violation.
 
I consider it mildly slimy to sneak in a lower cost alternative after the bidding phase without giving all the bidders an opportunity to rebid.

OTOH, I have pretty much concluded that most of the time the bidding process is not the way to go. In many cases there is collusion (perhaps informal collusion, but still collusion) going on between the bidders. I prefer a negotiated approach. I think in the long run everyone benefits.

All the bidding process does is guarantee cost overruns, which is the most profitable portion of almost every such contract.
 
petersonra said:
OTOH, I have pretty much concluded that most of the time the bidding process is not the way to go. In many cases there is collusion (perhaps informal collusion, but still collusion) going on between the bidders. I prefer a negotiated approach. I think in the long run everyone benefits.
Click to expand...

Might want to be careful with that accusation. Collusion is illegal and will wind you up in jail. Not sure you understand the severity of that comment. Collusion is not something you should even attempt to hint around about unless you have substaintial proof.

Along the same lines, several posters have made the accusation that the specifying engineer is just trying to get a free round of golf or is being paid by the manufacturer's rep to make sure their product is single name spec'd. Also, not a fair accusation.

Negotiated is probably the best route, but the contractor's should be involved early on in the design process to help ensure the project budget will still be met.
 
weressl said:
Of course not, but you should have pointed that out during the bidding process and it should be documented via revised drawings, documentation by the PE.
Click to expand...

I think you need to re-read my post - I did ask prior to the bid and it was not addressed in any of the 3 addendums that were issued after I submitted my questions.
 
weressl said:
The EE had already considered the best cost for the job after reviewing all alternatives.
Click to expand...

This is where I would disagree with you. If the EE specifies only EMT and a minimum 3/4" then he is wasting the customers money in a lot of instances. I understand the theory behind being able to go back later and pull wire, but that happens so rarley it's not worth it IMO.

Why not consider MC cable as an option. Perfectly code compliant, and perfectly safe. For that matter, why not consider a flexable wiring system for the lighting. (Reloc) I can save a substantial amount of money for the owner with those two items alone.

If you do wnat the ability to pull additional conductors in the future, why not ENT? (Smurf)
 
john_axelson said:
Might want to be careful with that accusation. Collusion is illegal and will wind you up in jail. Not sure you understand the severity of that comment. Collusion is not something you should even attempt to hint around about unless you have substaintial proof.
Click to expand...
I am not accusing anyone specifically of engaging in illegal practices regarding bidding, however, you have to know that it is endemic. It is not universal, but it is widespread. Its not as bad as it was a few decades ago where those on the bidder's list got together and decided who would get what projects and then bid accordingly, but it still goes on, if less formally.
 
john_axelson said:
Along the same lines, several posters have made the accusation that the specifying engineer is just trying to get a free round of golf or is being paid by the manufacturer's rep to make sure their product is single name spec'd. Also, not a fair accusation.
Click to expand...

I believe it often is. Manufactures reps spend a lot of money "wining and dining" arcitects and engineers. They do this because they expect something in return. Good marketing on their part in my opinion.

The most outrageous example I can recall was a few years ago on a Church camp located in the middle of nowhere. Single phase power was not an issue and would have been the logical choice. However the EE/ME had a "friend" that had sometype of involvement with the creation of a new electronic phase convertor. He specified all the cooking equipment and RTU's as 3 phase. This made for about 100K worth of extrenly high tech phase convertors. (For NO good reason) My price for the entire job was about 200K as I recall. In the end the job was over budget and didn't go.
 
shockin said:
I believe it often is. Manufactures reps spend a lot of money "wining and dining" arcitects and engineers. They do this because they expect something in return. Good marketing on their part in my opinion.

The most outrageous example I can recall was a few years ago on a Church camp located in the middle of nowhere. Single phase power was not an issue and would have been the logical choice. However the EE/ME had a "friend" that had sometype of involvement with the creation of a new electronic phase convertor. He specified all the cooking equipment and RTU's as 3 phase. This made for about 100K worth of extrenly high tech phase convertors. (For NO good reason) My price for the entire job was about 200K as I recall. In the end the job was over budget and didn't go.
Click to expand...
Sometimes people get hooked by whatever neat product passes by them and they just feel the need to use it. We are all guilty of it.

If you think it is bad now, some of the stories I have heard about the early days of the PLC business would make you crazy. I heard once from a very reliable source that an engineering company that spec'ed a particular brand of PLC got a skybox at the super bowl.

OTOH, if you have a new product you have to get someone to be the early adopters.
 
petersonra said:
I am not accusing anyone specifically of engaging in illegal practices regarding bidding, however, you have to know that it is endemic. It is not universal, but it is widespread. Its not as bad as it was a few decades ago where those on the bidder's list got together and decided who would get what projects and then bid accordingly, but it still goes on, if less formally.
Click to expand...


Based on what proof?
 
shockin said:
This is where I would disagree with you. If the EE specifies only EMT and a minimum 3/4" then he is wasting the customers money in a lot of instances. I understand the theory behind being able to go back later and pull wire, but that happens so rarley it's not worth it IMO.

Why not consider MC cable as an option. Perfectly code compliant, and perfectly safe. For that matter, why not consider a flexable wiring system for the lighting. (Reloc) I can save a substantial amount of money for the owner with those two items alone.
Click to expand...
Seems like most of the projects I've been a part of since making the switch to commercial have involved extensive changes. Sometimes, changes happen three times before I even get a chance to wire them. And frequently, they have more to do with lighting (whistles and bells) than they do actual 120V power usage of the system.

Owners are fickle and sometimes their whims border on the seemingly nonsensical.

There's one word that always makes my blood pressure go up: "artwork". My former mother in law was an artist, and a very nice woman, but she'll never know how many receptacles, lights and horn strobes have been moved for her craft. It makes perfect sense to an interior designer, or an owner, but as a dude I just can't fathom incurring hundreds of dollars of expensive changes to accomdate a painting.

Point being, IMO, changes are frequent and EMT will continue to be a mainstay of our industry as long as artwork continues to adorn our walls, at the least. :)

If you do wnat the ability to pull additional conductors in the future, why not ENT? (Smurf)
Click to expand...
A sense of mercy? :D
 
Get a grip!

Get a grip!

petersonra said:
Do I need specific proof to point out that bid rigging is endemic in public projects in most urban areas? How many federal indictments would you consider proof?
Click to expand...

You don't get it! You accused ALL contractors that bid public work of collusion. That is a cheap, non-educated statement that irritates me. Because I work with some engineers that couldn't design a car port, let alone a 500,000 square foot manufacturing facility, does that mean ALL engineers are idiots?

I have been in this business over 20 years and I have NEVER colluded with someone. People like you are the ones that give contractors a bad name. Making your sly little comments that all public work has some form of collusion and thinking nothing of it. Those type of comments are the ones that make the rift between engineers and contractors larger. You can't just go off making accusations like that with no proof, it is borderline slanderous.

Taking you indictment comment further, are all men that go by three names murderers? I can name a slew of them, but does that mean ALL of them are?
 
John, simmer down. It'll be all right.

Of all the slanderous accusations I've seen thrown about around here, that was arguably the most benign. Deep breaths. :)
 
petersonra said:
Do I need specific proof to point out that bid rigging is endemic in public projects in most urban areas? How many federal indictments would you consider proof?
Click to expand...

Project bid meeting for city of Detroit, putting new fence around mayors mansion.

Local Detroit contractor pulls out measuring tape, pushes a few buttons on calculator, says $500 in materials, $500 labor=$1,000.

2nd local contractor does same, measures, calulates, says $700 material+$650 labor= $1,350.

3rd guy is from Farmington Hills (Upper class suburb) says $3,000. The city rep says how did you come up with that? You didnt measure or calulate anything! Farmington Hills guy says $1000 for you $1000 for me, and we hire the 1st guy. Deal!
 
I don't remember when it first showed up, but that verbage in the specs that says the contractor is responsible for anything the engineer left out knocked the engineer off his/her pedestal.


Edit: No I did not mean verbiage
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top