Questioning the Engineer

[shockin]

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.

That is true. One one hand you have the engineer saying we are always correct and have thought thru every possible senerio and they should never be questioned. Then they include in their specs it's not their fault if they forgot something.

I wouder if I could get away with a clause like that in my contracts. Something like here is my price for the complete job, but if I forgot something it's your problem not mine.

 

[zog]

But, isn't that unethical?

Not in Detroit, you seen thier Mayor? Thats the norm.

 

[HighWirey]

That is true. One one hand you have the engineer saying we are always correct and have thought thru every possible senerio and they should never be questioned. Then they include in their specs it's not their fault if they forgot something.
I wouder if I could get away with a clause like that in my contracts. Something like here is my price for the complete job, but if I forgot something it's your problem not mine.

Not likely.

Been there, done that, and most of the time have collected for that 'omissions mutherhood' clause.

If I forgot anything in my quote, I ate it. Used to call those projects 'momuments. Any other ECs been there?

 

[brian john]

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian john
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brian john
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.

No sense using engineers in lieu of electrical contractors that have a better understanding of the work involved in many cases.

Both statements have a bases in reality and both can be way off the mark.

:
Originally Posted by brian john
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.

I only base my approach to this ON FIELD experience where we show up to test equipment and the specified items do not exist. I have seen manufactures, engineers and ECs argue the point of EQUAL. In many cases the arguing is IMO lying through their teeth to cover there butts.

Read the past post regarding FPE...the LESS EXPENSIVE value engineering approach to saving money in the 60-70's.

The CU Al bus was one spec where the end users specified COPPER, but got Al, I do not care why he wanted copper, I do not care that AL works as well in this installation. I only know what the spec said. I did my job and left so I do not know how the project ended up settling with the EC.

As for filling the bill ask for a Mercedes and get a volkswagen, the VW fills the bill it gets you from place to place, but is it what the customer wanted. CHEAPER is not always better, it can be a viable solution but in so many cases you get what you pay for and deserve.

 

[shockin]

Brian - I believe we are talking about 2 different things. What you seem to be referencing is EC's that switch products to a cheaper product in order to increase their profit's. What I am talking about is "Value enginering" the job job in order to pass along along additional savings to the owner. These are two totally different items. I am proposing to keep the engineer in the loop, just sugest some diffent process that might same some time / money. I feel that I am MUCH more qualified to do this then the engineer because most of the time they have spent 0 hours in the field, nor are they aware of what anything actually costs.