×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Reviewing Another Engineer's Work
6

Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

(OP)
Hi Group,

We've been approached by building owners and architects a number of times over the years, asking us to review building envelope, HVAC, and lighting designs that have been recently completed by other firms. They typically want our opinion on energy efficiency, whether it is to verify compliance with the energy code being enforced, for LEED accreditation, or just for another set of eyes on the effort to reduce utility cost. This usually happens prior to bidding, or at least prior to construction beyond site and foundation.

I've never had a problem accepting this work, as long as the folks we do the work for notify the original designers and ask them to cooperate with my firm. Only once did I find out that the owner did not tell anyone about what we were doing, so I quickly rectified that by calling them all myself. It has always been a solicitation that came our way out of the blue. We never offered this service to anyone or marketed it as a service.

Ethical question is: What are your thoughts about marketing this service to building owners and architects that I know are currently engaged in active designs? We might seem to be insinuating that the PEs and AIAs working on the design may give the client a less-than-optimal job. Plus, it might be viewed as interfering with a PE's existing contract.

Thoughts?

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

What you have been doing is peer review and/or value engineering (depends on exactly what you are charged with doing) and many firms offer these services, either deliberately or by word-of-mouth. There are no ethical problems that I can see. Some owners even require a 3rd party review.

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

So long as you are simply marketing YOUR services, without referencing anyone's work, there shouldn't be a problem, assuming you all have licenses.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

Peer review is a big part of my practice and I never contact the company who's work I'm reviewing (my contract is with the owner and it isn't my place to talk to the company who's work I'm reviewing). On occasion I'll have questions that require clarification and I'll ask my client to contact the other firm with my list of questions. The report I generate is the property of my client, period and I never provide it to a third party.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

(OP)
Good answers. I guess I'm just overly cautious sometimes.

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

I am reminded of a guy I know whose doctor recommended a risky operation.

My acquaintance consulted another doctor, reasonably well-known in his field, and asked what he thought, and this doctor said something along the lines of "Of course, I am ethically bound to support the conclusions of my colleague."

A couple of expletives later, my acquaintance asked "Whatever happened to a second opinion?"

The funny thing is that the second doctor considered this point, and then disagreed with performing the operation, suggesting that a wait-and-see approach was better given the risks involved.

There’s nothing wrong with independent judgment.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

An example of a doctor who does not understand ethics, or his medical association.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

I believe there is a clause in the ASCE code of ethics that requires the reviewer to inform the design engineer that the review is taking place. An exception is when the engineer doing the reviewing is employed by the owner. In any case, the statement: "We might seem to be insinuating that the PEs and AIAs working on the design may give the client a less-than-optimal job," begs the response: "And your point is?" I have seen many sealed designs containing mistakes, some very serious. Peer review is a necessity. Even NIST, in their report on the Minneapolis bridge collapse, put some responsibility for the collapse on the owner and recommends peer reviews for all engineering designs.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

zdas04... in some jurisdictions, if you are reviewing another engineer's work, you are obligated by the professional association to advise them of this.

Dik

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

Forgot to add... I do it as a professional courtesy... even if not obligated.

Dik

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

2

Quote (NSPE Code of Ethics)

Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

Thanks, MintJ... NSPE?

Dik

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

(OP)
Cool, Mint,

I would have done it as a courtesy anyway, but it's good to know there's a standard.

Good on ya,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

NSPE = National Society of Professional Engineers

Where the unspecified and ethnocentric nationality of "National" is the USA.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

That's a nice bit of legalistic nonsense. If my employer asks me to check some subcontractor or consultant's work I see no ethical reason why I should tell them what I am doing. The work belongs to my employer and is his to do with as he sees fit.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

It would be very hard for an engineer to sue you, if you found a major mistake and as a consequence his contract was then handled differently.

http://www.nceng.com.au/
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

Greg: Consider it a professional courtesy... and part of the role of being a professional... and, if push comes to a shove, I'll let you explain to the Judge why you didn't think this 'requirement' was necessary.

Dik

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

The client owns the work that they paid for. They can do what they want with it (within the bounds of the contract). The clause presented above would violate my contract with my client in most cases (I usually work under an NDA). If I'm ever brought up on an ethics violation for this, then it will be followed by a lawsuit against the board, because peer review is in the public interest and that clause is not.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

David, I don't see anything in my NDA's that preclude me from meeting my professional responsibility to inform another engineer that their work is being reviewed by me. Perhaps the NDA's are worded differently. I'm just providing a different perspective and nothing else.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

I'ev always informed the other engineer that I'm reviewing their work as a professional courtesy. It hasn't always worked out well, as some engineers get angry when someone is reviewing their work. I assume that these guys are incompetent and angry because they are nervous.

zdas is as usual correct in the sense that NDAs and other contractual issues can trump professional courtesy.
The client must always be informed that you will be speaking with the other engineer.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

The client owns the work that they paid for. They can do what they want with it (within the bounds of the contract). The clause presented above would violate my contract with my client in most cases (I usually work under an NDA).


Likely not, if you are obligated to do something and you enter into a contract that contravenes that, you likley have what is called a 'Proscribed Contract' and it might only be worth the paper to make airplanes with.

If I'm ever brought up on an ethics violation for this, then it will be followed by a lawsuit against the board, because peer review is in the public interest and that clause is not.


You may want to check; it is likely in the public interest if you advise the other engineer of your actions...

Dik

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

Why???????????? If I do a peer review and find a problem, then the design will be better (safer, cleaner, more fuel efficient). If I do a peer review and don't find a problem then the only impact is my fee. What part of that does encouraging the other firm to start a smear campaign against me (as happened once) to damage my credibility if I find a problem serve?

I think that "professional courtesy" is just a smoke screen for "protecting incompetent jerks that should never have gotten through Engineering school". I've been asked to respond to a peer review on one of my projects and about 1/3 of the comments were legitimate issues that needed clarification (not wrong, just that I assumed a level of understanding that wasn't appropriate), 1/3 was because they ignored the statement that said the flow lines were being designed to ASME B31.8 and applied ASME B31.3 calculations, and the final 1/3 were style issues. I wrote my response, let it rest over night, and then threw out most of my comments and started over in a milder tone. The process would not have been improved had I known they were doing it.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

The requirement to advise the other engineer that you are reviewing his work was never legally based, but rather a part of various ethics codes. I can't find it in the Australian code of ethics anymore. Probably has been removed in fear of violating some competition law. I have reviewed the work of others many times, and sometimes advised them, sometimes not. It depends...

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

I think the reason for the requirement to advise the other engineer comes from the possibility that the engineer doing the reviewing would unfairly smear the design engineer in the eyes of the client.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

Whether the name of a 3rd party reviewer is divulged or not, for VE, O&M, or other review, the comments would still need to be provided to the engineer of record for discussion of incorporation or rejection. Before construction, someone has to put their stamp on it. If a meeting of the minds cannot be reached, that's what the IBC (my experience was with IMC) interpretation process is for.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

Check your local professional organisation and local law code.

Where I live, there is a clear distinction between a standard mandate and reviewing mandate

For the first one, the engineer must be sure that is his the only engineer mandated. It's the responsability of the new engineer to verify that there is no previous enginner. if there is one, the new enginner to be sure that the previous engineer mandate is finished.

For Reviewing mandate, condition differ. And what constitute a Review mandate is clearly defined by LAW.

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

Done all the time!!

RE: Reviewing Another Engineer's Work

In Ontario, this requirement is in the Engineer's Code of Ethics:

http://www.peo.on.ca/Ethics/code_of_ethics.html

"A practitioner shall not accept an engagement to review the work of another practitioner for the same employer except with the knowledge of the other practitioner or except where the connection of the other practitioner with the work has been terminated"

It does not say that the Reviewing Engineer must contact the Authoring Engineer. Since the Reviewing Engineer's relation typically is with the client it would be prudent for the Reviewing Engineer to obtain a letter from the client stating that either the Authoring Engineer was notified of the review or that the contract with the Authoring Engineer has terminated.

The above applies to Ontario. However, like PicoStruc said it is wise to check with your regulator.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources