PE vs PE
PE vs PE
(OP)
A colleague of mine is really getting into it with a plan reviewer who is also a PE. The plan reviewer PE requested calcs on a project and is saying his design values and code interpretations are wrong and is telling him what he should use. My collugue is using different values due to the age of the structure and has references to back them up. Now the plan reviewer is just picking his design apart and it's been through 3 submittals now. What is the best way to deal with a situation like this? To me a plan reviewer who has the ability and experience to review calcs and is telling another engineer what values to use is a no no. If so, then shouldn't the city be prepared to take all responsibility and liabilities of the design?






RE: PE vs PE
RE: PE vs PE
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: PE vs PE
RE: PE vs PE
RE: PE vs PE
if not, is it "only" a matter of interpretation ? If your engineer wanted CYA then he could annotate the changes with "as directed by City reviewer". He could include his calcs as an appendix.
Oversight is a good thing, particularly when it's oversight of bad practice (not saying this applies, but the rules are written to do this). If there's a problem both you and the City are going to get sued ('cause that's the way things go these days).
I suspect this probably needs to get "elevated". Your engineer has good back-up for his position/interpretation, what does City have for their position ?
another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?
RE: PE vs PE
I delt with it in NY. Reviewer wanted copies of my software output so he could review. I told him we dont use the version he had. Tried to tell me that I have to upgrade the software, I pointed out in the code it just says 'recommended' software. he tucked his tail, and worked off the output calcs.
RE: PE vs PE
I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.
RE: PE vs PE
The whole process works best when it's noncombative. Reviewer needs to make sure that they're confident the design PE knows what he or she is doing and is following the building code (if not to the letter, then at least in spirit for judgement calls). Determining whose call it is when there's an impasse is a difficult issue and not always driven purely by engineering (see below). As a design engineer, my feeling is that ties should go to the stamping PE. The stamping PE is the one putting their career and financial wellbeing on the line with every design they stamp. Generally PEs in planning/building department are protected from lawsuits. That said, if the reviewer is absolutely certain the design engineer is incorrect then they need to hold firm. We've all seen (in our opinion) bad designs with a stamp on it.
Also design PE needs to keep in mind that it may be easier in some cases to just do what the reviewer is asking. I had this issue on a high rise peer review recently. I disagreed with the reviewer on an item where they wanted to add a fair amount of ties to a couple of walls. The code committee member we had retained to help keep us in line also disagreed with the reviewer. But the reviewer was pretty adamant about this item. As fate would have it, it was the last item remaining in our review process, everything else was resolved. We talked with the owner's rep and explained the situation. We helped estimate the material cost of what the reviewer wanted to add, and made it clear we didn't think it was required but that including would at worst have no impact and at best be a betterment. In the end, the owner decided to just eat the cost and add the ties. If it means the difference between being done now/soon and continuing the process for weeks/months, then it may make more sense to spend the material and save the time.
RE: PE vs PE
The hard part is when you might be using a older code and they want the latest. I had one of them gripe once that I was using AISC 9th on a steel design and they wanted to see it by the 13th edition. So I ran it.....and what did it change? Nothing.
RE: PE vs PE
This is not how any of this works at all. Cities and employees do have additional protections but it is not without limit, they both can still be sued despite what many may think. The PE also has the same liabilities regarding the license, as they still answer to the board of engineering. I fail to see how a PE who spots an issue and informing the EOR would be a no no, its actually expected of engineers to point this out. It's written in bylaws and laws.
RE: PE vs PE
And I've found the most difficult reviews to come from third party plan review practices to which the municipalities outsource the work. Probably a good business model but would be soul sucking work.
RE: PE vs PE
Codes don't cover every aspect that must be considered in a sound design, at times "code compliance" would indeed be a moot point.
RE: PE vs PE
Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries
https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/
RE: PE vs PE