BC Independent review

[wrantler]

Question for BC folks - primarily sole practys. How do you deal with the independent review process on your designs? It seems anything outside of part 9 needs a indep review these days.

Right now the place I work we indep review everything...which is okay for a company but how does this effect the little guys? Do you have a buddy-buddy system with another eng? Do you somewhat ignore it?

 

[skeletron]

I love talking about this stuff, so allow me to express a bit...

It's a bit of a cumbersome process because you have to approach another engineer or another firm at the project intake, just so you can plan ahead. There's always the fear that one day this person will review the request and then snag the job or client from you. Despite that fear, there are ways to thoughtfully engage a reviewer:
-cold call other firms or engineers you may come across online or through previous work
-establish a good working relationship with another engineer
-find out who-does-what and try to connect with them

I wish that part of the IR was facilitated better by EGBC, SEABC, or even an "alliance entity" that promoted: "Hell yeah, we review your stuff, big or small, and are available".

Sometimes other firms and engineers are receptive to helping out. You provide your drawings and the IR form. Sometimes the reviewer wants a full calculation package. They review it, give you feedback, invoice you, and then you have to track how you addressed the feedback before issuing the document.

In my experience, it has also been a case of pulling teeth to actually get one. Here are some reasons:
-too busy
-refuse to take other solo shop's review work (ie. the big-boy shop card)
-charge out at their billing rate, review the whole job in extreme detail, and cut a big slice out of your fee
-refuse to fill out formwork or paperwork
-review the job but refuse the formwork because it meets the exemption criteria (ie. delay your schedule)
-require a full calculation package and attempt to do a line-by-line review instead of the qualitative general review that is actually required by EGBC

In my experience the reviews cost as low as $350 and up to $1200-1500. For most stuff it ends up being a net-zero undertaking because the buddy-buddy system usually develops into a one-for-one. However, the cost can also be significant piece of the fee and almost gives reason to hire another body. I think this is where firms benefit because they either get an EIT/junior to complete the work and then have the PEng/approver review. Other firms have a retired/older PEng still on staff who does the review. I'm biased, but I don't think either of these accomplish the same rigour that sole practitioners deal with. In my opinion, all Independent Reviews should be Type 2 and require involvement from someone not involved directly in the design and not involved directly in the firm. That would develop an even playing field and arguably a more collaborative engineering community.

The gray area is "all structural design requires independent review". I claim exemption (ie. respectfully ignore) this for minor stuff where I only produce a report and/or repair sketch based on boots-on-the-ground site review. I think it's totally unrealistic to have these types of things reviewed by another engineer via pictures at a desktop, while also maintaining cost-effectiveness and competitiveness in the market (ie. the reason EGBC doesn't regulate fees). However, I do create a record trail that shows I reviewed (self-check) the job through pictures, producing a picture report, markups to the letter, etc.

The IR can be a bit of a pain but I think it really benefits the profession. The process leading up to the review helps you achieve your due diligence, not the form. I think it's a difficult thing to regulate too. As I've experienced, most engineers have drastically different takes on what an Independent Review is and what should be provided.

 

[canwesteng]

I would be strongly against all IR being type 2, and I wager the vast majority would be as well. Note that having an EIT complete the work and the PEng review doesn't qualify as independent review, which perhaps is where even small firms need to bring someone from outside in. EGBC definitely needs to give more guidance on what an independent review is, because some people certainly take it to far.

 

[skeletron]

@canwesteng: Yeah, but why do you oppose Type 2 across the board? How would that affect your business, which I presume is non-solo practice?

Although more guidance and hands-on examples in a live seminar would be helpful, my position has changed regarding how much EGBC needs to spell out what an IR is. If they spell it out too much (ie. 20% of gravity members, 20% of lateral members, deflection calculation for longest member, 20% of critical connections, etc.) then we, as engineers, are more likely to approach the IR as an robotic exercise instead of an holistic exercise in review...I think defining holistic review to engineers (of all skill levels) and for structures (of defined levels of intricacy) would be a huuuuuge task.

What would be helpful is if EGBC limited to the number of terms they use for the action of "having your worked checked". If you've read the PPG for Peer Review, they have now re-defined:
-Documented Checking
-Independent Review
-Peer Review
-Self Check

 

[wrantler]

The guide document incase anyone is interested and would like to chime in....pls do.

see last page for indep signoff checklist

 

[Craig_H]

I don't do much work across the border in BC, but do maintain practice there. I am a sole practitioner and as such, I have a relationship with a third party who is geographically removed, and we swap IRs from time to time. Being geographically distinct has the advantage that we don't really cross swords on any projects. We have informally agreed that for most simple projects, an IR need not cost more than $500 CAD. I personally put the IR as a line item on fee proposals.

My colleague and I both have the same view that an IR is not a line-by-line review, but rather, a high-level review of load paths, structural systems, and a quick review of a critical detail or two. For the most part, we complete these without replicating any detailed calculations. For a funky detail or an element that is really doing a lot of work, I will quickly do the rough math to verify that it will pass.

I used to be OQM Certified, and the OQM training session was actually really good for defining what an independent review should be. It was also an opportunity to set up an IR agreement with the other folks in the room. I am not sure if EGBC still has some sort of training that is equivalent?

 

[skeletron]

@Craig_H: OQM got shelved once the PGA came into law. Now the QA part of that has become a mandatory part of the PPMP. It sounds like the certification had some good guidance to help practices develop and network. I also have added IR as a line item and think it's a real good idea.