Contractor Games

[kylesito]

A contractor we work with, and up to this point have had a pretty good relationship with, has started making a habit of having an engineer employed by one of their subcontractor's review our design (we are the EOR). Sometimes it's a "if you constructed it this way we could save $". Other times it's "we need to get your structural loads so we can redesign your foundation". It's this second case which has become quite disturbing to me. This has occurred on both design-build and traditional projects and across all disciplines we work with.

I believe that, in general, we are pretty open to ideas and best practices. After all, if it's better then we want to understand and improve our design to accommodate it. But this constant "we need your loads so someone else can design it better" thing is starting to get me a little miffed.

Just curious if:
1) others are experiencing this and is this just the changing nature of our industry?
2) as the EOR, do I have any obligation at all to furnish my design criteria/loads? Even in a "design build" scenario?
3) do I have a right to feel slighted by the willingness of another engineer to "improve" my design?

PE, SE
Eastern United States

"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi

 

[zdas04]

I would never let it get "tiresome". The first time they second-guessed me I'd ask "why do you need that?" and the second time I'd take them off my Roll-o-Dex. I had this happen with an installation of my GasBuster (a patented process vessel) where some choom wanted to move a control valve from after the process to prior to the process. I explained to him why his idea would completely negate the purpose of the vessel, he said "we'll try it anyway". I said "your idea will not work, if you insist on this stupidity I will not participate in this disaster" in an email with a copy to his boss, his bosses boss, and so forth. The second guessing ended right there and that guy turned out to be one of the strongest supporters of the new vessel.

I know that this is not exactly the same, but I'm thinking your problem can be solved the same way. Ask "who's paying for the time you are spending redoing the work we've been paid to perform?" with a copy to the client. I would bet that the client will not be happy if the answer is that they are being billed for that time.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[JedClampett]

Answers
1) No. Most of the contractors have no use for engineers until they're in trouble.
2) Only to whoever is paying us. If it a design build, you owe it to the contractor.
3) Heck yes! Unless they're willing to reseal the work, they're violating the code and the Engineering Act of your state. And once they seal it, they own it. The whole design belongs to them. I wonder if their insurance carrier knows about that.

 

[hokie66]

If this is the so called "value engineering", it should be in your contract that you have to participate. If not in your contract, then decline or provide a new proposal for provision of the additional services.

If it is a genuine peer review, that should also have been provided for when you contracted to do the design.

 

[IRstuff]

Was this added effort in their bid? If so, was someone asleep at the wheel in your shop? If not, explain to them that you are going to decrement their billing as this is unauthorized and out of scope work. It should be costed at MAX(your rate, their rate).

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

 

[kylesito]

David, this example is very much like what I am facing. In one particular case, a subcontractor wanted to "value engineer" our foundation walls. The walls he proposed (and the contractor convinced the owner were acceptable) were 4" too thin to accept what was bearing on them. We obviously had accounted for this in our design but the sub had failed to do so and the fix was more expensive than the original design anyway.

IRStuff, they based their bids on what they "felt" the design should be, not what we were actually showing. I have a feeling that this feel is based a lot on what the subs are telling them is the right design instead of what we are designing. It's really about the sub selling them on a more lean design which doesn't take into account all the things we are and then they feel ours is "over designed"...although it's really a comparison between a complete design and one that someone throws together.



PE, SE
Eastern United States

"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi

 

[ztengguy]

Just make sure they take the EOR role, or that if they redesign a component, that you get to see how that design works with your components, and be upfront that it will be additional cost to review. If they genuinely provide a value engineered product, then you are all set in the future to provide same design using same theory they used, thus negating any value engineering next time.

 

[RobertHale]

1) I have some similar experiences recently. On a town-home project, we designed a central parking cover with a green roof. Due to the height clearances we used a CIP concrete system. The contractor thought he could save money with a steel system and I had to sit thorough a two hour meeting repeatedly explaining how the system they were proposing wouldn't fit inside the design criteria. I was very much miffed about the waste of my time.
2) I would think it would depend on the terms of your contract with your client. If it isn't explicitly in the deliverables list then I think you wouldn't be obligated to so long as you provided a complete system in the design documents.
3) It would seem like a vote of no confidence from the contractor.

 

[CarolinaPE]

I have not had contractors want a complete redesign or ask for things required a great deal of effort for "value engineering". None seem to be large enough to have engineers of my discipline on staff. What does your contract with them state your requirements for the project? If it is too vague you maybe out of luck on current projects but should address it going forward. I have always taken the position that I could care less if I have to redesign something....as long as someone will pay me to do it. If they need your loads to redesign why do they need your services, is the individual requesting the loads a PE?