RDK and ludvik:
I believe the key to lump sum proposals is detailing what the project entails from the customers stated perspective (included in writing) and then defining what you will provide and how and when. In lump sum projects the consulting engineer must have in mind what the problem is and how they will design the solution. If this can not be done up front before the (design) work starts then a study should be proposed stating again what the customer's idea of their problem is and what they would like to accomplish followed by the consultant's proposed efforts to provide additional information, based on field reviews, surveys, research and possible design alternatives with cost estimates, etc. If you don;t know the solutions to the problems up front you will never meet your budgets and be able to stay in business.
When I said that the consultant should propose what they will do for their client, under the heading of SCOPE, we include each effort such as Field Investigations of.... and ...... followed by Analysis/Evaluation/Design for "X" scenarios. If we think the customer is extremely conscience of costs we give as much detail as possible including the number of drawings, including their names per catagory (Civil, Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Controls, etc.) so that if they do question the necessity of a portion of the work we have the ability to trim out scope and reduce our requested compensation and still provide a solution to the CUSTOMER's satisfaction.
The DPIC (Design Professionals Insurance Company's) have several manuals available that review what Professional Design Firms should be aware of, and wary of, when submitting proposals and contracts. I strongly recommend that you contact them and obtain their available literature; you will not regret it.
Overall you should document each and every change in what you, the consulting engineer, considered the original agreement. (The entity that controls the writing has a better position in any future discussions or even litigation). Change orders should be done in such a manner that it promotes goodwill between you and your client and can be shown to correlate with your agreed to proposal and/or contract. They should be prepared as the requested change or knowledge of different conditions occur, don't wait until the end of the project to submit change orders, nobody likes surprises of this nature. Besides it is much harder to collect after the job is complete and your client's upper management has been told the job is settled. In our proposals/contracts we should tell our clients, in sufficient detail, what we think they expect, what we will deliver based on whatever variables we consider to be fundamental to the success of the project. If their are exclusions then we include those also in our proposal. Again see DPIC, they can be found on
searching through google or some other search engine.
Other thoughts that I like to remind engineers of are very well summarized in a recent article in the August issue of Structure magazine. I don't have it with me but it relates to the changes in the engineering and architectural communities abilities to set fees based on project types and their magnitude of scale. (This ability I believe, allowed us more time to consider, research and explore alternatives for the projects and to the increased final value of our clients.) The Justice department in 1972 intervened to stop the practice that Engineers, Architects, and Accountants, but NOT Medical Professionals, used in setting fees in the manner described. The Justice Department considered the practice as price fixing. Why for the engineering profession, but not the medical profession was not addressed. But this is the point as it relates to our discussion, in time fees dropped for the listed professions. We are now considered as contractors - the lowest bid gets the job. Perhaps this is better for society overall, but I see much of what various clients expect is that all engineers are the same and therefore the one with the lowest costs (fees) will provide the same service.
Such is not the case. The firm that lands the job, particularly with state and local/municipal government agencies will put their least experienced people on the job and let their clients train their people. Further reinforcing in the clients mind that what they are paying for (inexperienced people) is not all that great. Most of our Industrial clients have engineers, by education, in charge of selecting the professional engineering firm that they want to have on their project, and because of their background in engineering have a better grasp of the ramifications of choosing the "cheapest". They the engineers in industry, are responsible for making sure that they get the best job with the most value for a reasonable sum. They are paid well and they appreciate our abilities (and desires to be paid equitabley for our professional expertise).
