The latest ICC-500 adds some clarification to Peer Review requirements, however, it still just says to use an independent registered design professional. Has anyone seen an issue with using another licensed engineer within the same firm to complete the Peer Review? Would that be the Peer Review Disclosure that is now added to 109.3 in the 2020 edition?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations MintJulep on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
ICC-500 Peer Review
- Thread starter kennyb04
- Start date
OldDawgNewTricks
Structural
An engineer within the same firm would not be independent.
Not necessarily. My province has a Documented Independent Review practice standard from our association. It just requires that the professional doing the review not have been substantially involved in the design. This can be a person in the same company.
There are different standards of care for different situations and in different jurisdictions though.
There are different standards of care for different situations and in different jurisdictions though.
I think they could be independent in a general sense, but I'm not certain on any specifics of that code that may further define independent.
A lot of it is going to be dependent on the size of your firm. I'd say, at a minimum, the person doing the review would have to be otherwise completely outside of any typical QC procedures. In other words: if this requirement were not in place, the person doing the review would have no involvement in the project. That could be a different project manager in your office, an engineer at another branch, etc.
If this were a review of a design failure, then it would absolutely need to be somebody with a financial interest in clearing your firm of wrongdoing (so it would have to be another firm in that case). But as a design review prior to submission, I don't think there is a conflict of interest. There may be an apparent conflict, though, so be sure to go out of your way to be transparent about who was involved with what and how they are to be considered an independent review.
So best case scenario would be hiring another firm to conduct the review, but I think it could work as an internal review with a "Chinese Wall" between the design group and the reviewing group/individual, breached only by the review itself.
A lot of it is going to be dependent on the size of your firm. I'd say, at a minimum, the person doing the review would have to be otherwise completely outside of any typical QC procedures. In other words: if this requirement were not in place, the person doing the review would have no involvement in the project. That could be a different project manager in your office, an engineer at another branch, etc.
If this were a review of a design failure, then it would absolutely need to be somebody with a financial interest in clearing your firm of wrongdoing (so it would have to be another firm in that case). But as a design review prior to submission, I don't think there is a conflict of interest. There may be an apparent conflict, though, so be sure to go out of your way to be transparent about who was involved with what and how they are to be considered an independent review.
So best case scenario would be hiring another firm to conduct the review, but I think it could work as an internal review with a "Chinese Wall" between the design group and the reviewing group/individual, breached only by the review itself.
OldDawgNewTricks
Structural
There is a difference between independent technical review and independent peer review. Independent technical review as part of the QC process can be done by an in-house engineer that is not directly involved with the design of the project. I don't think independent peer review is satisfied by an in-house engineer even if they are not involved with the project because they have an inherent conflict of interest. Per 109.3, you can try slipping it past the AHJ, but the chances don't seem good.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Question
