PE vs PE 2

[kmart30]

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?

 

[OldBldgGuy]

I'm not sure where you are but I've had the same experience a number of times in different municipalities in Ontario. There's nothing wrong with being questioned & being able to look at your own work a 2nd time and confirming your opinion is good, but when the questioner is not necessarily right and digs his or her heels in just because they can, that's a problem. How does one deal with it? I'm not sure. I've threatened to go up the chain of command a few times, and done so more than once, but if you get a boss who's supporting their staff it can get messy.

 

[KootK]

I'd love to be a reviewer. I'd be exactly this kind of a pain in the butt. Fo' sure.

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.

 

[kmart30]

The other side of the coin....what do you say to the contractor and owner asking why it's taking so long to get an approval?

 

[canwesteng]

What is the purpose of having licensed engineers if the city has to okay everything anyway? Always though this was the stupidest system, especially in the states with its onerous SE licensure.

 

[rb1957]

do the changes in calcs make changes in the design ?

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 ?

 

[JStructsteel]

Get the contractor/owner involved. When they start saying its costing them money, someone will listen. The reviwing PE should/would be asked 'Is it within conformance of the code'? and if yes, it should be approved.

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.

 

[KootK]

I don't know that there's much to be done but to tell the truth that the review is going poorly and that your friend is confident that his design will be vindicated. I've always felt it a shame that review has to occur at the tail end of what is usually a very time sensitive process. It seems predestined to cause problems but I can't really think of a better, practical alternative.

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.

 

[MrHershey]

I think having a reviewer that knows the codes and can understand the calcs is a good thing. Otherwise it's just a rubber stamp from someone who has little idea what they're looking at. Annoying when they take issue with my project because I can't brush them off as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but good overall.

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.

 

[WARose]

I've found it's best just to humor them and run it their way. (Especially if it doesn't change anything.) The problem I've run into with any kind of municipality review: they just aren't in any real big hurry. Just about all of 'em are out the door every day at 5pm. If you start bickering with them, it can take forever to get resolved. So (after seeing this movie a few times), I just comply with everything they want.

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.

 

[sandman21]

You never state what the issue is over, as far as we know your friend could be wrong. If the issue is simply a code interruption and values it should not take three submittals. The first plan check should have shown the interruption difference, if the issue is so far apart and it was going to cause issues a phone call should have occurred before resubmittal. A discussion can then take place and an issue with the interruption can then be kicked up to a supervisor or the building official. If the issue is a minor change then you can decide if it is worth the extra effort. Submitting two additional times and expecting the reviewer to simply let an issue go is no way to handle an issue.

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?

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.

 

[azcats]

I'm with WARose. If it's a difference of interpretation thing, I generally just comply with what they ask b/c it's not worth the fight. But it's always fun to point out specific code sections showing them when they're wrong.

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.

 

[Toby43]

3RD Party review an option? Are they safety or serviceability issues?
Codes don't cover every aspect that must be considered in a sound design, at times "code compliance" would indeed be a moot point.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

I've been in this situation once before. On a conference call with all parties involved we thanked them for taking joint liability by sharing in the design. They stated "we're not taking any liability" but wouldn't you know, strangely they backed down after that. May not work all the time but it's worth it if you get backed into a corner (in our case the structures were already built and it would be big money if our design was wrong).

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

 

[txeng91]

Move to Texas. You could smear dogsh*t on a stack of 24x36’s and it would get approved. I’ve submitted in every major municipality there and the only comments I’ve ever get back pertain to updating code references in the general notes. I only really deal with low rise commercial though, I’m sure they ramp it up a bit with larger projects.