Value Engineering Compensation (Hourly or %)

[RareBugTX]

Hello:

I would like to know how you charge for value engineering work where not only big savings in material but also on labor and ease of construction are done to an original structural design. I.e.18 ga Steel deck with concrete to 22 ga without sacrificing obviously safety. Do you charge straight hourly rate or a percentage on the savings. I am guessing the savings in this particular job to be at least 50k material only after coordinating with steel contractor and shifting and moving extensively the framing plans and details. Your thoughts are welcome.

Regards

RareBug

 

[steellion]

I would expect an hourly or lump sum fee, similar to any other structural engineering service. Getting paid a % of material cost screams conflict of interest on several fronts.

 

[ztengguy]

Yes, I agree. Value engineering is that. you doing the engineering, they see the value. I would not want a %, because I am sure a contractor can make that value engineered design suddenly cost more.

 

[rb1957]

value engineering is engineering ... that fact that the impulse behind it is to save money (add value) is irrelevent from a charging perspective. charge an hourly rate or a fixed job rate.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TXStructural]

I think I would bill this as an hourly or lump sum fee. I agree that basing a fee on savings creates a conflict.
It sounds like you are re-engineering, or in the vernacular of my state, modifying the engineering work of another. I'm sure your services provide value to the owner, and I have certainly seen poorly engineered plans in need of such rework.

As I heard said once, "anyone can build a building that stands up, it takes a structural engineer to design one that barely stands up." I am a fan of designing conservatively when appropriate, and always erring on the side of safety. Most owners simply do not understand the performance level they can expect from building to code-minimums.

(I am not a big fan of value engineering, as I have seen how poorly some projects have performed after being reworked. (Often the result of changing configuration to code-minimums without adequately considering long-term performance.) And I have also seen some projects put together badly from what I call a "fear of future VE" - Poor design decisions in order to avoid being second guessed later. In my current role, I encourage engineers to consider constructibility and labor above material minimization. Most contractors with which I discuss this agree that reducing materials by increasing complexity results in increased costs. Simplicity and uniformity are the key to efficient construction.)

 

[JedClampett]

I second what TXstructrual said. There's almost always a loss in appearance or strength or ability to maintain. Add to that the the contractor has all the numbers and can skew them anyway they want. If they say it saves $100,000 and they'll split it with the owner, rest assured it saves them $300,000.
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about costs, but it seems that when ever I'm challenged on a VE, they find that the replacement has some other issue or actually costs more.

 

[TLHS]

Constructability is important, but it's pretty fair to say that there are a reasonable number of designs that are bid down to the lowest engineering budget possible. In those cases, you're going to see standard details and other items used all over the place and not necessarily thought out, plus a tendancy to throw extra strength into places it doesn't need to be just because there's no time to really investigate.

There is 'overdesign' that is well thought out and done for good reasons, and then there's overdesign due to lack of engineering resources, knowledge or time. The latter can certainly be helped with a harder look.

There are also cost *and* servicability improvements that can be made after the contractor gets involved. Often designs have to be done before bidding. If you can actually sit down and talk to the contractor about preferred construction styles and details you can often save money or make detailing changes that suit the contractors methods.

 

[Ron]

"Value Engineering" done on a percentage of saving is a contingent fee, therefore violating most of the accepted codes of ethics for engineers in the US.

Are you the engineer of record? If so and you are going from 18 to 22 gauge deck with no structural compromise, begs the question of why it was 18 gauge to begin.

 

[wannabeSE]

Be advised that the evaluation reports for many expansion anchors and shot pins installed in the bottom of concrete filled metal deck require the steel to be 20 gage minimum. Don't ask me why (my guess is that is how they were tested and the anchor relies on the confinement the deck provides). These are the types of things that are not always considered during value engineering.

 

[hokie66]

If you have performed "shifting and moving extensively the framing plans and details", it sounds to me like this is a new design rather than a VE modified one. The original engineer won't be held responsible for the new design, you will, so your fee should reflect accordingly.