I feel your pain.

One thought:  Don't do pole barns.

 

Engineering and drafting on pole barns can be very simple if one has a good spreadsheet and drafting templates set up.  I routinely did these at my old firm with about 15min of engineering and 30min of drafting.

That was for a very basic design of course.  We did charge significantly more than $100 as well.

Mike Drinkwater, P.E.
http://www.mdrinkwaterengineering.com

This firm has probably predesigned them for specific
region(s) and doing them enmass... cookbook style.

This does lead to lower fees and cornering the market, leading to higher fees for the clients, with time, as engineers, like us, are weeded out of that market.  

As JAE suggests, find a different market.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

A further thought here...

For that other market, you could talk with a few local lawyers about serving them as a consultant for pole barn litigations, and there are a lot of them.  Who knows, maybe you'll get payback here.

I've done a few and it is amazing the horsedodo you find.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto:  KISS
Motivation:  Don't ask

I just used the pole barn as an example.  This is happening on small commercial projects, too.  I have heard that these firms are located mostly in India & China.  I just think that if these projects continue to go oversees, engineering firms here will be forced out of business.  I know someone who works for a stair manufacturer, he is afraid of losing his job because their drafting is all going to India.

tdevries37...if that is happening, then someone is "plan stamping".  Find out who is sealing those designs and report him to the state board.

Just out of curiosity,
only an american company is allowed to stamp?

 

"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack."
Winston Churchill  

321GO,
Assuming the OP is in America, engineering drawings for buildings can only be stamped by a Professional Engineer authorized to practice in the state where the project is located.  

hokie66,

but a practicing engineer can sign outsourced drawings, can't he?

 

"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack."
Winston Churchill  

321GO..

No. An engineer may only stamp work he or she did, or work done under his or her direct supervision.

Stamping without review is illegal, stamping after checking and reviewing is not.

What is the definition of direct supervision? Standing over one's shoulder? If one can review a drawing emailed from his staff designer on the floor below, why can't one emailed from China?

If an engineer in New York can "supervise" work of a staff engineer in San Francisco, why can't in Delhi or Shanghai?





 

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

Definition from the Texas Engineering Practice Act:

"Direct supervision - The control over and detailed professional knowledge of the work prepared under the engineer's
supervision. The degree of control should be such that the engineer personally makes engineering decisions or personally reviews
and approves proposed decisions prior to their implementation. The engineer must have control over the decisions either through
physical presence or the use of communications devices."

I don't think this applies to an Engineering firm in China that submits complete drawings.

How many CEO, VPs and Principals of engineering firms in the USA who routinely stamp drawings, "personally" supervise work of their design engineers or make day to day design decisions?

There are many large A/E firms in the USA who has back offices overseas, even proudly advertised. Are they illegal?

 

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

rbulsara..

I don't really know how other companies and industries operate. Structural firms tend to operate differently than other firms..  If you have an office in two cities and both offices are registered, you MUST have a PE in each office. Otherwise, you cannot advertise that office as offering engineering services.

I can only assert this for Texas with full certainty, although I suspect most other states have similar rules.

Again, exempt industries may be different, but the OP was talking about structural services.

In any case, I think it's a disservice to the profession for someone to be willing to stamp drawings produced in China for next to nothing and charge next to nothing.

There is also a difference in just CAD work done being overseas vs. design.

I fully understand the frustration with "outsourcing", but there is a difference between something being illegal and something we do not like.

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

frv - Thank you!  The exact point I am trying to get at.  I agree, I think it is a disgrace to the structural engineering industry that this is happening and the trend is growing.  I am losing business left & right because of this.  I don't understand how a firm can pay their insurance & licensing fees when they are charging $100 / building.  I cannot.

rbulsara..

In your penultimate post, you asked whether it was illegal to stamp the drawings, you didn't mention anything about CAD.

CAD outsourcing is actually quite common in certain industries. At my soon to be former company, this is standard practice. I didn't like it, but I can't do anything about it. Engineering, however, was done completely in our office. Checked by two engineers. AND when drawings came back, they were also checked by an engineer.

The drawings that were done in India were NOT required to be sealed. They were detailing tickets for individual pieces. The CD's were all designed and drawn in house.

Sure. Key is to adapt to the changing business environment. As for competing against cheap fees, what else is new? Best advise to combat that was given by JAE in the first response.  

The situation being discussed here is not much different than acceptance of products designed and manufactured overseas, UL listed and sold in the USA.

Also it is naive to assume that all overseas engineers are not competent or all "local" ones do not make mistakes.

I know personally of one case, that shop drawings of a certain multinational company, improved remarkably after they shut down their local office in USA and outsourced overseas!

Also quality of some drafting done overseas is much better than I was able to get from in office CAD work of some of my past employers.  This may not hold true in all cases.

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

tdevries37,

but why are they so cheap? Is it merely due to the outsourced CAD? (seems unlikely)


 

"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack."
Winston Churchill  

I don't disagree that one needs to adapt to changing business environments.

Nor do I disagree that there are very talented individuals in other countries. In fact, if one were to look at the quality of education in some other countries, an argument could be made that these countries are producing better engineers, on average, than we are.

With what I do take exception, is taking on liability for a "quick buck" and undermining the profession locally.

Local engineers know what methods of construction are cost-effective; they know what materials are locally available; they know what common conditions to watch for; they can make site visits to correct problems that WILL arise.

This knowledge is an added value to the pure engineering services. When an engineer agrees to stamp drawings for nickel they undermine this added value and further the commoditization of our profession.

I'm not trying to get into a discussion of the virtues and pitfalls of laissez-faire capitalism. But undermining local engineers and the engineering profession in general for a quick buck is, in MY opinion, myopic.  

frv - Very well put, thank you

Make path of getting licensure more comprehensive so that not every tom, dick and harry get's it so easily. We need responsible professionals who value and care for quality work to be the front runners in offering design services. I personally know a lot of less competent engineers who give PE exam in civil to become licensed engineers, 'cos they couldn't clear PE structural-1 even after multiple attempts. I am not saying not everyone who takes the easier route does unethical practices, and I don't mean to offend anyone by my comments. But, atleast by having comprehensive selection criteria in place, we can have competent people deliver quality services at fair price and that way uphold the value of the profession we are in.  

strucguy-

I think we are moving in that direction. It starts with the new SE exam next year. We still need to address the issue at the state level and have all states enact some sort of Title Act to ensure ONLY engineers licensed in structural practice structural.

I'm sure I'll catch some heat for the the following assertion, but structural engineering is different than other branches of engineering. Our responsibility for the safety and welfare of the public is more direct than in other branches.

I DO think we should be held up to a higher standard. I also know of practicing structural engineers who were unable to pass the soon-to-be-defunct SE1 on multiple occasions, so they took the civil and passed.

Whatever you think of this on an ethical level, it is perfectly legal for these individuals to practice structural engineering. If we want our profession to be held to a higher standard, we should lobby at the state level to enact Title Acts. Otherwise I'll we'll get to do is gripe and moan on internet forums.

Just playing devil's advocate!  Trust me, I am no way condoning low balling, but it is not illegal, yet!

I would think that the cheap engineer who stamps the drawing for $100 is already licensed!

Process of issuing PE licensing has nothing to do with cheap competition or someone deciding to make unethical use of his/her privileges. In fact, being smart and knowledgeable has nothing to do with being ethical. Just look at Wall Street and those CEOs who got paid millions in bonuses to take our economy to cleaners!! If the economy were doing better, we would not be discussing this issue.

I do not believe that a few cheapscates charging $100 for a stamp are bringing down the profession or economy. In fact, why compete with them? Plus unless you can prove their design was flawed, low pricing is not a crime, but it is a shame!

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

(cheap) competition is nothing new, businesses where/are faced with this all the time (wether we like it or not) IMHO.

What "normally" happens is that businesses survive by getting more competetive with regard to the competetion, often increasing their efficiency and skill levels. This was the case in the past, as i believe is the case now.

I think in such situations, it is more wise to reassess the business model, than to "defend the castle" with ever increasing effort.




   

"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack."
Winston Churchill  

Suppose I invent a CAD plotter that takes my verbal instructions, and repsonds by issuing a set of plans.

I have done the engineering, and reviewed the plans, and can then seal them.

However further examination reveals that the voice activated CAD plotter is nothing more than a telephone and a modem line and a plotter, and somehwere on the other end of the wires there is a normal human CAD guy drafting away.

Many of you appear to think that the existence of, and location of, the CAD guy  somehow affects the integrity of the process. How quaint.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Greg-

I don't think anyone is arguing about CAD. CAD outsourcing, especially for repetitive stuff, is not uncommon.

Engineering, on the other hand (and here I'm referring to structural engineering specifically), requires a minimum of knowledge of local conditions, practices and regulations. Engineers require access to job sites and the ability to communicate during normal business hours with the design team.

321GO-

I think you are insinuating that my position is somehow protectionist. I don't think it's any more protectionist than what is required of doctors or lawyers.

I've read many posts on these very forums complaining about the fact that although many engineers have education rivaling that of some physicians and lawyers, and often times we are responsible for the lives of many more people at any given time than them, our profession isn't remunerated on the same level as theirs.

One way to bring our profession on par with medicine and law (from a compensation standpoint, of course- ethically we tend to outclass at least one of these ;) )is to willingly accept higher standards for practicing. We already have something like residency (4 years without being able to sit for the exam), we will soon be required to have additional education beyond an undergraduate degree (there is a proposal to require the equivalent of a masters program for structural), and beginning next year we will have a much more rigorous examination process. I am completely in favor of these steps and I don't think these are "protectionist" (at least in the sense of protecting MY job.. perhaps it's protectionist in the sense of protecting the profession).

Come to terms with outsourced engineering! This very website is an example of it, if one can get "free" advice from anyone in the world, why can't one get "paid" advice and analysis?

I think importance of sealing and stamping is being exaggerated here. However important it is, it is merely a statutory requirement.

To that end, as long as the professional of record takes responsibility of reviewing and approving the design, it does not matter who helped him accomplish his task. Not all engineering works require "personal" knowledge of the site. Someone qualified can collect the data, which can be analyzed and used by someone qualified who never set a foot in the field. Structural modeling and analysis comes to mind, for example.
 

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

frv - Exactly the point here.  Outsourcing STRUCTURAL engineering outside of US borders for commercial projects located on US soil creates, in my opinion, questionable structural engineering design of these projects.  I am not saying that foreign firms are incompetent at all.  I would not personally structurally design a building in India, China, Japan, etc. because I am not familiar with local laws, soil conditions, loads, etc.  That, to me, would be practicing engineering "outside" of my expertise, which is forbidden by most, if not all, states' engineering boards.   Structural engineering needs to stay local for the public's safety.
To top it off, charging ridiculously low fees to do so (which yes I know is not a crime in and of itself) undermines the highly expected professionalism of the structural engineering profession even more.
I personally would question the quality and integrity of a structural design if I was only being charged $100 by the structural engineer.  In short, you get what you pay for.

rbulsara-

Signing and sealing are not mere "statutory" requirements in structural. It assigns responsibility and liability to the engineer. Our field shares one similarity with medicine in that it is almost a question of WHEN you will get sued, not WHETHER. Culpability and negligence really have little to do with it; it's just going to happen.

If a building is designed entirely overseas, how will the affected party obtain restitution? Do you think the Chinese legal system is going to allow a US company to sue a design firm because the design was delayed and it incurred additional construction costs? Or, in the case of an actual failure (admittedly, a very rare occurrence and a very small fraction of lawsuits) leading to loss of life, will the design firm in China pay for the wrongful death lawsuits? Will they even have insurance?

frv:

There is nothing illegal about hiring "qualified" technical help from outside your office be it next door or overseas. That help does not have to be licensed, just as not all staff engineers are licensed.

I was refraining from posting this link, but check this out as an example. They "claim" the testimonials from US customers. You cannot run away from reality. I am very well aware of responsibility of a PE and it not different from any other field and I am not belittling it.

http://www.outsource2india.com/eso/construction/structural-design.asp#hrs

 

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

rbulsara-

I think we're kind of going in circles here. I'm not suggesting it's in any way illegal. There are occasions where not only is it OK, but desirable to hire outside technical expertise.

Additionally, I'm not suggesting that the business model should be frozen in time. My goal, in an ideal world, would be  to raise the prestige and compensation of the profession. But not just because I want to earn more money (who doesn't), but because I think our profession IS as important (and in many cases more so) than the others I have mentioned.

I think we're just kind of focusing on different things in this discussion.

And no worries, I didn't take offense at the "statutory" comment. I know other disciplines don't really understand why we structurals make such a big fuss about signing and sealing, but it does carry a lot more weight with us.

In a non-socialistic society wages are basically determined by simple supply and demand, wether we like it or not.

If wages are indeed too low, we are obviously willing to work underpaid(we like our jobs), or there is an abundance of supply.

frv,

to me it looks like you are trying to create a artificial shortage.

 

"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack."
Winston Churchill  

Sigh..

We do not live in a socialist society. I do not desire to live in a socialist society. I am not trying to create an artificial shortage any more than physicians are creating an artificial shortage by lobbying that chiropractors or alternative medicine practitioners not be licensed in the same way they are.

What I think would be good for the profession (again, I'm ONLY referring to structural here) is to make the process of licensure reflect the level of responsibility we actually have toward the public.

Coming full circle, the OP's original post was referring to fees that most people would not even "seal a zip lock bag" for. I think if the process of licensure reflected the true responsibility we incur, no licensed professional would take this on.

On another note, we don't live in a society approaching anywhere near Adam Smith-type free market capitalism. There are many things our government requires us to do that are in the best interest of society, but not necessarily in the best interest of a particular individual.

321G0

It's not about creating artificial shortage and raising the demand on the very few that are available. It's about quality control, we do that in all walks of life. It's about making a choice between living with the average standards and striving to raise for a better tomorrow. And, by saying that I am in no way undermining the quality of work done by each one of us. All I am trying to say is...there should be regulations in place so that all the players in the game maintain proper standard of care and assume enough liability for the services they are offering.  

I might be missing the point here, but as long as someone stays within all rules and regulations, why should you stop them charging what they want?

The thing that springs to mind for me is budget airlines, in Europe there are many but two big players. To the best of my knowledge their safety record is equal to or above that of the more prestigious carriers, but they work on much tighter margins and make much larger profits.

Personally as long as safety is not an issue I am more than happy to miss out on a free cup of coffee a packet of peanuts and a newspaper in order to save myself hundreds of pounds. Others may not agree but I like choice.
 

It only takes one engineer to offer low ball fees o bring the whole system down for everyone.  You would think that other Professionals would have respect for our profession.  It is amazing how the client that accepts these fees look for other engineers when it is a big project.  

We simple choose to not work with clients like this on any project.
 

BRGENG - yes, I agree about the low fees, but when it becomes the normal way of doing business, what then?  I wish I could find the Clients who don't shop around for fees, but if we in the building services field didn't keep our fees "where the market dictates", we'd be out of work pretty soon.  I guess that's what some would call a "market correction".

The first realization about free market capitalism, is that in a perfectly free market, nobody makes any money.  Customers save money.

Profit only comes from exploiting areas in which the market is not free.   

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

Somewhere, Adam Smith is turning in his grave..

It's shameful that some people feel that someone who (within the regulatory requirements) finds ways to produce good work for less money discredits the profession.

Engineers work for the benefit of society and for themselves, not for other engineers.  

If you develop some slick programming that lets you churn out a quality product for little more than your review time where your competition would take days or even weeks, you are an exceptional engineer and an outstanding citizen.

Shameful?  Yeah, that's a deep, thoughtful, nuanced analysis. Invaluable.

SAIT..  Your tag reads Aeronautics..  I'm sure there are areas within your profession that allow for new technologies or systems to expedite required work..  On another forum within this site another engineer commented that he was able to give a bid on the order of one tenth of what what other companies were quoting for a large database project because he knew how to do it in a different manner...  These are perfectly legitimate, valid ways of conducting business.

In MY area, structural, there are several things that MUST be done on EVERY project. Simply inputing the data into a spreadsheet takes more than 1 hr. The lowest billing rate I've known for structural engineering is $100 per hr.

Now please, with all the profundity that your statement  "you are an exceptional engineer and an OUTSTANDING CITIZEN (emphasis mine)" leads me to believe you have, explain how it is anything other than dog eat dog to charge $50-effing dollars to provide SIGNED AND SEALED drawings?

I know you guys outside of civil and structural don't really care about signing and sealing drawings; but, as I've repeated ad nauseam, it's a big deal for us because we assume liability every single time we seal something. That's why most structural engineers won't touch anything for less than $500 dollars. The assumed additional liability isn't worth anything less.

frv...

If you have reason to believe that there are people acting unethically, gather hard evidence and file a complaint with your professional association.  Apparently it may only cost you about $50 or so.

SAITENGGrad:  Right- I tried that back in the '80's when the cutthroat lean and mean building services consultants were undercutting each other to the point where the fees being proposed were 80% less than the "recommended fee guidelines" published by our Engineering Association.  The response I got from the Association was that the fee agreement was a civil matter, and they could not enforce any kind of minimum fees effort, and their only mandate for enforcement was if a complaint was made for volations of the Engineering Act (Public Safety, etc.), and fees were not part of "The Act", just a businees/civil issue.

In fact, a recent clarification was published in our Association magazine to the effect that even if the Client doesn't pay his bills, we cannot withdraw services on a building project if we've already signed and sealed the Permit Drawings and the Letters of Assurance that put us on the hook to the City, that say we HAVE to provide Field Reviews and design reviews.

Talk to some other Building Design Consultants to see what other sectors of the engineering world are like.

Firstly I would like to say I know nothing about structural engineering or American laws and standards, so I may be wide of the mark here.

If MDE327 is to be believed and I have no reason to doubt them then 15 minutes engineering and 30 minutes drafting can be charged out at a minimum of $100, so one engineer and two drafters can get $133/ hour each, okay not great but surely that is workable?

Frv then takes this further by saying "That's why most structural engineers won't touch anything for less than $500 dollars." So the same engineer and two drafters now generate $666/ hour each. That seems incredibly high as a minimum given the current economic climate.

I do understand there are huge liability implications and any insurance in the good old USA is not cheap but if you compare the return against say a $750K machining centre, it look even more outrageous.

Anyone who is trying to "protect" a $666/hour charge out rate is in for a hard time and deservedly so IMO.
 

ajack-

I think you are looking at this the wrong way.

There are a few things that an engineer can do by himself in an hour or less. Retrofitting a joist for an added MEP load comes to mind. At my company, for example, we have developed some spreadsheets that make this relatively straightforward and can easily be completed in an hour.

The 500 dollar minimum charge can be broken down roughly as $100 for engineering/drafting for one hour and a $400 dollars additional for the added liability.

If a job would take 3 hours, then we would still charge $500 and the surcharge would be on the order of $200. Once you get into larger projects, the liability is essentially worked into the projected hourly rate; i.e., the $100 / hr billing rate already incorporates liability, but it doesn't make any economic sense at fewer than 5 hours.

Is liability not covered by insurance?

If they are doing something illegal, the problem is easily solved.

If they doing jobs so cheaply that that they don't cover their insurance premiums/profit, the problem goes away fairly promptly.

If the job is being done in accordance with the law and profitably, then as far as I can see the only option is to start lobbying for a change in the law to make whatever aspect of their business that makes the job so cheap illegal.  If the business model is currently legal but undermines safety, it should be an easy sell.  If it's legal and safe but "too cheap", that may be more of a problem.

Matt

Sorry frv I am still at a loss with what you are saying, but as I said I am not American or a structural engineer.

Surely if you can do a job within an hour and charge $100 for it how is that any different to doing a five hour job for $500, to keep it simple if you work a ten hour day you make $1K?

Professional indemnity insurance, admittedly in the UK and not for structural engineering, is based on turn over so that does not alter the cost. Surely simple bread and butter work actually carries less likelihood of mistakes being made?

If someone has developed a way of doing things very efficiently and can make the same money as the "industry standard" and is not breaking any laws why would anyone want to stop them apart from protecting their own interests?
 

Gmcd:  My comment to FVR was with regards to unethical technical work. If you feel that the work cannot possibly be done correctly for the amount someone is charging, then take them to task.

For my opinion on those able/willing to do the job for less, see my first post.  I would just add that there are many legitimate reasons why someone might charge what may seem very low for a job- it's been done before in the same way many times before, it's limited in scope to one aspect of the actual job, as a flyer to help gain future business, the process has been made highly automated, or a combination of the above.

If there is something wrong with the actual work, you got something.  Otherwise, aren't we just talking sour grapes?  Why should someone turn down work if they can do it for less to ensure you feel you get what you feel you are entitled.

SAITAETGrad:  Yes, I DO know that the work that the low-ballers perform is not meeting standard based on direct observation (and have been part of the initiation of discipline proceedings), where the design and execution work does not comply with the Building Code Requirements and legal obligations of the local Engineering act. Some of these folks are being weeded out by the Association's Practice Review Process, but Practice Reviews take money and time, and only a fraction of the consulting engineers are being reviewed every year, and no one wants our Association fees to go up, so there is limited funding for the Practice Reviews and enforcement.

In the Building Engineering Consulting industry there are a myriad of Building Code Requirements and minimum basic standards that have to be complied with, and unfortunately, the Building Code Officials are not catching much of it (they are trying to avoid liability these days by not even doing building inspections, and relying on the Consulting Engineer to comply with the Letter of Assurance requirements), so the low-ballers' calculations, Code Compliance checks, and design reviews are not done to any reasonable industry standard.  As a result of the lack of compliance and enforcement, it leads to buildings that don't meet the minimum energy standards, minimum operational and maintainability standards, and long term health issues (mold, legionalla risk, poor indoor air air quality, high operation costs, low building and equipment life expectancy, etc.).  

On the other hand - I agree with you that if there are other consultants, developers, and the Public that want things done cheaper and faster, they will get what they pay for, and I won't have any sympathy for the owners of the leaky condos that deteriorate within 10 years of initial construction, requiring tens of thousands of dollars per suite to rectify.  The problem with a lot of the poor building design and engineering practices in the buildings industry is that a lot of the problems don't show up until years later, with substantial costs to fix, and increasing risks to health and safety.
 

GMcD, you have hit on something there.  More money for proper oversight.  Amazing how much people are willing to pay for insurance when the insurance rates are directly correlated to payouts for failures due to negligence.  Maybe more money for enforcement means more money in the pockets of efficient and ethical engineers at the end of the day.

a few misconceptions here:

1. it is entirely possible to get sued without doing anything wrong if it is percieved that you should have done more.
2. For small jobs, the calculationns are often a very small part of the job. Talking to clients and formulating the problem usually takes much more time.

 

Consulting structural engineering is called "consulting" because it is a service business with all kinds of soft value added services. All the Indians can do is a raw calculation and drawing, which is different to actually being accessible to your client on the same time zone in the same language to deal with real world issues. Some of the big things you as a local can do are:
- Site visits
- Procurement support (do you know any local contractors?)
- Coordination with adjacent trades
- Attend meetings in person.

You only have to find one coordination issue that saves a day of construction time to justify your fee going from $100 to $3000. How much do communication problems cost your clients? We should all be emphasizing this to our clients.

You must always compete with shoddy competitors and the customers stupid enough to use them.  You have to make the argument when possible to the client that these guys are not only a waste of the money at the present but a waste of money in future sales losses or lawsuits from structural failures.  Put the fear of God in them, but also know you will need to back it up.  Find out who your competing bidders are (ask unless bidding needs to be confidential in which case I don't know what to tell you).  Find complaints that can be authenticated and share them with the prospective client.

Kalen Smith
Engineer-a-Business
http://www.engineer-a-business.com

Become the prime and hire the Architect as your consultant.  It is easier than you think.  Why should SE's be second fiddle to the Architect?  You bring enough work to Architects and you are good at SE then they will all want to work with you.  Think about it, how many of your competitors bring work to the table?  Do any?  Ask the Architects?  Become the first in your area and watch your business grow.  Don't just wait for them to bring you work, put some skin in the game and bring it to them.      

BRGENG -I totally agree! A practical example of engineers bringing in work is on design competitions with architects - Good creative engineering concepts can be the difference between winning and losing.

More broadly though, I think a more proactive approach in general is the right answer. Engineers should take ownership of the construction process. Construction is a part of engineering, not the other way round. Engineers need to think of themselves as leaders who make broad brush decisions and make things happen. If we allow engineers to be reduced to human calculators, we don't have much leverage in any of this.

I have always believed that the great engineers considered enterprenerialism as part of their engineering. Brunnel, Roebling, and Buckminster Fuller were all techno-entrepreneurs.

BRGENG-

If the SE is hired as the prime contract and then hires the architect as a sub, does that put additional responsbilities on the SE?

I'm wondering what additional coordination responsibilities (or other additional responsibilities) this adds, both during design and CA.

StructuralEIT
Yes being prime is more work with coordination etc, but it'd also more control and a better fee.

In infrastructure work, engineers are usually prime.

Yes, that is the definition of being prime. Or you work out the scope of work and responsibilities with your sub and fees. Only you have the contract with owner, so you are holding the bag (of responsibilities and fees).

Rafiq Bulsara
http://www.srengineersct.com

Not to worry the ASCE is helping out. Keeping the cost low by charging so much for the work done for free by members.

It seems from this thread that some structurals are finally waking up to the situation that has prevailed in many other engineering disciplines for a good long while- for decades, in fact.  Structural is in many jurisdictions the ONLY sub-discipline of engineering which gains significant, measurable ECONOMIC benefit from licensure.  Clearly it hurts to see that benefit slipping away!  For we chemical engineers, this is nothing new!

Those who sell design services (man-hours) only are in for a rough ride in the next decade in my opinion.

A licensed professional engineer who seals the work of others accepts the liability for that work.  That liability not only includes financial liability, but also includes the risk of career-terminating professional liability (i.e. the ultimate removal of their license).  There are MANY engineers who feel that this liability is worth accepting in order to earn a living as an engineer, rather than joining the throngs of people with an engineering education who have left the profession for (presumably) greener pastures.  It is a comparatively small step from sealing the work of colleagues, to sealing the work of subcontractors in your own country, to sealing the work of subcontractors in a part of the world where engineering labour costs 1/10th what it does locally.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with hiring or subcontracting non-licensed engineers or even non-engineers to execute work which is considered professional engineering.  Depending on the nature and extent of the work it is possible, though not always easy, for a licensed professional engineer to direct and review that work in such a way that the public safety is protected.  This is done every day and is in fact enshrined in the certificate of authorization process in many jurisdictions like my own.

Where the harm is committed is when the licensed engineer applies their seal WITHOUT carrying out the required review and supervision.  When the engineer is pressured by their employer to take on this professional liability without actually being in responsible control of the work being done, it is their responsibility to say no and to not apply their seal- but how many of us have the guts to do that?

If the work sealed by a professional engineer is below standard such that it puts the public safety at risk, other professional engineers have a duty to report this to their licensure body.  This duty is one of the responsibilities of licensure, and failing to report can also be considered professional misconduct.  We fail in this duty far too often.

I've met plenty of engineers, structurals included, who do not properly consider the effort and methods required to implement their designs.  They do this out of ignorance which arises from never having constructed anything themselves.  I'm afraid that this kind of ignorance is endemic in our profession and knows no national boundaries.  It afflicts both the licensed and unlicensed in my experience.
 

An observation:  

Driving home the other day I passed one of those "budget" automotive brake job places that advertises $99 for most models.  Their advertising is oriented towards convincing the customer that they do only brakes and therefore can offer cheaper prices since they don't have to handle other problems.  They operate on the premise that once they have your brakes apart, they "find" other things to be replaced and often do questionable work that requires subsequent visits to iron out nagging issues with the original work.

About one mile down the road from the budget brake place was another automotive service business, your more traditional one that handles all sorts of issues not just brakes.  Their marquee out front had those simple plastic letters used to spell out whatever message is important to them this week.  The message this week was equally simple, "We fix $99 brake jobs."

Now there is nothing objective to prove that the $99 brake job will always be of poor quality.  There is also nothing to say that the full service station is any more competent or trustworthy with your car.  There is however evidence that a consumer, me, notices when you take on your low price competitor in the public arena.

How does this relate to the discussion spurred on by the OP's observation?

Questionable business practices will never go away, there is simply too much opportunity for easy money to be made.  As long as the law is not broken then you are left with only two alternative sources of recourse: Professional Associations and the Consumer.

Firstly have you looked at the design of these "budget" barns closely?  Is there anything there that is not up to standards or best practices?  Is there something provable that is being approved that is inferior or improper?  If the product being offered is not of poor quality and there is nothing definitely wrong the drawings being stamped then the customer is getting value for their money.  If the EoR stamps the drawings after 10 minutes of review and considers that sufficient time spent to declare them "proper" then perhaps he is right, after all his stamp is used so problems come back to him.

Moltenmetal has a good point, the 80% of engineers who operate under industry exemption have been facing similar problems for decades.  They have to compete against anyone and everyone, regardless of degree with only the law and the consumer to decide the winner.  It is very common to be competing against foreign firms with no "engineers" on staff .  If the product is not faulty, laced with lead paint or similarly defective and performs to the satisfaction of the consumer without breaking any laws then domestic engineers have a problem.  The domestic companies should be mounting campaigns using their engineers to take apart the competition's products piece by piece to "prove" to the consumer how they are inferior.

One thing I think some American engineers suffer from is cloudy judgement due to ego.  They, and the professional societies representing them, stand behind licensing and ever increasing degree requirements or certification with the idea that it raises them above other "lesser" people in the wide world of manufacturing and design.  The thing they all seem to forget is something taught in basic Industrial Engineering, Economics and Business Management classes: the customer decides what has value and what does not by virtue of their wallet.  This is a basic tenet of Lean Manufacturing that so many people in our profession have been exposed to but have not seemed to grasp the concept of.  Just because you are going to use FEA, teams of MIT grads, and a supercomputer to analyze that pole barn structure, car transmission or widget doesn't add any value to the end product if the consumer isn't willing to pay more for it.  The consumer may be ignorant about factors of safety, long term quality and robust design but that doesn't make them any less in charge of what is value and what isn't.  Each company has to decide whether they want to pay to educate their customers or simply cater to the smaller population of educated consumers who respect the reasons why the domestic product is superior.

This is why Professional Engineering Societies and companies should spend more time educating the public about why their members are producing better, safer, shinier, whatever products than some 2nd or 3rd world competitor.  Instead it seems they spend their time polishing their own lapel pin, reflecting on how superior they are and lamenting on the dumbing down of their profession.  If there are safety issues, find them and show the consumer or legislators. If there are horrid labor conditions then pay advertisers to put them on TV in front of the consumer.  If performance or long term quality is significantly different then get independent testing labs set up to measure and document it.  Trying to get things written into laws is not enough because these low quality competitors will always be able to find domestic people to help them circumvent the intent of the law while satisfying its letter.

In short if there is a REAL problem with something that is blowing your economic model out of the water then use your superior knowledge and ability to find it, analyze it and exploit it for your own gain.  If your job is not valued by customers enough to be paid for then you had best get busy making it valuable to them or finding something else to do because the global market isn't going to get any easier.

/rant mode off

http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregtirevold

MM makes the point in another thread. If you are using low cost drafting services, and then reviewing the results and doing the engineering, then in fact the ENGINEERING fees may not change, you are able to offer a cheaper or more profitable product (an engineered design) to your customer, so you should win business and maintain or increase your income. Admittedly this is a race to the bottom since ultimately everyne will copy the business model.

The difficulty comes when low cost ENGINEERING services are available. In which case the simple argumant is that historically high cost, high quality, engineers have been able to grow their businesses even in a global market. So why can't you?
 

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies  http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

moltenmetal,

Here in the UK the structural engineers are required by law to consider the construction method and minimise construction risks.

Still some below par designs though.