We are always fighting it, but it is tough when the architects who hire us start undercutting one another.

I'm sure it is happening a lot in the US, however, in live in a region that has been mildly affected by the recession, so it hasn't been too prevalent for me personally.  

I'm not involved in the proposal process at my job, but the impression I get is that architects for the most part come to us intending to use us as their structural engineer for a certain job and we negotiable a few with them.  Obviously, this is desirable.   

It seems this is at least partly due to organizations like ASCE that have very restrictive advertising policies in their ethical cannons.  In turn I believe most engineers are overly conservative with their advertising.  

Few home/property owners would go directly to a structural engineer because you never hear from us.  And anything you do hear from us is typically "us" focused rather then client/property owner focused.

Most lay people do not even know what we do.  

 

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

Its not just structural engineering - this has been the situation here in western Canada for the last 2 decades and it is getting worse.  Locally, some consultants are being bought up by larger corporations, which then spawns what I call the "corporate refugees" in the form of the senior level Engineers and Techs who promptly go out and form their own small startup company, and compete for the same building services work that all the other small start-ups are grasping for, with the inevitable result that the consulting fees are getting lower and lower, yet the amount of expected and required work to design and build a project is increasing exponentially with the electronic age and the ever increasing Client demands for "perfection" in a fast-tracked design-build and sequentially tendered project delivery process.  

Our industry here is based on fixed engineering fees for unknown open ended amounts of work.  How professional is that?  The normal market practice here is to provide fixed fees for building services design, yet we are continually exposed to a large amount of scope creep with the number of design and drawing changes caused by inexperienced architects as well as third parties to the project who create more work (LEED Consultants, Building Inspectors, Contractors substituting specified equipment and systems then expect the consultant to solve the resulting problems...)

It's a death spiral - low fees equal less remuneration to staff, equals less people to attract into the industry, equals less expertise and ability to do any designs other than "drafting service" level performance to meet Building Code minimum requirements.   Quality and Innovation requires intelligent well paid staff with the time to perform the innovative designs, and they aren't coming into this industry due to the low fees and sweatshop expectations that many Architects and Clients seem to expect.

While the odd panic to get some documents completed and meet a deadline is one thing, it gets a little tedious when it becomes the expected norm.  I had one client tell me that a large document (200 pages of specs and drawings) was going to be uploaded to the FTP site by Friday morning, and could he please have my review responses by Sunday at 5:00PM to allow him to meet with the main Client on Monday morning.  

And this goes on all the time in the age of instant communication, and the ease with which one can transfer drawings and documents around through the internet.  This same instant gratification syndrome is also creating enormous document control issues, as well as the lack of drawing and design management by Architects who keep making changes right up to, and past tender dates, and issued for contruction dates, requiring a huge amount of time for us building services types to re-coordinate and revise all our drawings to allow the Contractor to actually build the thing.  Can you say "RFI" and "Change Request"?

Working for Architects as Clients takes a full time effort to insure they can manage the project design process, and then get yourself paid - the common refrain is they will only pay the consultants after the Client pays them...usually resulting in anywhere from 3-4 months of unpaid invoices on an on-going basis.  Basically I've learned that consultants are expected to finance the Client's project for them, be his construction manager (I haven't met many "construction managment companies" that actually does that very well), and our reward is the pride to assist the Client get his LEED plaque, or other building award, and maybe get paid for a fraction of all the extra time that was put into getting the project done.

Quote:

It seems this is at least partly due to organizations like ASCE that have very restrictive advertising policies in their ethical cannons.  In turn I believe most engineers are overly conservative with their advertising.  

Few home/property owners would go directly to a structural engineer because you never hear from us.  And anything you do hear from us is typically "us" focused rather then client/property owner focused.

Most lay people do not even know what we do.

Interestingly enough, I just recently saw, for first time ever, a public advertisement from a structural engineer... on a street bench in heart of the inner city.  

I had to chuckle because my initial reaction was that it was in bad taste, but at least it was helping with public awareness of our profession.  Also, I ended up looking up the guy's website and his main service was to provide drawings and be the primary consultant for homebuilders who want to be their own general contractor.  So, it then made sense to me that he would need to attract public clients.

Most structural engineers don't advertise because they don't need to. If you can stay busy with private clients (i.e. architects), why bother?  Also, it seems to me that the more public clients you take on, the more your services will become a commodity.

  

In Australia, the Association of Consulting Engineers Australia had a recommended fee scale.  It was a tad high, so most engineers used it as a guide but discounted it based on their need for work.  Along came the competition bureaucrats who outlawed the recommended scale.  So now instead of what I regarded as a bit of healthy collusion, we have folks bidding jobs, one providing apples and one oranges.  I never have figured out why the same collusion prohibition doesn't apply to the medical cartel, which still has its recommended fees.

People shouldnt buy coffee based purely on price, let alone something as complex and diverse as engineering consultancy.

csd72 - Unfortunately most people, including developers of buildings and the beaurocrats, have no idea what the building design community actually does, and therefore treats all building design engineers as a commodity because we all have to supposedly adhere to the same Engineering Act, Code of Ethics, and the library full of Building Codes that are supposed to be applied in building design.  

I've had problems where the Building Inspectors don't have enough knowledge to interpret or enforce the Codes, so while Building Codes are increased and tightened up, it's all just words and paper if there is no enforcement.  In our area, with most Building Departments happy to take your money for a Building Permit, they are doing less and less inspections and enforcement due to their lawyers and insurance agents telling them to avoid liability.  We've already seen one local Municipality sued and found liable where they did the building inpections, and the building turned out to have major issues that needed a ton of $$ to correct, and the building owners went after all the deep pockets - architect, engineers, and the Municipality.

Sounds similar to the situation where I am.  As far as I know, the City doesn't even have a Building Official as such any more, and the inspectors don't inspect.  They leave it all to "private certifiers", thus the City avoids liability when something goes wrong.