Institution Forums

An ethical issue

I noticed the following on the Yell.com site:

“Tips for finding a qualified structural engineer
Picking a structural engineer is not as difficult as you might think. More important than anything else is membership of either the ISE or ICE.
As with choosing the services of any professional, recommendations can be priceless, so ask around with family and friends.
Shopping around for at least three written quotes is always a good idea, as is seeking out references for past work.”

This advice implies that we should compete on price. This is not altogether surprising: we operate in a culture that expects us to compete on price, & where the idea of trust between the client & their agent has been sidelined. As for references, who is competent to assess our work?

However, structural design or structural assessments are not ends in themselves; rather, they are the means to an end. We can carry out design or assessments efficiently in terms of our costs by spending a minimum amount of time on our work. In the case of design, this would result in heavy structural members, inefficient use of labour on site, & a lack of consideration of, for instance, serviceability, durability, aesthetic, & sustainability issues. In the case of assessments, this would result in condemnation of structures, or expensive remedial works, that with more time spent on assessment would not be needed. Obviously, none of this would be in our clients’ best interests.

Concerns have been raised in The Structural Engineer recently over trends in declining quality in construction. The Yellow pages advice seems to be promoting a culture that encourages poor quality in construction, and also works against the client’s various interests in the project, such as overall costs, aesthetics, etc.

This seems to me to be an ethical issue that the IStructE, ICE, (& RICS, & RIBA too), should be taking an interest in.

RE: An ethical issue

I agree Richard, low fees resulting in the over design of members and inefficient construction methods only serve to diminish the professionalism of the structural engineer. We should be encouraging clients to appoint us so we can save them money, not because they feel obliged to appoint an engineer.

RE: An ethical issue

The issue of building construction standards and the standard of structural design especially with regard to "designing with economy", and how that is influenced by fee levels I think is a big issue? However, can it be dicussed here in a forum run by a learned society?

If anybody from IStructE HQ sees this, could we have guidlines for discussing this subject without falling foul of the Institutions charter or for that matter the Office of Fair Trading.

I agree with Kieran Coyle. Although I do get clients who come to me because they see me as saving them money by producing efficient designs, it is the exception rather than the rule. Most cleints see the appointment of a structural engineer as bad news as they associate us with extra costs, both in terms of fees and additional construction costs.

RE: An ethical issue

Is there a bit of hypocrisy here? Do you shop around for services? If so why shouldnt others?

If asked to provide a fee, you have an opportunity to convince that you are the right person of the job. The offer should show more than fee.

Typically, I price tha job for what I am prepared to do it for. If someone undercuts this, then that is up to them. If they do not perform, then there are mechanisms for dealing with that too.

Given that the Yell advice is targetting householders, I do not think the "over-design" is going to be a big cost problem. Also, as a lot of designers seem to underestimate the ability of masonry to crack, I do not mind an overdesigned beam in this scenario!

RE: An ethical issue

Yell is making people aware that they ought to:
1) make sure their engineer is professionally qualified;
2) get references;
3) get quotes;
This is no different to anything that happens during a tendering process for any size job.

Also as JB says it's what most people do when they buy anything - If I was buying a digital camera, I'd ask friends for opinions, and look for different prices in different shops. I'd also make an effort to educate myself for what I was getting/looking to ask for - if I'm doing this for something small like a camera, I'd hope most peope did this when approaching engineers to work on their houses!

Assuming that you're doing design it doesn't take any more effort to design a large (over-designed) member than it does a smaller, more efficient one - unless you're happy just to 'eye-it-in', so I don't see why that should be a problem anyway.

Surely what we ought to be trying to do is educating people about what they are appointing an engineer to do, and what they ought to be asking for, which is where the ISE ought to be leading/representing it's members.

RE: An ethical issue

JB and DB, there is no hypocrisy here. There is a fundamental difference in providing a service that is an end in itself, & one that is to help the client achieve an end.

My main point is that building design services are not an end in themselves, & should not be treated as such by clients. Any designer can cut their costs by cutting corners to win a job.

When I used to check Building Regulations applications, I saw some designs that were adequate for safety, but which were obviously going to be expensive to build. I am sure that other checking engineers have similar experiences.

Taking more care on assessing loads can result in considerable savings. For instance, I recently had cause to assess the load on a beam that had been designed by another engineer. My evaluation came out at 75%. This wouldn't save much on the steelwork cost, but it had another major benefit. I was able to use the existing footings, instead of having to upgrade them. My client was delighted.

But it's not just designing a member that I'm concerned about. There are issues such as taking the time to investigate the best way of achieving a suitable structure, sorting out problems at the design stage rather than leaving it to the people on site, providing good working drawings, and checking that the structural details work with other construction constraints.

We are stuck with competitive tendering because the Office of Fair Trading has ruled on this. I think, from what I've read, that the people making this decision were not aware of the fact that the service that building designer's supply is not an end in itself. From what I see, this regime is not serving the public well. Practices working in the design professions all seem to be under-funded by fee earnings, as a result of competitive tendering having set the benchmarks low. Practitioners mostly want to do a good job, but often there is insufficient time allocated, because all but the simplest job throws up unexpected problems.

I think that this issue is something that the building design professions could tackle by making the public aware of the consequences of not properly funding design. I know that some in the architectural profession are concerned about the effects of competitive tending on quality in construction

RE: An ethical issue

Often the ethical issue that I get faced with, with regards to fees is some prospective clients will ask me to design a few beams and while looking at the job with the prospective client, I see other structural issues which need to be addressed. When I point this out, often the answer is something like, "oh never mind that, Building Control has not queried that and I only want you to design the beams". In fact for me it is not an ethical issue as after explaining what I do as a structural engineer and after getting nowhere, I poliely say perhaps I am do not provide the service the prospective client is looking for or words to that effect. Yes, I get annoyed that the client probably goes to an unqualified person doing "homers" to earn a little extra pocket money, and the rate-payer picks up the costs in extra checking fees required by Building Control, but there is nothing I can do about that.

On the other hand, some other prospective clients will say, something like "oh in that case I am glad I came to you as I would like the thing done properly" and I take on the job.

We can offer a service and expalin exactly what that service is, but we cannot force a client to accept our offer.

RE: An ethical issue

Of course it's true that good engineering can save construction costs, but I can't see that Yell.com's advice is inappropriate. There certainly isn't the implication that price should be the only criterion for selection.

If anyone can improve on Yell.com's general advice without increasing the word count, please share.

RE: An ethical issue

"JB and DB, there is no hypocrisy here. There is a fundamental difference in providing a service that is an end in itself, & one that is to help the client achieve an end."

I agree. The problem (I think) is that most clients don't know what they want apart from a finished job and don't really know where to go for advice. If the BCO asks for for certain things to prove their extension or whatever is Ok, then as far as their concerned that's all they have to do. We are employed designers/consultants - turning up to site and saying that X, Y and Z also needs looking is, I guess, more likely to resemble a plumber turning up to fix the tap and going 'oh, errr... I 'll need to do that too while I'm here and... and... and... and it'll all cost lots more I'm afraid.'

I guess what I'm getting to is that the title 'Building Control Officer', combined with being the person who approves work is likely to sound much grander/important to most clients than 'structural engineer', and is in the absence of any other information, going to be who the client assumes is the knowledgable authority on the work and will thus ask for everything that they (the client) might need/want.

Again I come back to the idea that clients need to be educated - they need to know what they want, what they need, where to go, and what to ask.

The question surely is: "How can we educate clients?"

(After all, if we can educate them about that then they might begin to understand what we actually do...)

RE: An ethical issue

"How to educate clients?" Excellent question!
How come public be educated if IStructe doesnot even participate in ecobuild or similar seminars every year while RIBA and RICS are educating the public without mentioning the word 'structural engineer'?

RE: An ethical issue

DB, I think that quite often on small jobs like knock-throughs, the builder is the client's first contact. And the builder says to the client, "You'll need an 8" RSJ there. You'll have to get an engineer to do the calculations for Building Regs". I get the impression that clients often think we are nothing more than an overhead, increasing their costs, just to get approvals.

These little projects sometimes get more complicated when the supporting masonry is between windows or doors. Then you get into questions of whether or not a steel post within the wall thickness is warranted to open things up so that the kitchen units can run past, uninterrupted.

This sort of situation is where the client does not really benefit from an engineer doing the quickest design. For instance, I recently had a project where, once I had drawn the layout, it was obvious that a steel beam under the floor would look awful, even with a bulkhead to cover part of it. I gave the client an alternative design for a hidden beam, with working details, so that builders could quote for both cases & the client could decide if losing sight of the beam was worth the cost of the extra labour on site. I could have not bothered, and got a better hourly rate.

RE: An ethical issue

On ‘Restoration Man’ recently, (dealing with a barn conversion), the client said, “You’ve got to keep the Building Inspector and the Structural Engineer happy”.

No! No! No! Her role is not to keep the Structural Engineer happy. She should have employed a Structural Engineer to, amongst other things, ensure the safety of the building, design for economical construction in terms of material and labour costs, address issues of functionality and aesthetics, etc. In other words, she should have employed a Structural Engineer to keep the Building Inspector happy, and to keep herself happy by getting good quality, economical construction.

This client’s lack of understanding of the Structural Engineer’s role is, in my experience, quite typical. They have absolutely no concept of the science and art of structural engineering, and often seem to think that we are just an overhead necessary for granting approvals. In that context, competitive tendering would appear to them be appropriate.

Are some engineers responding to this situation by providing quick and poorly conceived designs to go with the low fees? As wage earners, we have a duty to our families to provide well for them, and why shouldn’t that trump any duty to a client who seeks to employ us on inappropriate terms?

Although I no longer check Building Regulations applications, I have recently seen some schemes that were doing the client no favours. In one case, in a domestic loft conversion, the engineer had designed a beam that literally weighed one tonne. It was enormous, and looked totally inappropriate. I checked to see what size beam I would get, using the same loading, and worked out it would have been 600 kg. This would have been cheaper, easier to install, and less visually intrusive.

Of course, this is merely anecdotal, but I suspect that it is symptomatic of a trend that is adversely affecting the quality of construction. For instance, the concept of structural engineering being a vocation might be stronger for one generation of engineers than for another. The I Struct E Code of Practice is at odds with a competitive tendering regime so long as practitioners take different, but perhaps equally valid, ethical stances.

RE: An ethical issue

Richard, regretably this is a sign of the times we live in. With competitive tendering Structural Engineers have been reduced to mere number crunchers with the cheapest fee proposal securing the job.

I have now seen 'Structural Engineers' offering Building Regs calculations online where a client anywhere in the country (or world for that matter) can shop and pick calculations for various stuctural elements, add to basket, checkout and pay by paypal or credit card.

No site visits required even for work like loft conversions, knock throughs etc.

And individuals without the basic of structural mechanics knowledge can download software, enter numbers and printout calculations for submission.

Scary...

RE: An ethical issue

Mike M

Yes it is scary. But maybe we should take note of it and look at the ways we are doing things as well.

I noticed that recently my PII insurance company (probably the oldest and most respected one used by the profession) has changed to doing nearly all their business online - they do not even ask you to sign anything anymore.

JI

RE: An ethical issue

John, I am all for progress and agree with you that as a profession we should move in line with the times.

However I also believe that there are certain aspects of our services that can not be dispensed of remotely esp and including the two examples of working on an existing structure that I mentioned earlier. Without a site visit to carry out a structural assesment and dimensional survey how can one be certain of the accuracy of load paths and transfer arrangements. Put faith and trust in the information supplied by the client or their builder?

RE: An ethical issue

This example quoted above seems to show that the consultants in question, and their clients, are operating without having established a relationship formed on trust. Their relationship appears to be based solely upon the consultant performing the design function efficiently, and quoting a cheap price for their service. There appears to be no consideration given to meeting the client’s needs, (i.e. achieving economy in materials & site labour, resolving serviceability, aesthetics, and durability issues, etc.), other than obtaining Building Regulations approval. Clients, in my experience, are ignorant of the need for establishing a relationship of trust with their consultants, because they do not understand our role in the construction process.

As Francis Bacon noted, "the greatest trust between man and man is the trust of giving counsel". When a client draws on expert help they ultimately have to judge for themselves where to place their trust. To do this they need to find trustworthy information. But how can anyone tell whether a service will live up to its billing? In our business activities, we all need to place our trust in some strangers and some institutions, and to refuse it to others. How can we tell whether and when we are on the receiving end of hype and spin, of misinformation and disinformation?

Francis Fukuyama, in his book, “Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity”, has detailed the role of trust within different societies, and makes a convincing case for how a relative lack of trust by individuals in some societies has resulted in adverse economic consequences for them. What enables human societies to flourish is not suspicion, deconstruction, and self-interest, but just the opposite: it is trust, a social virtue, formed in certain kinds of relationships. This leads to the formation of ‘social capital’.

Those holding public office in the UK are required to conform to the seven 'Nolan' principles. These principles demand selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Their common core (leadership, perhaps, apart) is a demand for trustworthiness in public life. I think that much the same should apply to our relationship with our clients. I am not alone in thinking this, which is why the Institution of Structural Engineers has a Code of Conduct that requires, ‘Members of the Institution in their responsibility to the profession shall have full regard to the public interest’.

Obviously, selection of design consultants by competitive tendering for the cheapest fee is inimical to our Code of Conduct, or to our ability to dispense our duty of care where clients are treated in a properly ethical manner. I believe that competitive tendering for the cheapest fee often leads to a poor economic outcome for the client because of increased costs on site, often without adequately resolving serviceability, aesthetics, durability issues, etc. The extent to which some engineers do address these issues is reliant upon their goodwill, or sense of vocation, as opposed to their taking a commercial stance.

As I see it, the question that should be addressed by the design professions is this; To achieve quality in construction, how do we educate the public and reintroduce a basis of trust between client and consultant? As I indicated above, this is not easily achieved, and of course, it may be the case that we, as a society, are now too far down the road of abandoning the social capital of trust.

RE: An ethical issue

As far as I see it, I'm yet to be convinced that clients are ever going to be interested in structural engineering, structural integrity or the processes that are involved with justifying our designs. I'm also not convinced in some cases that they are actually interested in best practice techniques to ensure safe construction - and I say that of a large percentage of clients from small domestic clients to the major developers.

In recent years it has become my opinion that architects are promoting schemes before realising the structural implications of what has to be done - and your local builder doesn't think beyond installing a lintel when it comes to advising domestic clients of taking out a wall.

What we need to do is insist to RIBA/CIOB that architects and builders are not qualified to give preliminary advice on structural issues, and this should be sought at the outset by IStructE/MICE qualified persons to give a better understanding of the practicalities and costs associated with developments proposals.

We do actually provide a role that assists clients/builders/architects achieving their designs but it is not seen that way because all too often we are asked to give advise too late in the process. In a large number of cases our advice contradicts preliminary advice/assumptions made by a builder or architect who has over simplified the situation.

This leads to us being seen as an unfortunate and necessary evil that eats into preliminary budgets. If any one watches Grand Designs it demonstrates my point week in week out.

We need to change the mind-set.

RE: An ethical issue

Phil, I was not suggesting that the public should be educated about structural engineering. That wouldn’t be feasible, 99% of the time.

I meant that the public should be educated about an appropriate means of selecting a consultant. If a consultant is expected to compete on price alone, as a lump sum bid, this implies that the consultant should maximize his efficiency. That means doing the work in the shortest possible time. And that means cutting corners, by simplifying loading assessment & over-designing members, & by not sorting out serviceability, functionality, aesthetic, durability, etc. issues. It also means not investigating alternative ways of achieving structural stability, to find the one that best meets the conflicting requirements of strength, economy, etc. The result is poor quality construction.

Such an approach is in conflict with our Code of Conduct that requires we give full regard to the public interest, & properly discharge our duty of care.

As an analogy, imagine that you want to buy artworks for your home, & you don’t have the time or resources to select them yourself. You approach several consultants to select one of them for this project. You would specify how much money was available, & what your taste in art is. Would you then give the job to the consultant who offered the cheapest fee? Well, if you had nothing else to go on, you might do that. And you’d wonder if you’d done the right thing. (This isn’t really a very good analogy, but I can’t think of anything, that isn’t overly contrived, that’s better.)

Anyway, I think it’s obvious that the missing ingredient in the above scenario is trust. You would really want to retain a consultant that you could trust to achieve an outcome close to what you wanted, even if it meant spending more on the consultancy fee, which, after all, is just a few percent of your total outlay. And so it should be with architectural & structural design consultants.

If a culture of trust were to be achieved, that would also help resolve the situation you identify where we are brought in too late.

The question is, how to achieve a culture of trust?

RE: An ethical issue

Hi Richard – my post wasn’t particularly referring to yours, and I mainly picked up on the thread and added my thoughts for what they’re worth. I think in general terms I agree with what you’re saying but your artwork analogy enhances my point I think.

If I did employ a consultant to advise me on appropriate artwork to suit my tastes, then yes I would look at value for money from that consultant and decide whether I felt I could trust his advice more than the next consultant who might be a little cheaper. But when it comes to whether this artwork can hang from a ceiling in my gallery (not that I have one) I wouldn’t expect him to give advice because he has a basic understanding of a subject outside of his field, and generalise that it will be OK. I’d expect him to tell me I needed to seek and pay for that advice from a qualified person, and not expect him play down the importance of that advice in the process.

I may be generalising too here, but in a large number of cases that’s what happens when the client is only thinking about the end product – ie the artwork hanging from the ceiling. He is not concerned with how it is managing to stay up there just as long as it doesn’t come crashing down. In many cases it is left up to the first point of contact (in our case the architect/builder) to say that this further advice is needed and it comes as a disappointing blow that more fees are having to be incurred. The client, particularly on a domestic scale, is probably expecting the whole package to be dealt with by the architect/ builder for the price quoted, which usually won’t include our services or fees.

I agree it’s not about educating the public about the specifics of structural engineering, but maybe that an architect & builder have limitations to their expertise and cannot/should not generalise on how to make their designs structurally safe. Again I refer to Grand Designs and you only see an engineer on that programme when the builder messes up or the client is having to reassess proposals because of a failure to employ the correct advice. Even then we are criticised for applying professionalism because it isn’t what the client wants to hear.

I’m afraid that might have come across as a rant, but I am slightly disappointed by a frequent expectation to compromise on structural integrity because of a general reluctance to accept advice, or because it doesn’t get included for properly in budgets.

Thanks

RE: An ethical issue

Following on from the comments about the internet sites offering structural ‘consultancy services’, last week I was called out to a site by an architect. The building was a grade 2 Listed Building house. The proposed work was mostly repairs, plus a lintel over a proposed 1.2 m wide opening in a wall, this requiring Building Regulations approval. A builder had already priced the work. Apparently, the client had been reluctant to employ an engineer, & the architect had also been brought in late.

As a result of my suggestions, the architect told me that I had saved the client £8000. I doubt that it will be quite that much, because there will be some additional rafters, but they can be used to increase the insulation in the roof anyway. Had the client gone to an internet site for the calculations for the lintel, the client would not have benefited from my advice.

RE: An ethical issue

..........which demonstrates the rare occasion where a client's reluctance to employ the appropriate advice works in his (and our) favour. I believe, Richard, you will have gained the client's trust !

RE: An ethical issue

Phil, there are different kinds of trust, such as trust in one's integrity, & trust in one's competence.

I think that we need to work with other design professionals to change the public attitude that we should compete on price, on the grounds that this competition adversely affects quality of design & therefore quality of construction. (Last week I was called out to a job where a C Eng had designed something that was completely impractical, & the contractor was very scathing about the engineer, & had given up on him.)

I think that this can only be done by the professional bodies, promoting to the public the role of trust that the public can have in their members. (This does seem to contradict what I said above about the engineer who did the completely impractical design. Unfortunately, I see evidence from time to time that there are engineers who just don't care. That has to be worked on.)

RE: An ethical issue

Richard

May I ask, what did the CEng who "had designed something that was completely impractical" say when you spoke to him to get his permission to comment on his project?

Did he defend his design and give reasons for what to you looked completely impractical? Often a design carried out by one engineer looks incomprehesable to another until it is explained.

John

RE: An ethical issue

John,
i'm not sure one engineer needs another's permission to comment on his work, although i do believe the 2nd engineer has a duty to ensure the first is fully paid up and no longer involved in the job.

There is more than one solution to any problem, and any good engineer, chartered or otherwise should have the wherewithall when reviewing anothers work to say something along the lines of "not what i'd have done, but it'll work.

If however the design is incomprehesible to another, lets assume, equally experienced engineer, then what chance has a lay-client or builder got of interpreting it?

A run of the mill design shouldn't need explaining, and if an engineer has provide such scant detail that it does, then that is the kind of engineer this thread is aimed at; the ones who take the "i'll charge £200 as that'll be cheaper than the rest and they can sort it out on site, it wont be my problem."

RE: An ethical issue

John & Andrew,

The builder showed me the other engineer's drawing & calcs. He told me that this person did not return calls & was difficult to contact. I think that the builder gave up on him, because he needed an engineer to go to site, (which is a listed building).

The builder had already done things different to what the engineer had indicated because of the impracticality of the design. Basically, it was asking for a ridge beam to be inserted into the small roof void of an A-frame roof, of a long, narrow building. This really would have required stripping out the ceilings & collars, as well as knocking holes through solid stone walls with loose rubble infill. I did not actually comment on this, because it was already dealt with, by inserting purlins under the collars. This was obviously a satisfactory solution with enormous cost saving.

I did not contact the other engineer myself. My involvement was to persuade the Conservation Officer that a wall should be taken down for safety reasons, so, as I wasn't commenting on the other engineer's work, I had no reason to contact him.

This was an example of minor works with huge potential cost differences according to how it is designed. The design of a ridge beam would take about the same amount of time as designing the purlins. However, there would be time spent on consulting the architect & client on whether they considered it acceptable to have purlins at the junctions of the flat & sloping ceilings. I think that this latter point is lost on the public, at least until they get into the nitty-gritty of the works. I find that when I get involved with clients over these sorts of discussions, they don't seem to think that they owe me for my time!

RE: An ethical issue

Good afternoon Richard,

we find exactly the same thing; to often the cry "but you were only on site an hour";
yes, but it took 1/2 an hour each way to get there, plus an hour on site?
then an hour talking to your architect, chasing drawings, building control / builder etc,
1/2 admin (min)
plus we then had to do the work we went to look at in the first place, lets say another hour min.
i think most jobs entail a minimum of 3 hours, plus however long it takes to get too and from site.

i'm tempted to do a time and motion study for some of these smaller jobs; i'm sure there are a good many practicing engineers who waive/overlook the overall build up of fee's for this type of work, thus driving down fees for all of us.

RE: An ethical issue

Andrew, very often I let this time go without charging it, but when I do charge for it, after my main invoice has gone in, the clients usually ignore it, & it then gets too time consuming to chase up.

Another situation is where the architect screws up, & the client won't pay my fee. I've got a few of those too.

RE: An ethical issue

Sorry if this is a bit off track but I'd be interested in what people think about the relationship between Engineers and Building control. I always seems to me that we are competing with them and builders can get designs/ beams signed off by BC too easily. I've lost count of the amount of times i've heard "if you do this you wont need a SE" and surely this brings down the overall veiw of Structural Engineers?

RE: An ethical issue

Andy, I sometimes come up against this. Just recently a BCO told the builder he didn't need calcs, after I'd already done them, so the builder's trying to get out of paying me.

But generally, when it's obvious that something is okay, it seems reasonable to me for the BCO to not require calcs, otherwise the client is paying for an unnecessary service, which ain't right.

Of course, the BCO should be qualified to perform this function, & this is difficult to ascertain or specify. But in the real world ......

RE: An ethical issue

I should just add, in the case above, I'd already given the builder a UKB & timber beam alternative, but when opened up, it turned out there was an existing steel box lintel in place, which was obviously strong enough.

RE: An ethical issue

Worth recoginising that the BCO is only looking at strength and stability issues, so even if he doesnt require them, the client may need them for serviceability reasons.

RE: An ethical issue

Mark, that is true in terms of a strict interpretation of the Building Regs. But having worked for a Building Control Department, I do know that they are actually concerned about serviceability issues, especially cracks, because they get hassled by clients who are worried by cracks appearing in their home.

Part of our profession's problem is that clients don't know what they need from us. My experience is that they don't understand that we are not sub-contractors, but rather that we are consultants providing advice on their behalf. The difference being that a contractor can bid for something that is specified, whereas we have to develop a design, and all of the problems cannot necessarily be seen until the design is under way. The cheap design fee merchants don't care & take the attitude, "Let them sort it out on site". They have taken on the role of sub-contractor. And as nothing has been specified for them to work to, (other than a tacit understanding that Building Regs approval is to be obtained), they don't care if the structure is expensive to build or wasteful of materials.

I see the consequences of this attitude fairly regularly, when I get called in to sort things out. And I believe it's these couldn't-care-less people who drive down fees, & cause part of the problem of poor quality in the construction industry.

RE: An ethical issue

One day the lesson will be learned that 3% x £5m = 5% x £3m.

One client who was recently intent on beating down my fees was asked if he would negotiate like that with a surgeon contracted to carry out open heart surgery on him. I followed that up by asking if he would prefer to shop at Primark or John Lewis / Waitrose. The point wasn't entirely lost.

Our standard T & C contains a clause which states that we will not engage in long-winded academic debates with checking Engineers for no charge; this has been in place for 10 years or more and has only once been questioned.

RE: An ethical issue

Andrew, I am finding that clients, more & more now, are asking for a fixed price, and sometimes there is competition on price. I don't know how often that occurs, because I don't like to ask if that's the case, because it could sound as if my fee might be inflated, (i.e. if I knew that there was competition, I might lower my fee).

I recently had a case where my rough guess (drawing unseen) was taken as a fixed price! I think that she was trying it on. It was my own fault for not sending her a fee proposal.

I also recently had a job where the client didn't want me to design anything other than what the BCO had asked for. I did manage to persuade him that it really was a good idea for me to design a beam supporting a wall. (The BCO probably hadn't gotten around to asking for it.)

It seems to me that the public has largely lost the idea of what a consultant is, & they only think in terms of us being sub-contractors. In this societal environment, comparing myself to a surgeon might not go down too well.

RE: An ethical issue

Richard

If we do decide - and it is our decision- to quote on a fixed fee bais, surely we should be charging more, not less than for being engaged on a time plus expenses basis. Basic standard pricing proceedure as far as I know is that we should be adding extra for preparation of the quotation and a factor for time spent on pricing failed bids and also a certain amount for contingency. The certainty of a fixed price quotation is added value to the client and should be charged for.

John Irwin

RE: An ethical issue

John, the problem with this is that some engineers are doing cheap designs. If you are in competition with them, and you are quoting to do a proper job, you can't compete unless you charge a low hourly rate.

I see the results of poor quality design fairly regularly. I've currently got four jobs where the structural design was flawed: very excessive steelwork in one (I'm going to reduce it) that would also be difficult to erect; a ridge beam designed for an a-frame roof (that would've meant taking out the ceilings - in a listed building); a steel post inserted in a blockwork wall designed to support a floor beam when the masonry would easily carry the load; & a roof where the slopes don't line up, leaving a gap (this was the client's fault, trying to save money on consultants). These cock-ups all got Building Regs approval, but did the clients no favours.

The system of selecting structural engineers, at least for domestic jobs, is incompatible with the I Struct E code of conduct, unless we are prepared to work for a fee level that is much lower than other similarly qualified professionals.

RE: An ethical issue

I was looking in Thomson local today and if you look under Structural Engineers it doesn't exist. Structural Engineers ar elisted under building consultants?