MW, that does indeed close the loop and remove the potential safety issue. However that track is not always followed. Many contracts have steel connections as 'contractor design' with loads only given. RC detailing is not often so classified so the loop doesn't get closed. The problem we all know is that some engineers are engaged to design only with no input thereafter. Continuity through the process - what an excellent thought!

"The reason it is contractor's design because he can schedule his works as far it suits him with laps to suit his pours. It is difficult with the designer who does not know his sequence at the start of the project and the contactor start complaining afterwards." There is absolutely nothing to stop any consultant producing a layout for roof trusses, timber kit, steelwork, rebar to floor slabs and beams by assuming a work sequence that is sensible, then allowing a contractor to modify it for his personal sequencing. In fact, the first question any designer should ask is "how will I build this?" the second one is "what does that mean to my design process" The concept that time spent on this is "abortive" is pure nonsense because the "abortive" work is what the rest of the design is based on. looking back on a wall design to see if a proposed roof design by a contractor is okay is a lot more confusing if you havent got a design for the roof that the wall design was based on! In terms of this claim, It is truly non-existant and the OP should never ever have indicated to entertain anything of it. I would even suggest backtracking even now and saying that on reveiw you withdraw any indication of supplying a refund and state the client should never have entertained the contractor's claim either. An error is an error and should be drawn to the designer's attention as soon as practical and with sufficient warning for a response. The action of the contractor was insufficient in warning and there appears to be a massive inflation of cost. I suspect that the contractor was rushing headlong into a pour and ordered concrete before completion of the fixing and perhaps even starting! His error of foolishness trumps the design mathematical scheduling mistake

Commenting on JB's post earlier about a conditions of engagement for small jobs, I agree that this seems to be missing and many sole practioners and smaller consultants would much welcome such a document. Maybe others could correct me, but I think the IStructE does not have a remit to draw up conditions of engagement, as it is a learned society. This would have to be done by such bodies as ACE as far as I can see. If anybody knows of such a document produced by any body, I would be grateful if they could give a reference to it here. Perhaps there are documents produced by other building or surveying institutions or organisations.

Short form agreements for domestic and commercial clients are available (free of charge) from the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand: http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/practicesupport/endorsedinfo/ Obviously these are in a New Zealand context, but they might provide a model.

IStructE does not produce any conditions of engagement. A brief 'clients guide to appointing a structural engineer' is available on our Findanengineer.com website. A new set of ACE agreements were published this year. See http://agreements.acenet.co.uk/aceagreements/40 for details. We have a set of the 2009 agreements for loan in the Library as well as NEC3, ICE contracts etc. We also have items such as Which contract? & Construction contract law: the essentials, plus books on standard letters, dispute resolution etc.