Value in post-design inspection work?

[MyCupboard]

TLDR: Is there value in being contracted by the homeowner (or architect?) to perform one or multiple structural inspections throughout construction to make sure the builders are installing things as specified on the drawings/intended by our design.

I work in a residential structural engineering firm. We specialize in high end custom homes. 95% of our projects focus on performance based design, not code minimum design. Focusing on unique conditions that the architect needs to remain as drawn, and things such as floor vibration, thermal breaks within the steel structures, and other standards we have developed from empirical data after looking at the finished product and how our designs perform long term.

There are good builders out there, and some bad ones. I'm not here to throw anyone under the bus. I find that more often than not - when I go out to site to look at something, I find multiple, unrelated items that weren't installed correctly and may have an adverse affect on the performance of the structure long term. I realize that builders will sometimes argue that "I've been doing this for 40 years and haven't had any problem doing it this way". But our design methods don't focus on getting applied moment to within 5% of the max moment capacity to save a few dollars. We focus on making better decisions regarding deflection criteria, so the homeowner can run on their treadmill while their spouse watches a movie in the home theatre below without being interrupted.

To me (and i'm just a dumb structural engineer), I feel like spending $3k-$5k to make sure everything in the structural design is implemented correctly is well worth it in relation to the $10-$30 million they are spending on the construction of the house. My argument is that sometimes, things will work "good enough" long enough to be someone else's problem. meaning, your drywall might not crack from an improperly installed gable end wall, but in 10 years you might be repairing that crack every single season change when it moves with the temperature and moisture changes and the "good enough" mild connections are no longer "good enough" to prevent that tiny movement from cracking the drywall or plaster.

My motivation is to find a higher end service that we can provide that helps show how we care more about the structure than some of the engineers' who have a business model of "get it in - get it out" (which is arguable a fine model to have as long as it's per code). Also it would scratch the itch that I (and others that i've talked to) have of getting out into the field more often.

I want to hear some professional opinions on this idea, recommendations you have, and things you've heard/experienced that have helped your firm stand out from the "commodity" that homeowners, builders, and some architects think we provide.

 

[BN4537]

I have seen many cases where someone who is an expert that is there to look out for the homeowner would have saved owners a lot of money and damage, not to mention (usually emotional) pain and suffering.

I have inspected thousands residential jobs, and I can tell you that all contractors miss on important things (sometimes major structural issues), just not on every job. Obviously, some are better than others. The impression that people who know what they are doing don't make major mistakes is not correct. That's if you get someone who knows what they are doing.

You have to put the work in to have a better relationship with the owners than the contractor does, otherwise that "been doing it for 40 years" routine will make you the bad guy who doesn't know what he is doing and they will ignore you. Contractors are very good at their own brand of marketing, so you have to outdo them in your ability to impress the owner if you want to be successful. If you aren't an articulate and charismatic kinda guy, you probably want to steer clear.

And, obviously, the liability issue... you have to keep good records and make sure you look good if you ever end up in court.

 

[jhnblgr]

I would not use the word inspection it implies continuous observation. The liability and risk increases. Most people could care less about engineering and focus on architecture. I would avoid it at all costs and only do site visits upon request of the owner or builder.

 

[driftLimiter]

What you are talking about should be referred to as Structural Observation. There is a code basis for that and it is often required by building officials, and EORs for various reasons. (Sensitive occupancy, difficult construction, etc.).

The structural observation does not constitute an inspection. You are there to observe, and in the report you say things like: "I observed rebar placement techniques, and locations that were in general conformance with the design intent."

Don't be fooled (or fool your clients) into thinking that you being on site guarantees anything about the final product.

The building code allows EOR's to require structural observation on their plans, you can simply be up front with a client on a difficult project and tell them during negotiations that you would require Struct Obs and it will add $xxxx to the project cost.

 

[MyCupboard]

What you are talking about should be referred to as Structural Observation. There is a code basis for that and it is often required by building officials, and EORs for various reasons. (Sensitive occupancy, difficult construction, etc.).

understood, in a formal setting i would definitely be more specific and careful with my wording. I do appreciate the heads up, and hope everyone on here is able to understand what i'm talking about. I'm not curious if the terminology is worthwhile, i'm curious if the service itself is worthwhile.

Don't be fooled (or fool your clients) into thinking that you being on site guarantees anything about the final product.

I would like to pose a counter argument for this, unless you are also being specific with the word "guarantee". I DEFINITELY agree that I'm not going to "guarantee" anything. So right there I agree. But I am attempting to present an argument that structural observations are beneficial to the structure's final product/performance/longevity. As a very very basic example - i went out to site and saw that the portal frames were construction completely incorrectly. I'd like to propose that me having them correct the portal frame construction will benefit the performance of that shear wall, and hopefully lead to less drywall cracking/stucco cracking/plaster cracking as a result of the minor movements.

 

[Flotsam7018]

Too many SEs get hung up on the liability of these things and forget the value they have. I agree not using the word inspection is wise, but your involvement will have a net positive on the project and well worth the fee. It also creates an opportunity to keep your design in check, update or improve details that are impractical. I’ve changed many details after having seen them in the field.

High end residential is the most susceptible to missing critical elements of the load path in my experience as you’ve got atypical details and sometimes contractors who can barely read a set of prints.

That being said - you can certainly recommend that you observe the framing, but I don’t think you should require it.

 

[driftLimiter]

Yes in all cases I am being picky with terminology.

I wasn't trying to dissuade you from performing these, or imply that observations are not valuable.

A good client will understand the value of this service definitely.

 

[Eng16080]

To me (and i'm just a dumb structural engineer), I feel like spending $3k-$5k to make sure everything in the structural design is implemented correctly is well worth it in relation to the $10-$30 million they are spending on the construction of the house.

IMO, being involved in a project you designed during construction provides significant value to the overall construction quality of the project. In my estimate, for a $10-$30 mil project, you could easily have $20k-$50k into site observations without being anywhere near the point of diminishing returns. Like you, I always find issues when on site, even with good builders. Whether anybody understands how important this role is is an entirely different matter. After all, even serious issues will likely go unnoticed for several years.

I was involved in a project where we weren't called upon to provide any construction services until the very end. In fact, we weren't even aware the project was being constructed. For that project, the consequence of us not being involved throughout construction ultimately resulted in about half the house needing to be demolished and rebuilt. We would have easily noticed the problems well before the point of no return.

 

[phamENG]

@MyCupboard : you're spot on. Those site visits absolutely add value - especially on complicated custom jobs.

A firm I used to work for actually put it in their terms and conditions that if they weren't engaged to provide that service, the owner agreed to hold them harmless in case of any error regardless of cause (design or construction) since they wouldn't let the engineer on site to make sure things were going right. Not sure if it would ever hold up in court - don't think they ever had to try - but it does let you know what they thought of the value.

 

[MyCupboard]

Too many SEs get hung up on the liability of these things and forget the value they have. I agree not using the word inspection is wise, but your involvement will have a net positive on the project and well worth the fee. It also creates an opportunity to keep your design in check, update or improve details that are impractical. I’ve changed many details after having seen them in the field.

High end residential is the most susceptible to missing critical elements of the load path in my experience as you’ve got atypical details and sometimes contractors who can barely read a set of prints.

That being said - you can certainly recommend that you observe the framing, but I don’t think you should require it.

thank you for the input. I agree with a lot of what you said here, hence why the idea came to my mind in the first place haha. Also, as far as the contractor competency statement, (puts hands up) you said it, not me hahahaha.
I also agree that i would not be requiring this service. I would be pitching the idea to the homeowner and/or the architect (depending on who I think is more appropriate for each project - as some of our projects are for famous people and don't want to be bothered by logistics). It would be a separate contract or separate line item that is optional. something like that.
Again, thank you for reiterating the sentiment that i often have to drill into the architects head that - we DO add value to the project aside from getting a permit to build. We CAN help make things better.

 

[MyCupboard]

@MyCupboard : you're spot on. Those site visits absolutely add value - especially on complicated custom jobs.

A firm I used to work for actually put it in their terms and conditions that if they weren't engaged to provide that service, the owner agreed to hold them harmless in case of any error regardless of cause (design or construction) since they wouldn't let the engineer on site to make sure things were going right. Not sure if it would ever hold up in court - don't think they ever had to try - but it does let you know what they thought of the value.

oh wow this is interesting to hear! I too am curious if it would hold up in court, but i agree it does validate the value of the service and also gives the owner something to think about when they read it! Thanks for presenting this!

 

[MyCupboard]

I have seen many cases where someone who is an expert that is there to look out for the homeowner would have saved owners a lot of money and damage, not to mention (usually emotional) pain and suffering.

I have inspected thousands residential jobs, and I can tell you that all contractors miss on important things (sometimes major structural issues), just not on every job. Obviously, some are better than others. The impression that people who know what they are doing don't make major mistakes is not correct. That's if you get someone who knows what they are doing.

You have to put the work in to have a better relationship with the owners than the contractor does, otherwise that "been doing it for 40 years" routine will make you the bad guy who doesn't know what he is doing and they will ignore you. Contractors are very good at their own brand of marketing, so you have to outdo them in your ability to impress the owner if you want to be successful. If you aren't an articulate and charismatic kinda guy, you probably want to steer clear.

And, obviously, the liability issue... you have to keep good records and make sure you look good if you ever end up in court.

don't know how i missed this reply before, but YES. I agree with this. I'm happy to hear from another engineer that has a similar perspective. I am the odd engineer that very much enjoys the "sales" end of it or business development conversations and the interaction with all the players of the project. I'm a people person that for some reason chose a very isolating career simply because I like houses and a challenge.

 

[MyCupboard]

Yes in all cases I am being picky with terminology.

I wasn't trying to dissuade you from performing these, or imply that observations are not valuable.

A good client will understand the value of this service definitely.

thank you for the clarification. I can't fault you for being picky - I think it's in our engineering genes. I just wanted everyone to know that on here, I am being way less picky with my words than in my career. I treat this more like a chit-chat conversation than a boardroom conversation. I do not hold it against anyone if they view it slightly or even very differently. I'm glad to hear that you think a client may understand the value - I'm moving your name from the "don't do it" side of the poll to the "do it" side of the poll

 

[ANE91]

Sometimes we provide construction administration services, and sometimes we don’t. Jobs almost always turn out better when we’re involved. No last-minute funny business; we’re not that desperate for work. “Oops I built it without telling you” is not compelling.

 

[Ron247]

There is absolutely a value in the services you intend to provide. At the price range of $2M+, the complexity goes up unless you are in an area where a cracker box costs $1M. Even a good builder faces problems with complex structures and having the engineer's observation helps. I am not worrying about my wording in this thread. A reasonable fee would not be a factor to most Owners of a house in the upper price range. I was in one that had an $18,000 stove that had never been cooked on. An Easy-Bake-Oven would have been as useful. So the money appears to be a non-issue.

Of the inspections I have done, many have been after the fact. The problems we found were easily preventable or correctible during construction but not when you are handed the finished product.

A fewthings to consider:

• Once they decide on a GC, but have not sealed the deal, have a meeting with the GC once they have had a chance to review your drawings. This meeting allows them to confirm they understand what you have created or gives you the opportunity to clarify to them.. It helps later during construction when they try to say, "Oh, I thought that meant. . . ."
• Make sure the Owner understands that requesting something that the code may not allow or recommend can create issues later. It is best for those kinds of items to be reviewed by you.
  • As an example, I did a legal case where the Owner told the GC they did not want steps up into the house. The wanted the floor level with the exterior. He did it without explaining to them what might happen. The house leaked like a sieve. It was a basement home. The GC waterproofed to the top of concrete basement wall like he had always done and did not do any waterproofing of the wood floor system. This could not be remedied by just removing 20" or more of dirt due to all the exterior concrete drives, sidewalks, patios etc. His defense: "They told me they did not want steps."
• What do you do if you see a problem or issue that is not part of your scope. It has happened to me EVERY time I have done one.

 

[Greenalleycat]

This question is amazing to me

Here, you inspect basically everything you ever design, usually multiple times throughout the process
On a high-end architectural house I could easily do 20 site inspections throughout the build
As engineers we have a relatively high level of control over these types of builds
We issue a signoff document at the end of the build - you normally won't get any kind of Council signoff without it