Conflict? 3

[XR250]

I finished our basement off 5 years ago without a permit. I did the plumbing and electrical work (this is allowed). No other mechanical or structural work was performed. We are trying to get a permit after-the-fact. The inspections department needs a letter from a PE or a plumber and electrician stating that the work meets current code. Is it a conflict of interest for me to write the letter stating that? I have a PE in mechanical and structural.
I had a plumber and electrician come out to verify that it does meet today's code.

 

[chris3eb]

I definitely feel like there is some industry-type disconnect here where being in the manufacturing/production industry is different than the construction industry. It may be that in CWB1's industry if something is designed, it is manufactured and sent directly to market (although I'm not sure where UL testing etc fits in). But in the construction industry, there are levels of "review" that aren't "peer review". The jurisdiction plan check will review to some extent as will the contractor and subcontractors and project or special inspectors. Obviously they won't catch very complicated things, but they will ask about something that seems grossly inadequate based on their experience - which seems to be about the same level of review as the five minute review CWB1 mentions.

In this way, I think it's similar to what CWB1 brings up in regard to his wife double checking doctor's and others' work daily in the medical field. I'm assuming his wife is not a doctor (since he didn't say she was), so she is not a "peer reviewer" and she wouldn't be as qualified to review as a doctor, but she is another layer of review, much like the plan checkers, contractors, and inspectors. Continuing with the doctor analogy, much like with our industry, there are things that are always "peer-reviewed" by another full doctor or engineer like heart surgery or skyscrapers, but there is no "peer-review" when you go to the doctors to have them tell you you have strep throat.

Also, I'm not sure why everyone jumped all over stevenal. He never implied that public safety wasn't the number one priority or that engineers couldn't behave objectively. All he was saying is that if you want to be skeptical of an engineer's objectivity because they are the project owner, you can extend that same argument to the traditional arrangement where you can call into question their objectivity because they are being paid by the owner/contractor/etc.

 

[phamENG]

chris3eb - thanks for adding that. Really good perspective.

I'd like to think we didn't "jump all over stevenal." A discussion of ethics is often a discussion of what is black and what is white in a world of myriad shades of gray. Precision of language is important, and I think there was some misunderstanding as to exactly what he meant. In re-reading his comment and subsequent explanation, I think I see what he meant by "ethically, one hopes" in the original post. By ethically, he meant putting the public safety first (among other things, I would guess).

 

[chris3eb]

phamEng - "jump all over" was probably too strong - sorry for jumping all over you with that!

I was just a little surprised that you and Ron both interpreted that he was advocating to be unethical, when his intention seemed crystal clear to me.

Also, it's all probably semantics, but I wouldn't even say that safety is the primary objective for engineering projects. The primary objective of an engineering project is to realize the owner's vision while maintaining at least a minimum accepted level of safety. And the minimum accepted level of safety is some combination of code requirements, industry practice, the owner's wishes, and your own feelings about any particular item. If the goal of any engineering project was simply to maximize safety without regard for the owner's vision, bridges and buildings would be shorter, cars would be slower, spaceships wouldn't exist, etc.

 

[phamENG]

Fair point. Perhaps a compromise? The primary object is to maintain an acceptable level of safety while realizing the owner's vision.

It certainly is semantics, but I think questions of philosophy and ethics depend upon the semantics of the arguments for clarity and efficacy.

 

[CWB1]

Question wasn't aimed at me, but I'll take it anyway. No. They didn't. They were not my peers. They were my professional superiors attesting to the fact that I'd earned the right to have the title Professional Engineer through my display of knowledge in engineering.

That statement sounds rather strange for the simple reason that peer review should always involve someone experienced in that niche, which often means a supervisor/superior. Personally, I have always considered everybody from interns up to engineering VPs to be peers with opinions no better or worse than my own until proven so by facts, and in most cases I have been treated as peers by everyone. Regardless, as part of licensure sworn statements are given by PEs that they have closely reviewed your engineering design work in niches that they are SMEs and consider it to be at a professional level. That shouldn't be provocative and my apologies if it seems accusatory, it was meant to be rhetorical. However, if sworn statements are pencil-whipped tho then that's fraud and defeats the purpose of the licensing system.

The big sticking points of any legislation are usually the scope and definitions. In this case, my understanding of the scope is that NSPE wants to encourage limited immunites be granted between firms without accidentally granting protections internally to a single firm and allowing unethical activities (ie pencil-whipping reviews). I believe they reference value-engineering and other processes simply to further limit the scope down specifically to the peer/design review step of each process and not suggest the larger processes be granted broad immunities.

But in the construction industry, there are levels of "review" that aren't "peer review". The jurisdiction plan check will review to some extent...

Agreed within reason, which is why I mentioned regulators in my previous post. IMHO, if a govt regulator or contractor has an engineer or technician with significant design experience within that niche checking your work, that's peer review. The first caveat I would put on that however is that they must have significant design experience in that niche, not just construction experience. In my wife's realm that's the difference between a nurse checking a doc's tasks performed during a surgery that they assist with daily and checking their prescription for that surgery, one she can and the second she can't. The second caveat I would place on that would be that ultimately the responsibility to ensure the review is completed is on the EOR. If the AHJ simply files the print and doesnt check anything then that is on you. The third caveat is the difference between artistic design and engineering-design. IMHO, if an engineer is simply providing a print for the local records office and there's literally no special calculations or other technical work that a tradesman or DIY'er couldn't legally perform, that's "artistic design documentation" and doesnt need peer/design review.

 

[TheDW]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall for a conversation explaining the substantially increased engineering fees to residential builders, when the sole practitioner engineer with 30 years experience decides that the permit office reviewer isn't qualified enough, and he has to sub out a few hours time from another engineer to check all his calcs and drawings for all of the houses he's working on now.

 

[jayrod12]

'd love to be a fly on the wall for a conversation explaining the substantially increased engineering fees to residential builders

It would be an incredibly short conversation. As the builder would just go to the next engineer willing to take the work.

 

[johnie134]

Absolutely no conflict if you are paid well. Otherwise big conflict.

 

[TheDW]

The Los Angeles building department requires an independent peer review be done for pretty much anything performance based-design/non-linear/complicated seismic stuff. Link

1) If it was already understood and required that this was supposed to be happening, then I don't think the city would need to codify it as an additional requirement.

2) The links provided previously lack specific, non-debatable language regarding peer reviews like that shown in the LADBS release. The fact that its vague enough to even be debatable either tells me that it needs to be clarified, or that every engineering decision that every engineer makes doesn't in fact have to be reviewed by another engineer (more likely in my opinion)

3) I think that the NSPE legislation that CWB1 provided is pretty clearly meant to be relevant to situations like the one above, where a peer review and its results need to be submitted to a building department or done officially otherwise, and isn't at all saying everything needs to be peer reviewed. It only mentions third party reviews, and post-project internal reviews...

'Best practice'? Absolutely.

'Unethical' not to have everything peer reviewed? Absolutely not, in my opinion

 

[IRstuff]

It would be unethical to offer up as peer reviewed, or implied as such, something that wasn't.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[stevenal]

The OP was asked for a letter, not a formal peer review as described by the links to NSPE and LADBS.

 

[phamENG]

True, but that's where the discussion has gone. OP asked if it would be a conflict of interest to provide that letter, and somebody stated the opinion that it would be a conflict of interest and generally unethical because, in writing his own letter, it would not be peer reviewed.

 

[CWB1]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall for a conversation explaining the substantially increased engineering fees to residential builders, when the sole practitioner engineer with 30 years experience...

Design reviews typically account for 1-5% of project cost depending on project risk, with most being in the 2-3% range. I dont know anybody that would call that "substantial," usually that's one of the lesser variables in billing. OTOH, if a 30 year sole practitioner needs more than that to hold an effective design review then they probably shouldn't be in engineering at all.

 

[phamENG]

Less than $200 or $300 and it's probably not worth the engineer's time to touch it once you factor in admin time to track the project, paperwork, billing, etc.

So the original project would have to be worth around $6500 for your 2-3% rule. I'm not sure I've EVER seen a single family residential project worth that much. Even some of the 8 or 9000sf jobs in my area only get a structural engineer's involvement for LVLs and shear walls - your lucky to get $3k out of it. Come to think of it, I've had to handle budgets for commercial building designs less than that.

Unfortunately the economics just aren't there for a mandatory peer review up and down the full spectrum of projects out there.

 

[CWB1]

It appears you're falling into the trap of assuming every project would be billed by reviewers individually with one hour minimums. Nobody works that way. A 5-minute review is a 5-minute review, a two-day review is a two-day review, cumulative billing is common, and bartering labor for labor is common even between large companies.

 

[EZBuilding]

CWB1, you are passing judgement on an entire industry and sector based upon your experience as a Mechanical Engineer. I would expect, that through your experience as a Mechanical Engineer, you would have gleamed some insight to other industries and sectors. Clearly that is not the case and you are taking a sheltered view of your practice and applying it broadly across the entire profession at large. This would be akin to an Aerospace Engineer telling a Building's Structural Engineer that every single shear tab connection on a project needs to have independent FEA performed.

I have not heard of any Structural Engineering firms bartering labor for labor. A 5 minute review is a job not worth assigning a project number, invoicing or opening yourself up to any liability.

 

[phamENG]

And as a matter of perspective, I did have a project recently that mandated a peer review. It was a small project, so the reviewer's fee wound up being 18.5% of the total structural design fee. The review was mandated by the client and they chose the reviewer, so it worked out, but that's at least one anecdote to show you what we face in the building structures world re: peer review.

 

[Rabbit12]

I can't believe this is still being discussed. If someone thinks all structural engineers need a peer review on every project they are clueless about this industry.

And like EZBuilding I've never seen or even heard of competing companies bartering labor for labor.

 

[kissymoose]

Take home inspections for example. Sometimes buyers will retain a structural engineer to take a look at a home for structural specific expertise regarding basement walls, cracks, bounciness followed up by a report. Or they may want to remove a bearing wall and replace it with a header. Are you saying that a second engineer would be required to review that home inspection report? The only way for them to adequately do so is to be at the inspection as well. And as for the wall opening, it sounds quite pitiful to have someone make sure the (2) 2x10s I specified are okay. This seems to be a classic example of letter of the law vs spirit of the law. Even if NSPE has worded their policy to require peer review on all engineering services, I doubt anyone there would think peer review would be appropriate for the examples above.

 

[CWB1]

CWB1, you are passing judgement on an entire industry and sector based upon your experience as a Mechanical Engineer....I have not heard of any Structural Engineering firms bartering labor for labor.

Careful, you're showing your own ignorance and inexperience. As mentioned above, we all take the same ethics courses and are held to the same ethical standards. If a small subset of folks choose to ignore those standards then they're welcome to face the consequences if caught. A small business is a small business, a small project is a small project, and I know several CE/SEs that agree with me on this and conduct peer reviews. As to my being a ME, that's obviously an irrelevant and unjustified personal attack already attempted and called out as such in previous posts. Take it elsewhere.

Take home inspections for example. Sometimes buyers will retain a structural engineer to take a look at a home for structural specific expertise regarding basement walls, cracks, bounciness followed up by a report. Or they may want to remove a bearing wall and replace it with a header. Are you saying that a second engineer would be required to review that home inspection report?

A home inspection isnt considered professional engineering so wouldn't be required to be peer reviewed no matter who does it, its a trades task that is allowed to be completed by PEs in some jurisdictions. Even the hypothetical header replacement may not be considered engineering depending on local code, so the answer is maybe. If the AHJ requires signed/sealed docs then yes, it should be a straightforward task to peer review the documents and provide a quick opinion without much fuss.

No disrespect intended to anyone, but given the way this thread has devolved I too am starting to support its end. Its obvious some have little or no experience conducting peer reviews and are simply ranting against that which they dont know.