Engineer offered to perform repairs

[mjr6550]

I often am hired to give opinions regarding the structural integrity of damaged trusses, bowed walls, termite damage, etc. This is mostly related to residential work, often after a home inspector has identified a possible problem. Using truss repairs as an example. I often have to make a site visit to inspect a damaged truss, then make a repair drawing, then explain the repair drawing to a contractor who has no idea what he is doing, then inspect the repair, then tell my client that the repair was not performed properly. You get the picture. I have often thought that in some cases I could in one or two visits evaluate the repair, design the repair, and perform the repair myself. From my standpoint I save time not having to prepare a drawing, deal with the contractor, and make extra site visits. Assuming my client is aware that I would be offering to perform the work, is this an ethical issue?

I can see where someone could question whether my opinion was biased based upon the desire to perform the work. However, the same could be said about offering to do the repair design work. any thoughts?

Where I have looked at this option, the total cost of the engineering and repair would be less expensive for the client if I performed both services versus using a separate contractor. I realize that does not change the ethics issue.

 

[hokie66]

What you are describing sounds like 'Design-Build', which I don't like, but can't stop. Depending on where you are, you may need licensure as both an engineer and a builder, and associated insurances. I would check with your PI insurance carrier.

 

[appot]

As hokie said, you will likely need to be a licensed general contractor. An engineer from your apparent background should have no issue with becoming a licensed GC.

Depending on your local, you may need to hire union carpenter to do the work.

 

[Ron]

Yes. This is an ethical problem.

hokie66 mentioned design-build. I share his opinion of design-build; however, I think this is different.

Here you are EVALUATING a failure condition, with an eye toward its repair being done by you. Two things come into play here. First, how independent will that observation be? As engineers we like to think we would be unbiased in our opinions; however, we must guard against the appearance of impropriety as well as the fact of impropriety. You might make a proper evaluation....but will the next guy? It starts a slippery slope. If something goes wrong, do you want to be sued as both the contractor and the engineer? You would have no one to share the litigation joy with.

The second is that you will be tempted to offer "free" engineering evaluation just to get the repair job, since the profit margin in construction is better than engineering. This process is a disservice to the profession of engineering, demeans our stature as a profession and creates an inherent conflict of interest for the job.

The next issue is licensing. Unless you are also licensed as a contractor, you likely cannot do such repairs as hoki66 and swiver noted.

I am a licensed professional engineer and a licensed general contractor. I do not do construction for the very reasons I've just given.

 

[mjr6550]

Thanks for the replies. I had concerns about the apparent conflict of interest,but I see a similar conflict in performing the repair design. I'm not trying to influence anyone, but I am assuming engineers who evaluate structural issues for clients would not tell their client that they should get another engineer to design the repairs.

I also realize that the contractor licensing/insurance issue is a factor, but not part of the ethical issue.

My thinking on this started with truss repairs, where there are not many gray areas. A truss is either damaged or not, and if damaged should be repaired. When it comes to some other structural issues there can be more uncertainty involved.

 

[JAE]

I somewhat share the responses given above but at the same time I know of a LOT of contractors who come to a home, evaluate the issues, and then submit a proposal for the repairs.
I see this most often in my region where local underpinning contractors (think helical piling) arrive at a house with cracks and foundation movement and offer the homeowner a proposal
to underpin the house - usually in the US$10,000 to $40,000 range.

Now contractors perhaps aren't under the similar ethical/code of practice guidelines that engineers are, it seems this is "done all the time" in the contracting business.
They certainly have a conflict of interest in that they tell the homeowner what they should do...to their benefit.
(they never to my knowledge suggest that the cracks/foundations be monitored for a time to see if movement is still occurring).

If the engineer investigates the bad trusses, and writes a report outlining recommended repairs, there is nothing unethical about that.
If they then provide the homeowner with a proposal to do the repairs, there maybe is the appearance of a conflict of interest - but not if the engineer also insists that they homeowner get at least two other proposals from other contractors as well. That way the homeowner has a full and fair choice and that would seem to separate the engineer from the ethical problem.

The engineer is fair to point out that if the homeowner chooses a separate contractor that there would be a recommendation for the engineer to spend a bit of time (and fee) in monitoring the repairs.



Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[rowingengineer]

i think you would be better having 1 to 3 contractors you invest some time in to get up to speed and then recommend these to clients. often they maybe someone whom did do a good job.

http://www.nceng.com.au/

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."