Extremely Low Engineering Fees 16

[tdevries37]

What is the average structural engineering fee out there? I am getting quite frustrated in quoting projects & getting beat out by firms that claim to draw the structural drawings and seal them for $50 to $100, for something like a 24 x 40 pole barn for example. That's it, $50 - $100 total.
How can legit firms compete against that? We are located in Michigan and there is no way we can complete a project for that fee.

Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

 

[wmta]

Not to worry the ASCE is helping out. Keeping the cost low by charging so much for the work done for free by members.

 

[moltenmetal]

It seems from this thread that some structurals are finally waking up to the situation that has prevailed in many other engineering disciplines for a good long while- for decades, in fact. Structural is in many jurisdictions the ONLY sub-discipline of engineering which gains significant, measurable ECONOMIC benefit from licensure. Clearly it hurts to see that benefit slipping away! For we chemical engineers, this is nothing new!

Those who sell design services (man-hours) only are in for a rough ride in the next decade in my opinion.

A licensed professional engineer who seals the work of others accepts the liability for that work. That liability not only includes financial liability, but also includes the risk of career-terminating professional liability (i.e. the ultimate removal of their license). There are MANY engineers who feel that this liability is worth accepting in order to earn a living as an engineer, rather than joining the throngs of people with an engineering education who have left the profession for (presumably) greener pastures. It is a comparatively small step from sealing the work of colleagues, to sealing the work of subcontractors in your own country, to sealing the work of subcontractors in a part of the world where engineering labour costs 1/10th what it does locally.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with hiring or subcontracting non-licensed engineers or even non-engineers to execute work which is considered professional engineering. Depending on the nature and extent of the work it is possible, though not always easy, for a licensed professional engineer to direct and review that work in such a way that the public safety is protected. This is done every day and is in fact enshrined in the certificate of authorization process in many jurisdictions like my own.

Where the harm is committed is when the licensed engineer applies their seal WITHOUT carrying out the required review and supervision. When the engineer is pressured by their employer to take on this professional liability without actually being in responsible control of the work being done, it is their responsibility to say no and to not apply their seal- but how many of us have the guts to do that?

If the work sealed by a professional engineer is below standard such that it puts the public safety at risk, other professional engineers have a duty to report this to their licensure body. This duty is one of the responsibilities of licensure, and failing to report can also be considered professional misconduct. We fail in this duty far too often.

I’ve met plenty of engineers, structurals included, who do not properly consider the effort and methods required to implement their designs. They do this out of ignorance which arises from never having constructed anything themselves. I’m afraid that this kind of ignorance is endemic in our profession and knows no national boundaries. It afflicts both the licensed and unlicensed in my experience.

 

[GregTirevold]

An observation:

Driving home the other day I passed one of those "budget" automotive brake job places that advertises $99 for most models. Their advertising is oriented towards convincing the customer that they do only brakes and therefore can offer cheaper prices since they don't have to handle other problems. They operate on the premise that once they have your brakes apart, they "find" other things to be replaced and often do questionable work that requires subsequent visits to iron out nagging issues with the original work.

About one mile down the road from the budget brake place was another automotive service business, your more traditional one that handles all sorts of issues not just brakes. Their marquee out front had those simple plastic letters used to spell out whatever message is important to them this week. The message this week was equally simple, "We fix $99 brake jobs."

Now there is nothing objective to prove that the $99 brake job will always be of poor quality. There is also nothing to say that the full service station is any more competent or trustworthy with your car. There is however evidence that a consumer, me, notices when you take on your low price competitor in the public arena.

How does this relate to the discussion spurred on by the OP's observation?

Questionable business practices will never go away, there is simply too much opportunity for easy money to be made. As long as the law is not broken then you are left with only two alternative sources of recourse: Professional Associations and the Consumer.

Firstly have you looked at the design of these "budget" barns closely? Is there anything there that is not up to standards or best practices? Is there something provable that is being approved that is inferior or improper? If the product being offered is not of poor quality and there is nothing definitely wrong the drawings being stamped then the customer is getting value for their money. If the EoR stamps the drawings after 10 minutes of review and considers that sufficient time spent to declare them "proper" then perhaps he is right, after all his stamp is used so problems come back to him.

Moltenmetal has a good point, the 80% of engineers who operate under industry exemption have been facing similar problems for decades. They have to compete against anyone and everyone, regardless of degree with only the law and the consumer to decide the winner. It is very common to be competing against foreign firms with no "engineers" on staff . If the product is not faulty, laced with lead paint or similarly defective and performs to the satisfaction of the consumer without breaking any laws then domestic engineers have a problem. The domestic companies should be mounting campaigns using their engineers to take apart the competition's products piece by piece to "prove" to the consumer how they are inferior.

One thing I think some American engineers suffer from is cloudy judgement due to ego. They, and the professional societies representing them, stand behind licensing and ever increasing degree requirements or certification with the idea that it raises them above other "lesser" people in the wide world of manufacturing and design. The thing they all seem to forget is something taught in basic Industrial Engineering, Economics and Business Management classes: the customer decides what has value and what does not by virtue of their wallet. This is a basic tenet of Lean Manufacturing that so many people in our profession have been exposed to but have not seemed to grasp the concept of. Just because you are going to use FEA, teams of MIT grads, and a supercomputer to analyze that pole barn structure, car transmission or widget doesn't add any value to the end product if the consumer isn't willing to pay more for it. The consumer may be ignorant about factors of safety, long term quality and robust design but that doesn't make them any less in charge of what is value and what isn't. Each company has to decide whether they want to pay to educate their customers or simply cater to the smaller population of educated consumers who respect the reasons why the domestic product is superior.

This is why Professional Engineering Societies and companies should spend more time educating the public about why their members are producing better, safer, shinier, whatever products than some 2nd or 3rd world competitor. Instead it seems they spend their time polishing their own lapel pin, reflecting on how superior they are and lamenting on the dumbing down of their profession. If there are safety issues, find them and show the consumer or legislators. If there are horrid labor conditions then pay advertisers to put them on TV in front of the consumer. If performance or long term quality is significantly different then get independent testing labs set up to measure and document it. Trying to get things written into laws is not enough because these low quality competitors will always be able to find domestic people to help them circumvent the intent of the law while satisfying its letter.

In short if there is a REAL problem with something that is blowing your economic model out of the water then use your superior knowledge and ability to find it, analyze it and exploit it for your own gain. If your job is not valued by customers enough to be paid for then you had best get busy making it valuable to them or finding something else to do because the global market isn't going to get any easier.

/rant mode off

http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregtirevold

 

[GregLocock]

MM makes the point in another thread. If you are using low cost drafting services, and then reviewing the results and doing the engineering, then in fact the ENGINEERING fees may not change, you are able to offer a cheaper or more profitable product (an engineered design) to your customer, so you should win business and maintain or increase your income. Admittedly this is a race to the bottom since ultimately everyne will copy the business model.

The difficulty comes when low cost ENGINEERING services are available. In which case the simple argumant is that historically high cost, high quality, engineers have been able to grow their businesses even in a global market. So why can't you?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[csd72]

moltenmetal,

Here in the UK the structural engineers are required by law to consider the construction method and minimise construction risks.

Still some below par designs though.