Peer Review - Small Structural Concrete/Steel Projects 6

[GreatDane2022]

Good evening gang-

I have been in construction most of my 25 year career but over the past few years have found myself designing more. I design very small concrete and/steel projects usually in the areas of retaining walls, pergola, and the occasional swimming pool. Despite a rather strenuous check-list, I still feel a peer review is very important not only from my clients but to further grow my expertise.

Are there any other one-man shops that practice this way and if so, how did you find your peer reviewer, what is your service-level agreement, fee structure, etc.? Any intel in much appreciated.

It is my understanding that it is against the rules of this site to trade contact information but if it is not, please feel free to post and/or contact me.

Thanks!
Texas PE

 

[skeletron]

Are there any other one-man shops that practice this way and if so, how did you find your peer reviewer, what is your service-level agreement, fee structure, etc.? Any intel in much appreciated.

I do! To answer your questions:
1. I've found my peer reviewers through the internet and cold calls with engineers/firms in my province. I also rely on old colleagues who are, not surprisingly, bored at their 9-5.
2. Typically, I don't establish a robust service-level agreement with the reviewer like I would for a Client. It basically doesn't get more formalized than a phonecall or email that gets their availability and rate based on my description of the project.
3. Fee structure is usually the firm's bill-out rate, unfortunately, so anywhere between $120 and $180 per hour. Since this process is slowly becoming a requirement, most firms are aware of how to complete a peer review and also what the a typical fee would be in the area. I have gotten burned on this before: reviewer charged out about 10 hours to review a report with no design aspect to it, amounting to about 75-80% of the total fee. But perhaps I'm just not that great at charging out reasonable fees.

I also get called on to provide reviews, often in the same way I found out about other people. Usually the other firm gives me a budget to work with to complete the review. I actually like this method because I know when to draw my line and send it back. To be honest, I probably put more time into the review than my bill out says I do. This is because they can be fun, a great way to network and hone your chops, and a good learning experience. I would argue that reviewing another companies drawings is more valuable than a buzzword-Continuing Education seminar taught by a "consultant". But I digress...

As for some of the tangential notions above, I'll weigh in:

1a. No. Please do not leave purposeful mistakes in your design as a test to measure the reviewer's ability. The better option is to give your reviewer an "icebreaker opportunity" to critique your design. Let them know a challenging area and how you approached it. Support your idea. Extra points if you become honest and vulnerable by stating why it may not be the ideal solution. Offer the reviewer a chance to consider your approach and offer support or some improvements.

1b. Even if there aren't purposeful mistakes in the design, I have found it highly unlikely that another engineer does not find at least one thing to comment on. As expected, there are a n+1 ways to skin a cat...

1c. If you are unsure about the reviewer's ability, start on a low-risk, small, slightly inconsequential project. Review the outcome as a lessons learned.

2. I agree that peer review should become a mandatory component of structural design of a meaningful size. I don't think it should be restricted to non-residential Code work, as it is in my province. I also support the review being from a third-party. I find it so odd and frustrating that a sole proprietor has to outsource this to a firm, but a peer review within a firm is legit for most cases. The peer review should be a form of getting designs consistent across the board; I don't think this is achieved if the same chain of command reviews the drawings "independently" within their own firm.

The important thing about a review is that there is a chance to read and react to feedback. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to change your design/standard/whatever just because Engineer Beta marks it up. You just need to justify your choices before issuing it.

*Note: My comments only reflect reviews on smaller scope projects. I've never crossed into the territory of mandatory third-party independent review, such as high-rise design, where the stakes are a bit higher.*

 

[wrantler]

In my opinion indep structural reviews are not to nitpick on details and/or flex ur big brain on how efficient the design is (unless you are being asked of course). It is more so a smell test to make sure there is sound loadpath and the concept of the design makes sense. You can of course make suggestions. But as indep reviewer if you do make suggestions you should be aware that if changes are made and they are unfavourable then you may get the finger pointed in your direction.

 

[phamENG]

As the EOR, you wouldn't get to select your peer reviewer. Rather, the AJH would assign an anonymous one to your project by way of a combined lottery / "who's qualified and available" process.

That is certainly a good solution to the problem I posed. As much as I want to hope that it is a workable solution...I have trouble imagining this being adopted in my state. I do agree that mandatory peer reviews are a good idea. And I don't have an issue with the Board teaming up with the Department of Housing and Community Development (the state level body that oversees building codes in Virginia and, by extension, has some oversight over the building officials) to enact something like this in the next code cycle. But the current political climate here is fundamentally opposed to regulation of any kind. Maybe not as bad as North Carolina where they froze residential code changes for something like 10 years so they don't have to follow the new energy requirements, but certainly up there. So I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[KootK]

In my opinion indep structural reviews are not to nitpick on details and/or flex ur big brain on how efficient the design is (unless you are being asked of course).

I agree. I've born witness to some big project peer reviews in big markets that, mostly, wound up being opportunities for the reviewer to try to convince the owner that they should have went with the reviewer's firm for the design in the first place. If the owner wants an "efficiency review" as a separate thing, go nuts. That's not what I'm pitching though. I'm advocating something that is 100% about safeguarding he public interest and the public's faith in our profession.

 

[KootK]

So I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm going to take a run at that mostly because it's convenient for me that you've lobbed it my way.

You absolutely should not hold your breath because that's passive and not at all how things get done. AHJ isn't just going to magically dream this up and enact it for us. What you should do, is this:

1) Band together in solidarity with your SE colleagues / celestial navigation buddies and march down to AHJ with one voice.

2) Tell AHJ that the current system where practitioners treat AHJ as an enemy / necessary evil isn't working and that you're not happy about the direction in which our profession is headed.

3) Pitch the new and improved system and work with AHJ to bring that about.

With that accomplished, I imagine that your future would look something like this:

a) You'd be at meetings where owners, architects, and contractors bitch about the new peer review system. Schedule this! Time value of money that! Socialism!!! How can they put our project on pause for a month for this peer review bullshit??

b) You'd get right in there and agree with all of this stuff whole heartedly. This new, heavy handed system is the worst! Bureaucracy... am I right??? Maybe you smoke some cigars and toss a sack of kittens in the river or something. Whatever the typical, back room republican schtick is in your neck of the woods.

c) When you get back to your office, you drop to your knees in prayer/thanks that:

i) You've got this extra month to do the project cleanup that you know needs to happen.

ii) Because of the new regulatory system, you don't have to don the black hat and ask for the extra month yourself.

iii) AHJ is now your bestie and you can hide behind her skirt when you need to, just as it should be when regulation is done right.

 

[phamENG]

Band together in solidarity with your SE colleagues

And therein lies another issue. I was on the board of the local ASCE branch for a while. You know who didn't show up to any of the meetings? The structural engineers, save 2...me and one other guy. When they established a local SEI chapter? Bridge engineers. Building guys didn't want to have anything to do with it. Perhaps I should check back in...once I had kids I decided my "spare" time was better spent with my family than sitting around a conference room eating over priced sandwiches and deciding on budgets. But the cut throat attitude runs deep...it seems most SEs around here won't even talk to one another much less collaborate on something that's going to piss off all their clients. I always found what few interactions happened very entertaining at the various golf tournaments. But mostly everyone keeps to themselves and chats up clients, avoiding the other SEs.

The path I see is this: get my 'firm' out of the solo engineer working from his house stigma and into some level of prominence and notice by my peers, get involved in the local orgs again, survey the local engineers (with a focus on firm leadership) to see what they feel the state of our profession is and what they think it should be. Next steps would be predicated on their response and advice of counsel to ensure I'm not inadvertently orchestrating some sort of price fixing scheme by doing this because fee's are likely to be front and center in such a conversation.

 

[SWComposites]

KootK - hilarious!!

I don’t think you all want the codes mandating peer reviews without some clear limits on the scope of those reviews and limits on the costs. Otherwise you are going to be plagued with nitpicky reviewers eating up all of your fees.

 

[KootK]

And therein lies another issue.

Absolutely. I can't resist putting this out into the world here every couple of years to test the waters. And the waters remain cold I'm afraid. You yourself are my most consistent supporter and you've got no time for anything pre-retirement. And if you do have time, that time should be spent with your kids and/or on the water.

I don’t think you all want the codes mandating peer reviews without some clear limits on the scope of those reviews and limits on the costs. Otherwise you are going to be plagued with nitpicky reviewers eating up all of your fees.

Yup, it's a thing that would have to be done thoughtfully and would almost certainly need lots of tweaking based on experience. This is basically regulatory agencies encouraging desirable behavior using the principles of economics. And we all know how far off the rails stuff like that can get. But, still, I'm a firm believer that problems like this do have solutions and that those solutions are worthy of being explored.

 

[Brad805]

In some markets I suppose the AHJ could retain peer reviewers, but in some smaller markets it will be a huge problem. We work in a number of areas with many unqualified AHJ. Do you think their bosses can hire appropriately qualified peer reviewer's? Then there is the reality of time. We already have a huge problem with permit time in many regions. This could add to that greatly if not done correctly.

 

[KootK]

Do you think their bosses can hire appropriately qualified peer reviewer's

Under my proposed system, the AHJ would not hire or retain any peer reviewers. The peer reviews would be conducted entirely by private firms engaged by the AHJ anonymously for that purpose. You, as a private firm, would be obligated to do a few each year in support of the profession.

This could add to that greatly if not done correctly.

I don't see that as a drawback. The opposite. I've not met a structural engineer who didn't feel that we're too often rushed and that our work suffers as a result. So fix that, and accept that projects take a bit longer and cost a tiny bit more. I suspect that tighter drawings would wind up offsetting a good chunk of the time value of money costs incurred anyhow.

With regard to schedules, there are several ways to do this:

a) Insist that peer review happens before permit.

b) Allow peer review to happen concurrently with permit.

c) Even allow peer review to happen after permit but then the project team needs to accept the risk that implies given that occupancy permits will not be issued until legitimate structural issues are rectified.

All of those can be made to work. From the perspective of encouraging desirable behavior via economics, the critical thing is simply that bad design be made to have some form of meaningful consequences. And, because of the nature of the work, those consequences need to be project delays rather than structural collapse.

My hope would be that EOR's that need to up their game would up their games in time and we'd be back to a system where peer reviews are no longer a big deal. Just, you know, without the shitty design.

 

[sandman21]

c) When you get back to your office, you drop to your knees in prayer/thanks that:

i) You've got this extra month to do the project cleanup that you know needs to happen.

ii) Because of the new regulatory system, you don't have to don the black hat and ask for the extra month yourself.

iii) AHJ is now your bestie and you can hide behind her skirt when you need to, just as it should be when regulation is done right.

This is not how it works at all. You are expected to have clean set going into the AHJ. A month would be seen as unacceptable amount of time and you would need to work whatever hours needed to turn around the project. The structural drawings will always have the most comments and it will be seen as you are the delay. We already deal with this in California its called DSA/HCAI.

Under my proposed system, the AHJ would not hire or retain any peer reviewers. The peer reviews would be conducted entirely by private firms engaged by the AHJ anonymously for that purpose. You, as a private firm, would be obligated to do a few each year in support of the profession.

Many small cities in CA already have on-call services for projects that are outside what they can review or workload is to much. It does not work out the way you think it does.

The path I see is this: get my 'firm' out of the solo engineer working from his house stigma and into some level of prominence and notice by my peers, get involved in the local orgs again, survey the local engineers (with a focus on firm leadership) to see what they feel the state of our profession is and what they think it should be. Next steps would be predicated on their response and advice of counsel to ensure I'm not inadvertently orchestrating some sort of price fixing scheme by doing this because fee's are likely to be front and center in such a conversation.

ASCE/SEI are all company advocate groups not engineers, they will advocate for whatever the companies want. Firm management will do whatever is best internet of bottom-line. Our system already has a check its the AHJ, as they are legal authority allowing the construction of the project. Many of the ideas in this wont work in the US for legal reasons.

 

[phamENG]

Our system already has a check its the AHJ, as they are legal authority allowing the construction of the project.

Yes, and in some jurisdictions that may actually work out in practice. But in what seems like the vast majority of cases, the AHJ doesn't even have anyone who knows how to read structural plans. They have a checklist to look at design criteria, maybe if they're advanced they can make sure there is a load path. But was that design criteria actually used, or just a boilerplate? There's a load path, but is it actually capable of transferring/supporting/resisting the loads? Most plan review offices don't have anyone who can do this. As a result, I can turn in almost anything I want on a set of plans, seal it, and the permit will be issued. I don't do that, but I've seen some stuff in the field when I've been called out by a contractor to consult on a design that's not working.

I'm well aware of the purpose of ASCE and SEI - and I think the almost complete lack of engagement from building structural firms is telling in the odds of firms in my area being willing to participate in anything much less this scheme, noble though the aims may be.

 

[GreatDane2022]

Wow! I did not expect this much information but I love it. You guys/gals are so out my league. I am fortunate that I don't have to worry about most of the topics you bigger folks do especially competition. My very short list of clients has been with me since I came out of retirement several years ago and if I lose any of them due to competition, I guess there were valid reasons. I am laid back that way. I make very little money doing this but I truly love engineering and my clients are the best.

After reading all of your replies, I realized my question about peer review was larger than I understood. I realized that beyond the peer review part of it, I need other engineers to brainstorm with and I do not have that in my local area. When I go to the local meetings, I feel like I am talking everyone's ears off and they just want to get the PDHs and get back to work. I want to talk about HSS versus wide flange baseplates calculations ...yes, it's that bad...I am a total geek.

Thank you for all your replies. I will continue to post to get my fix of other engineering discussions. Since it is against the rules, I cannot post my contact info, but if you can find me and want to mentor/chat/review, please do. @KootK - I cannot figure out the riddle in your profile...I suspect I am overthinking it.

 

[Eng16080]

While a mandatory peer review system as described above would be great if it could be accomplished without being a detriment to our fees and schedules, I don't think it's very likely to happen.

Aside from the type of engineers (like us) who frequent this site and who, I assume, care greatly about this profession and the quality of work we produce, does anybody else even perceive a problem? Does the general public or these AHJs think structural engineers as a whole are producing low quality work and that a systematic change is needed? I think it's obvious to us engineers when we see low quality plans by other engineers, but I think that's about it. Buildings just don't fail enough for anybody to think there's a problem.

If there was a powerful organization that was actually looking out for the profession and could lobby for our better interests, I think then something like this could succeed.

 

[KootK]

This is not how it works at all. You are expected to have clean set going into the AHJ.

Many small cities in CA already have on-call services for projects that are outside what they can review or workload is to much. It does not work out the way you think it does.

Many of the ideas in this wont work in the US for legal reasons.

There's that raging pessimism that I alluded to earlier.

You seem hell bent on telling me that my system wont work the way that I want it to because California's system doesn't work the way that I want mine to. I'm not proposing to replicate California's system. Rather, I'm proposing that we develop a new system. And, in that regard, I feel that it it reasonable to assume that almost anything is possible. If the laws need changing, we'll change them. If the AHJ's need to adjust their expectations, we'll get those expectations adjusted.

If I were designing the first helicopter, you wouldn't stop by my place to tell my that my chopper can't possibly fly because you have a bunch of experience with cars and cars never fly. We're not designing a car here, we're designing a bloody helicopter. The thing will fly because we'll design it to fly.

Yes, there will be some difficult problems to solve. And, yes, the first few prototypes will probably fall from the sky and land on baby carriages. That's just how it is with the big problems.

We put people on the moon FFS. Surely we can work a few kinks out of our silly little profession.

 

[sandman21]

Yes, and in some jurisdictions that may actually work out in practice. But in what seems like the vast majority of cases, the AHJ doesn't even have anyone who knows how to read structural plans. They have a checklist to look at design criteria, maybe if they're advanced they can make sure there is a load path. But was that design criteria actually used, or just a boilerplate? There's a load path, but is it actually capable of transferring/supporting/resisting the loads? Most plan review offices don't have anyone who can do this. As a result, I can turn in almost anything I want on a set of plans, seal it, and the permit will be issued. I don't do that, but I've seen some stuff in the field when I've been called out by a contractor to consult on a design that's not working.

The peer review requirement does not change the lack of review by the AHJ. The outside reviewer will provide the same level of service that you continue get.

You seem hell bent on telling me that my system wont work the way that I want it to because California's system doesn't work the way that I want mine to. I'm not proposing to replicate California's system. Rather, I'm proposing that we develop a new system. And, in that regard, I feel that it it reasonable to assume that almost anything is possible. If the laws need changing, we'll change them. If the AHJ's need to adjust their expectations, we'll get those expectations adjusted.

You are proposing to replicate CA system, you can claim you are creating a new system but you are not. The laws regarding engineering and AHJ, etc. are not so easy to change and some you cant change as they are fundamental to how we govern. So sure its possible that the whole system comes down but I going to bet against any idea that suggest it. But its possible that extraterrestrial life takes over AHJ and you get what you want. Its possible.

If I were designing the first helicopter, you wouldn't stop by my place to tell my that my chopper can't possibly fly because you have a bunch of experience with cars and cars never fly. We're not designing a car here, we're designing a bloody helicopter. The thing will fly because we'll design it to fly.

Worst analogy ever. This is more like someone walking up and pointing out the flaws in your chopper and how it does work. But you continue to design the chopper without a jesus nut because you are designing it to fly.

We put people on the moon FFS. Surely we can work a few kinks out of our silly little profession.

Wonder how peer reviewed the work? Also assumes that any of this solves a single kink.

 

[KootK]

You are proposing to replicate CA system, you can claim you are creating a new system but you are not.

Bullshit.

Fundamentally, you simply have no right to tell me what I am proposing. I get to do that for myself. Stop being presumptuous and just ask me for clarification if you need it. Some of the many ways that my proposal is different from California's:

a) I propose that EOR's build a set amount of fee into their contracts to pay for state mandated peer review. To my knowledge, California does not do this.

b) I propose that peer reviewers share some of the EOR's E&O liability for work that they peer review. California does not do this.

c) California has firms that are dedicated to doing nothing but code review. My proposal would deliberately preclude this because I think that would be a bad idea.

d) My proposal keeps the peer reviewer anonymous from the EOR. This is not the case in California.

So, yeah... basically the only thing that my mandated proposed peer review process has in common with California's is that... it's a mandated peer review process.

The laws regarding engineering and AHJ, etc. are not so easy to change and some you cant change as they are fundamental to how we govern. So sure its possible that the whole system comes down but I going to bet against any idea that suggest it. But its possible that extraterrestrial life takes over AHJ and you get what you want. Its possible.

The system that we currently work under falls entirely under "The Affairs of Man". It was created by men. It was implemented by men. Are we really to believe that it cannot be altered by men? It's not as though we're trying to tweak how gravity works or something. It baffles and saddens me that I would have to work so hard to convince a bunch of Americans to have some faith in the democratic process.

But its possible that extraterrestrial life takes over AHJ and you get what you want.

Now that's a piss poor analogy. Consider:

1) A car and a helicopter are not that far apart. They are both mechanized vehicles created by man. One could argue that the helicopter is, in fact, simply an evolution of the car.

2) UFO's taking over AHJ's, which has never happened, seems a far cry from men changing a system created by other men, which happens all the time.

 

[KootK]

I'm sorry you can't dream big.

I'm sorry you don't believe.

Viva la democracy!!

Trust me on this...

 

[KootK]

While a mandatory peer review system as described above would be great if it could be accomplished without being a detriment to our fees and schedules, I don't think it's very likely to happen.

I contend that this is simply a flawed way to think about this. The mandatory peer review will add cost to projects and time to schedules. And those costs, nominal as they are, would be born by the consumer (building occupant) and, ultimately, by society. This is just economics and is little different from when the price of an iPhone has to go up a bit because there's a conflict in Zimbabwe driving up the cost of Adamantium. Apple simply passes that along. Once the system adjusts to its new equilibrium, I see no reason to expect that our fees and schedules would not adjust accordingly. Yeah, there will be some interim pain. But if you want to make an omelette...

This all, pessimistically, assumes that a better structural product would yield no downstream cost savings to the project.

If there was a powerful organization that was actually looking out for the profession and could lobby for our better interests, I think then something like this could succeed.

I feel that the necessary infrastructure already exists. Consider this hypothetical:

1) Nowadays, pretty much every jurisdiction in North America has some kind of structural engineer's association.

2) Imagine that we practicing engineers communicate to our regional SEA's that we want this addressed.

3) Next, our regional SEA's decide that, as a reflection of our wishes, they too want this addressed.

4) The body that oversees the regionals prepares a position paper to share with the AHJ's (and public if need be). The position paper says this:

a) We think there's a problem with existing system and this is what we think it is. There are public safety implications.

b) We've developed a solution to address the problem that is a good deal more rigorous that what is currently being done.

c) We would like to work collaboratively with AHJ to bring this solution about.

5) The AHJs buy in and help us do this thing.

Does that really sound so far fetched? Do we really feel that the AJH's would just tell us to get lost because the present system is kicking ass and taking names?

I feel this would be a bit like one of your kids coming to you and saying "I'd really like to learn more calculus than we're covering at school Dad. Could you help me line up a tutor?" Hell yeah we'll help you line up a tutor! Kudos for actually giving a shit.

Does the general public or these AHJs think structural engineers as a whole are producing low quality work and that a systematic change is needed?

No, they don't. And this is precisely why we need to be proactive about this rather than just passively letting this stuff "happen" to us. For most of our profession's history, we've landed somewhere between resenting/resisting AHJ review and being ambivalent to it as a "necessary evil".

That's how we got the system that we currently have and do not love. If we're going to have a good system that can support good structural engineers then we're going to have to lead on this rather than follow. We're going to have to show that we give a shit. We need to be the champions of a regulated, peer review process rather than the victims of it.

 

[structSU10]

I agree with KootK, a system such as described is a benefit and may help battle the constant 'early packages' and 'fast track' that seems to be every project.

I would think the building owners could be sold on this in the fact that engineers having more time, more thorough review of their design will likely save them money on change orders. Many of our design decisions are leveraged significantly against our hourly rate - likely around 10-20x versus the time spent on developing the solution. When we have to rush through a design and miss considering something you can bet when the contractor finds it during construction it will also be charged at a premium.

I would think owners have better political sway in many instances than the engineers themselves, as I don't know how much or an argument can be made when people don't see building failing left and right due to design issues / constraints.