Peer Review

[1asdfghjk]

We are providing contract consulting services to our government client. Our engineering team consists of civil, structural and MEP engineers. I just reviewed a 65% design submittal that I received from an A/E firm that is a sub of our IDIQ contract. One of our engineers on our team provided a review of my work, and he refused to take ownership for his review, or in other words, refused to put his initial in front of his comments. I have a hard time convincing him that his comments are his own and that if the A/E raises a question during the design review, he can answer. I would love to know if you have faced such a situation and how you handled it and if there are any peer reviewing rules out there that I'm not aware.



Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

[udraft]

The issue may be that the design is not done, it's 65%.

 

[cliff234]

The issue may be that the design is not done, it's 65%.

If the design is not complete, then all the peer reviewer needs to say is something like, "Drawings incomplete, therefore peer review is incomplete. Resubmit for continuation of review when drawings are complete." Actually the reviewer should ask whoever asked them to do the review if they want a 65% set of design documents reviewed. Reviewing incomplete drawings may unnecessarily "burn the budget", knowing that additional time will be required to finish the review.

I've done partial QA reviews on drawings that had no details, but the reviews were performed just to check framing configurations, constructability, and member sizes. I've done as many as five reviews on large projects just so we don't go too far down the road only to find that something is wrong that should have been caught months earlier.

 

[Smoulder]

65% deaign that gets 1.5-2 external reviews must be critical stuff. How critical are we talking? I said 1.5-2 because you said the other engineer reviewed your review so not clear if he looked at whole design or just checked your comments were ok. If just checking your comments it sounds like you 2 should agree the final comments then go back with united front. Then you can probably answer questions. If not you can take on notice and check with other engineer. Maybe he's busy and trying to avoid being dragged into long review meetings where he'll only talk for 30 second.

 

[phamENG]

Let's clarify a few things.

What is your role? Are you responsible for providing the design service to the government agency? Or did the government agency hire you to review work submitted to them by consultants?

I've been out of the federal game for a bit, but my old firm had a couple IDIQ contracts, and we did plenty of other work. The 65% review that the agency (or the agency consultant for reviewing for them) conducts is NOT a peer review. It's the owner checking on the status of the design and ensuring it's progressing in accordance with their specs, codes, and expectations.

Now...if you have an IDIQ and you've sub contracted portions of it to other firms and this is a firm sending the submittal to you for review and then submission under your name to the client, then this is just an internal QC, not a peer review. And in that case, it's up to your company's policy. What that engineer did could make sense. If they're checking behind you to ensure that you didn't miss anything and you're responsible for handling the sub and passing information on, they should be bringing things they find to your attention, showing you why/how they found them, make sure you understand, and then you're knowledgable enough about the comment to speak intellegently about it to the sub and/or client.

 

[1asdfghjk]

65% deaign that gets 1.5-2 external reviews must be critical stuff. How critical are we talking? I said 1.5-2 because you said the other engineer reviewed your review so not clear if he looked at whole design or just checked your comments were ok. If just checking your comments it sounds like you 2 should agree the final comments then go back with united front. Then you can probably answer questions. If not you can take on notice and check with other engineer. Maybe he's busy and trying to avoid being dragged into long review meetings where he'll only talk for 30 second.

Let's clarify a few things.

What is your role? Are you responsible for providing the design service to the government agency? Or did the government agency hire you to review work submitted to them by consultants?

I've been out of the federal game for a bit, but my old firm had a couple IDIQ contracts, and we did plenty of other work. The 65% review that the agency (or the agency consultant for reviewing for them) conducts is NOT a peer review. It's the owner checking on the status of the design and ensuring it's progressing in accordance with their specs, codes, and expectations.

Now...if you have an IDIQ and you've sub contracted portions of it to other firms and this is a firm sending the submittal to you for review and then submission under your name to the client, then this is just an internal QC, not a peer review. And in that case, it's up to your company's policy. What that engineer did could make sense. If they're checking behind you to ensure that you didn't miss anything and you're responsible for handling the sub and passing information on, they should be bringing things they find to your attention, showing you why/how they found them, make sure you understand, and then you're knowledgable enough about the comment to speak intellegently about it to the sub and/or client.

Let me add some context to this so you understand where I'm coming from. I am a contractor working for a government agency. We are modernizing their 110 year old facilities. As a structural engineer/design manager, I was assigned a small yet important project to manage. I work both as a structural engineer and as a design manager. We contracted this project with a company through an IDIQ contract. That IDIQ company hired a subcontractor (A/E consultant) to provide the design. A/E sends 65% for review. As structure, DM and owner of the project, I am responsible for reviewing the submitted design (BOD, drawings, specifications and calculations). I asked another structural engineer (PE) on our team, who was employed by the same company as mine, to provide a second set of eyes for me to review and check the entire submitall. He did and we agreed with his views and mine. Now, we have the Design Review Comments Report to populate with comments from all disciplines, including government, where each commenter is asked to enter their initials when submitting comments. He simply refused to add his name to his comments and refused to take ownership of his work. I'm more than capable of explaining his comments if questions arise, but I just want to know why he refuses to own his work. I provided a similar review to my fellow engineers, adding my initail attached my work. Moreover, the leadership of our government is also an SE.

I like to know if it is appropriate to use my name in front his comments and submitted to the A/E?

 

[SWComposites]

If he works for the same company / agency as you, why don’t you ask your manager this question? Seems like an internal political thing.

 

[phamENG]

Is there anything ethically wrong with it? If he won't do it, and you understand the comment and now that's it's been pointed out to you would make it on your own, then I'd say no - no ethical issue.

As to why he won't do it...probably doesn't want to deal with being roped into a meeting to discuss it with the A/E. The only good thing about those review meetings are the donuts in the morning and the sandwich tray at lunch. Other than that, you'd have to ask him.

If it really bothers you, take it up with your boss.