Proposals and Exclusions 2

[BR0]

Sorry in advance for the long-winded question.

I do mostly structural design and this particular question is primarily to do with buildings. Sometimes these are elements detailed on other consultants' drawings with a note stating "See Structural Drawings". Some of them are items that may be a delegated design.

There is an increasing demand in my area for the permitted set of drawings to have nonstructural components and their anchorage/bracing to be designed and detailed. We have always designed the vertical and lateral systems to be able to support these elements, but it now seems to be a grey area for the design and anchorage of the specific item. Some of the items have traditionally (in our area) been a deferred and delegated design. Meaning that they occur after the permit has been approved and they require an engineer's seal.

These items typically include architectural partitions, curtain walls, stairways, guardrails, and handrails. Also the bracing and anchorage for fire sprinklers, conduits, pipes, MEP units, trusses, and other delegated designs. Sometimes they may include separate elevator towers, separate stair towers, etc.

I'm curious if other structural engineering companies specifically exclude the many types of structural design that aren't part of the primary gravity and lateral design in their proposals. It used to be that these were by default not included and it wasn't an issue. Lately, I get the impression that this might not be the case and it has become a larger battle.

 

[MRob909]

I cover these as 'general exclusions' in all fee quotes, however will usually offer to handle any of the additions under separate fee quote or hourly rate. Sometimes they can be quite lucrative!

 

[BR0]

'general exclusions'

We probably need to add exclusions as you do. We have had a general rule to state what we include, but not what we exclude. The idea was that once you state exclusions then everything else is included. I imagine it is a statement that excludes items but is not limited to only those items.

 

[Eng16080]

The idea was that once you state exclusions then everything else is included. I imagine it is a statement that excludes items but is not limited to only those items.

I have a section in my Agreement titled Exclusions which starts as such:
"Any services not explicitly listed under Scope of Services are not included in this Agreement. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:"

And from there I list specific items that I want to explicitly state as not being included.

The first part seems kinda dumb to have to write out, but I've heard the same thing as you about it possibly being interpreted that non-excluded items are included.

 

[phamENG]

At the end of my exclusions, I have a statement that says "All other services not explicitly identified in the scope of work above."

I will say, though, that I've never considered anchorage of partitions or equipment, design of stairs, or basic guardrails outside of my scope. My worst problems usually come from jobs where that stuff gets delegated. I may leave some of the stair detailing to the fabricator, but member sizes and connections are on me.

But then I'm an outlier. I practice on the east coast and have never liked the way we treat delegated design around here. I get the reasons why, but I don't it.

 

[Eng16080]

I will say, though, that I've never considered anchorage of partitions or equipment, design of stairs, or basic guardrails outside of my scope. My worst problems usually come from jobs where that stuff gets delegated. I may leave some of the stair detailing to the fabricator, but member sizes and connections are on me.

I've come to this realization as well. Often delegated components can get messy and become a gray area in terms of where responsibilities lie. If a deck railing is delegated, it's easy for the EOR to design the deck joists/framing without adequate connection points for the railing posts. Often they won't think too hard about these delegated items which are outside their scope. Meanwhile, the railing designer isn't necessarily thinking in terms of the big picture either, and to their defense, their scope (and budget) probably doesn't allow for redesigning the framing.

 

[BR0]

Thanks for the responses.

I do agree that delegated designs can be messy. The main reason to exclude them from a proposal is how undefined they are at the time you have to give your proposal. I find a lot of times that stairways and guardrails become significantly more custom as the project continues. Electrical and mechanical units change repeatedly, increase in number and location, etc. The quantity of piping and conduit bracing is hard to quantify as well. With the increasing amount of work that requires seismic bracing drawings and design it becomes hard to give a realistic bid that isn't too high.

I would prefer to do them as "additional work" as MRob909 noted above or have them designed by others. It is hard to tell what is the "standard" in the industry and I don't want to lose projects because of onerous exclusions.